The Five Components of Reading Discussed
[pic]
Essential Elements of Literacy
A Research Alignment
Katylee Hoover, Senior Researcher
June 2008
| |
|If literacy opens the door of opportunity, will all of California’s students be able to cross the threshold to literary success? |
| |
|Macmillan/McGraw-Hill answers yes to this question. Their history has been to help every child learn to read, write, and communicate and|
|to help every instructor teach literacy skills in the most effective manner possible—a practice that continues today with |
|California Treasures K-8 Comprehensive Literacy Program. |
| |
|The California Treasures program will guide students across the literacy threshold to mastery of the skills and strategies they need to |
|become successful in higher education and the workplace—because California Treasures is anchored in salient and consequential research |
|about what works. |
Building Literacy for Life Requires a Synergy of Skills
River formation and a student’s advance to literacy share much in common. A mighty river, such as California’s longest, the Sacramento, is a synergy of smaller mountain streams that begin in the Cascades, coalesce, and join larger rivers—the Feather, McCloud, and American. This powerful, united force travels many miles before reaching its destination, the Pacific Ocean. Literacy is much like the longest river in California. It is a coalescence of skills that are developed over time into the most commanding of lifelong endeavors. The streaming skills of Phonemic Awareness, Phonics, Fluency, Vocabulary, and Comprehension flow together to form the Reading Competency a child needs to be successful early in school. But the literacy stream is not yet mighty. Robust reading skills must be reinforced and joined by cogent Writing and compelling Communication skills before they can coalesce into that powerful force known as Literacy. Each element contributing to mastery exists within the context of the whole, and each builds upon the other to become an integral part of lifelong competence. With reading, writing, and communicating practiced and mastered, a student’s advance to literacy reaches its natural destination—one bordered only by the horizon—the sea of knowledge.
Because of the strong dependency of the components that make up literacy, the teaching and learning milieu must be rich and connected. Literacy is formative—it is strengthened and enriched as it develops. It is vital to all other endeavors and accomplishments in life. This document presents each of the essential ingredients of literacy—reading, writing, speaking, and listening—aligned with the California Reading/English-Language Arts Framework and Content Standards, supported by current research, and demonstrated in the California Treasures (Macmillan/McGraw-Hill) reading curriculum. The findings apply to California students, kindergarten through eighth grade, who are on differing individual achievement levels, including English Learners (EL) and students who are reading and communicating below grade level.
California Treasures is designed to meet the specific literacy needs of California’s teachers and students. The program content is aligned to national and state standards and assessment. The curriculum is grounded in scientifically based research and the wisdom and expertise of those recognized as most knowledgeable in literacy instruction. California Treasures is designed for the inclusion of all students, depending on their special needs, such as students whose first language is not English, those who are approaching grade level, and those in need of brief intervention on their way to mastery. The program also includes students who need enrichment in fundamental areas, those who are succeeding on grade level in need of maintaining literacy skills, and students achieving beyond grade level who may be gifted in specific areas of literacy such as writing composition or analyzing advanced texts. The curriculum is permeated with literature selections and reading and writing strategies that are designed to reach students who have traditionally struggled with literacy and need motivation to reach mastery—typically adolescents and low achievers.
California Treasures begins in kindergarten with the formation of a substantial foundation based on the Five Essential Elements for Reading. This foundation sets students up for success as they move from the primary grades through upper elementary and middle school on their way toward mastery in literacy. Throughout the progression of grades, the curriculum reinforces “The Big Five”—phonemic awareness, phonics, vocabulary, fluency, and comprehension—as students learn to read for meaning and progress toward one million words annually by middle school.
In order to illustrate the way the elements of a typical primary lesson flow together and are reinforced, we include here an example of a kindergarten lesson. The day begins with the Morning Message that reinforces high-frequency words and phonics elements previously taught. During this time, the Weekly Theme is also introduced. The lesson moves on to Oral Language, giving time for students to relate their prior knowledge to the background information that they will need for new learnings. During this point in the lesson, specific oral vocabulary that relates to the theme is introduced. While reading a selection related to the theme in the Big Book, students focus on listening comprehension. New high frequency words are introduced through a rhyme that is related to the theme. Lessons on Phonemic Awareness and Phonics follow. The lesson concludes with writing opportunities that incorporate the high frequency words, phonics, and Weekly Theme.
As students move into the upper elementary grades, they scaffold new concept construction upon the foundation set forth in the primary grades. Foundational skills and new skills join, reinforce, and spiral as students reach mastery of the elements of literacy. Lessons are explicit and direct, incorporating clear explanations of concepts and skills, teacher modeling, guided practice with the teacher and peers, and independent practice. Additional small-group instruction on all priority skills is incorporated into the scaffolding to reinforce the skill structure where needed. When students encounter areas of difficulty, they join a group for reinforcement and enrichment until the skill is mastered, but they do not leave the whole group for this intervention.
Intervention components blended with California Treasures are available on an as-needed basis in grades one through six. These interventions provide research-based instructional reading strategies designed specifically to accelerate reading for below-grade-level readers and to reteach previously introduced content. Through the interventions, students receive supplemental practice and positive feedback. Teachers monitor student progress continually and are provided with the tools to pinpoint problems early so that students can receive the help they need exactly when they need it. Most important, students continue in the whole group with their peers while receiving the directed instruction in decoding and fluency, comprehension strategies and skills, and language arts—writing composition, grammar, spelling—while they are becoming proficient readers and writers.
The Importance of Research in Literacy
The federal government commenced its most sustained commitment to literacy with the landmark Reading First initiative. Based on years of scientifically based research findings, the goal of Reading First is to provide children with effective reading instruction in the early grades so that, as a nation, we may ensure that all children grow up to become literate adults.
Learning to read, write, and communicate and—for teachers—teaching literacy is work that requires the most effective materials available because literacy is foundational for all other learnings. In fact, the National Institute for Literacy’s Partnership for Reading (2000) states that “success in school starts with reading.” Research is now available that suggests how to give each child a good start toward that success. Increasingly, federal, state, and local requirements in every area focus on the need for research-verified instructional strategies, methods, and approaches. Macmillan/McGraw-Hill Reading has stepped up to this challenge by identifying highly regarded research related to effective literacy instruction, summarizing relevant instructional recommendations based on that research, and then showing how those recommendations are incorporated into the Macmillan/McGraw-Hill California Treasures Reading Curriculum.
In this document, we outline:
• A Synopsis of Findings for Macmillan/McGraw-Hill built in conjunction with the work of Interactive Educational Systems Design, Inc. (IESD), and their analysis of research-supported best practices related to instruction of struggling adolescent readers, prepared for Glencoe/McGraw-Hill.
• An alignment of research findings and California Treasures through a Synopsis of Findings and Demonstration of Alignment (Hoover).
• An alignment of California Treasures and the California Reading/Language Arts Framework and Content Standards (Hoover).
This document is a user-friendly précis of the key research findings across the components of Reading, Writing, Speaking and Listening with the addition of a Demonstration of Alignment that provides specific examples from California Treasures Grades K–8. We describe how the Macmillan/McGraw-Hill K-6 reading program meets findings of scientific research related to literacy. The continuum of literacy skills is extended and advanced in the middle grades (6–8) by the addition of McGraw-Hill/Glencoe Literature—California Treasures. Our discussion begins with reading, the first component of literacy, and continues into a summarization of key findings and recommendations related to instruction in writing.
Although this document includes literacy research implications for all K–8 students in California, the alignment places special emphasis on two specific groups: K–8 English Learners and early adolescents in middle school. We examine the research findings regarding these two groups and focus on strategies in California Treasures that are designed to meet their needs.
Literacy for Adolescents and English Learners
While the acquisition of literacy skills is crucial for all students, research suggests that we must build upon the success of Reading First (K–3) by expanding it into the upper grades (4–5) and extending it into middle school (6–8). Research also tells us that millions of middle school students lack the reading and writing skills they need in order to succeed in college and compete in the workforce.
A Critical Need to Support Struggling Adolescent Readers
Problems with literacy have serious and long-lasting consequences. A lack of literacy skills is “one of the most commonly cited reasons” for students to drop out of school (Biancarosa & Snow, 2006, p. 7). A resource guide on adolescent literacy prepared for the Southwest Educational Development Laboratory described the problem as follows:
For secondary-level students . . . the social and economic consequences of not reading well can be cumulative and profound: the failure to attain a high school diploma, a barrier to higher education, underemployment or unemployment, and difficulty in managing personal and family life. Years of failing at what is deemed a hallmark of intelligence and worth can also leave struggling readers with emotional consequences, such as anxiety and low self-esteem, which affect personality and interpersonal relationships. These effects within and beyond the classroom walls show that by the secondary grades educators can no longer defer solutions to future development or instruction. (Peterson et al., 2000, p. 6) [1]
Numerous sources attest to the scope of the challenge. Reading Next cited both results from the National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP) and the opinions of experts in adolescent literacy that “as many as 70 percent of students struggle with reading in some manner” that requires instruction differentiated for their specific needs (Biancarosa & Snow, 2006, p. 8, citing Loomis & Bourque, 2001; NCES, 1999, 2006; Olson, 2006).
In a salient and consequential research brief that was released in June, 2008, Predicting Success, Preventing Failure: An Investigation of the California High School Exit Exam (CAHSEE), authors Andrew Zau and Julian Betts relate “a highly accurate method for identifying students likely to fail the CAHSEE” (p. ii). The brief emphasized that California students at risk of failing the exam can be identified as early as fourth grade. According to the authors, fourth-grade EL students are just as likely as other students to pass the CAHSEE. However, by ninth grade, ELs constitute a major part of the 10 percent of students who failed the controversial exam in 2006. The research suggests that
Help with reading in the early grades could help a student in all other subjects,
given that reading and writing are gateway skills needed to master other areas (p. vi).
Adolescents struggle with literacy for a variety of reasons. For some, English may not be their first language. Others may have mild learning disabilities. In many cases, students may simply lack experience and skill with reading. Unfortunately, difficulties in reading don’t cure themselves, but instead tend to get worse as students get older—a phenomenon reading experts refer to as the “Matthew Effect” (Stanovich, 1986). These students need literacy instruction that addresses the specific challenges they face, using the best available research-based methods and principles, in order to improve their chances of succeeding both during school and afterward.
The State of Research on Struggling Adolescent Readers
According to IESD Research: English Language Learners for JRN (2007), “Over the last two decades, attempts to improve student literacy on the national level have focused largely on elementary instruction, and particularly on early literacy—that is, literacy at the primary grades. For example, the focus of the Reading First initiative was on improving literacy at the primary levels. Recently, however, a number of efforts—including research summaries for a variety of sources, publication of the Reading Next report and other documents from the Alliance for Excellent Education, and position statements from organizations such as the National Reading Conference and the International Reading Association—have helped create a higher profile for instructional issues related to adolescent readers, and particularly the large proportion of adolescents who struggle with reading” (p. 2).
Government initiatives, such as the No Child Left Behind Act, have raised expectations for instruction. Learning programs are expected to be backed with scientifically based research that suggests that implementation of an initiative is likely to result in a positive impact on student learning. Unfortunately, research on what constitutes effective literacy instruction for adolescents is still limited. According to the editors of a volume intended to “compile from the best researchers in the field a summary and synthesis of adolescent literacy research and practice,” as of 2003 there is not a body of research to tell us appropriate interventions that will help struggling middle and secondary school readers who can barely read. As of 2003, we still do not have a body of research to provide us with appropriate interventions to help high school readers who can read fluently but remain 3 or 4 years below grade level in reading (Jetton & Dole, 2004, p. 6).
Although research on what constitutes effective literacy instruction for adolescents is limited in significant ways, there is substantial support in research and expert opinion for a variety of specific instructional recommendations. The state of knowledge with regard to effective instruction for struggling adolescent readers fits the description of best available evidence as characterized by U.S. Department of Education Assistant Secretary Grover J. Whitehurst; that is, “the integration of professional wisdom with the best available empirical evidence in making decisions about how to deliver instruction” (Whitehurst, 2002).
The Reading Next Report
Reading Next, a report to the Carnegie Corporation of New York (2004) focused on the needs of adolescent readers (defined in the report as those in grades 4–12), with a special emphasis on the needs of struggling readers.[2] The Reading Next recommendations represent a synthesis of research-informed expert opinion that serves as an index for effective adolescent literacy instruction. That said, experts agree that additional research studies are needed before we can use the report as a yardstick for measuring program effectiveness.
The 15 elements of effective adolescent literacy programs are the following:
1. Direct, explicit phonics instruction
2. Direct, explicit comprehension instruction
3. Text-based collaborative learning
4. Motivation and self-directed learning
5. Diverse texts
6. Intensive writing
7. Ongoing formative assessment of students
8. Ongoing summative assessment of students and programs
9. Strategic tutoring
10. A technology component
11. Professional development
12. Extended time for literacy
13. Teacher teams
14. Leadership
15. A comprehensive and coordinated literacy program
While all 15 elements identified by Reading Next are characterized as having “a substantial base in research and/or professional opinion” (Biancarosa & Snow, 2006, p. 12), the report cautions that “the optimal mix of these factors has yet to be determined. . . . Nor does the remediation of adolescent literacy difficulties involve indiscriminately layering on all 15 key elements. Choices should be matched to school and student needs” (Biancarosa & Snow, 2006, p. 29). The expectation is not that each literacy program should necessarily include all 15 elements, but that curriculum developers and program adopters should select those elements that seem best suited to their specific circumstances.
The explicit focus of Reading Next is on “the large population of struggling students who already decode accurately but still struggle with reading and writing after third grade” (Biancarosa & Snow, 2006, p. 11). Therefore, the report does not include recommendations related to areas such as decoding and fluency that may be important for readers who are struggling at a more basic level.
The State of Research on English Learners
Part of the challenge of providing effective instruction for English Learners lies in the broad diversity of needs and backgrounds encompassed within the EL label. As Short and Fitzsimmons (2007) noted
[B]ecause adolescent ELLs are a diverse group of learners in terms of their educational backgrounds, native language literacy, socioeconomic status, and more, some strategies will work for certain ELLs but not for others (p. 1).
Areas of difference among adolescent ELs include differing levels of language proficiency, both in English and in their native language; knowledge of academic subject matter; immigrant status; age of entry into U.S. schools; socioeconomic status; parents’ educational levels; and much more (Short & Fitzsimmons, 2007, p. 10). These various factors all have an important potential impact on how well students do in schools and what kinds of instruction will be most effective in helping them improve their literacy and content-area knowledge and skills.
The Literacy Needs of English Learners
Almost 25 percent of California’s students across grade levels enter state schools as bilingual or speaking a primary language other than English. Adolescent English learners—defined as “second language learners who are still developing their proficiency in academic English” (Short & Fitzsimmons, 2007, p. 1)—represent an increasing sector of the population of struggling adolescent readers and one whose needs are frequently not well met in many existing programs.
Although there is a broad overlap between principles of effective instruction for struggling adolescent readers in general and those of English language learners, there are also some important differences, arising from the distinct language backgrounds and often different experiences of ELs. Some of the differences between adolescent ELs and native English-speaking struggling readers (as described by Short & Fitzsimmons, 2007) include the following:
• Typically, native English speakers “have proficient command of the spoken language, at least of conversational English,” whereas “[m]any [ELs] have weak or no oral English skills.” As a result, decoding a word is typically “not sufficient to access its meaning.” Similarly for ELs, “providing an oral preview of a text or assignment may not unlock its meaning unless it is accompanied by sheltered instruction techniques” (p. 9).[3]
• While native English speakers can often (with teacher guidance) “tap into prior knowledge to aid comprehension or interpretation of new text,” in the case of ELs, “often teachers must build the background; they can’t just activate prior knowledge” (p. 9).
• Native English speakers are “[m]ore likely to recognize multiple meanings” of words, although they “may still need to be taught appropriate academic terminology.” In contrast, ELs “[m]ay know one meaning of a word (power means strength; Cherokee is a large car) but not other meanings, including the one needed for a particular subject (political power; Cherokee tribe)” (p. 9).
• For many ELs, knowledge of cognates (words with a common ancestor) is an important strategy for developing knowledge of English vocabulary (p. 9).
• Because of the unique linguistic needs of ELs, content-area teachers may be particularly poorly prepared to offer them the support they need to “develop subject-specific vocabulary and literacy skills” (p. 9; see also Ruiz-de-Velasco & Fix, 2000, p. vii).
• Native English speakers often “have weak intrinsic motivation,” while ELs “[m]ay have strong intrinsic and extrinsic motivation” (p. 9).
Even these broad generalities vary greatly among ELs depending on the experiences they have had, including prior academic preparation and the specific nature of their first-language knowledge.
Unfortunately, research on “the educational experiences and learning needs of adolescent ELs” has been characterized as “relatively new and under-developed, with a particular scarcity of longitudinal studies, studies using experimental designs, and research reviews” (Meltzer & Hamann, 2005, p. 13, citing NWREL, 2004). Nonetheless, literacy researchers have analyzed the available data and identified a variety of instructional practices that are supported by research and expert opinion for helping adolescent EL struggling readers.
Instructional Recommendations for English Learners
The following are areas, according to research and expert opinion, for effective instruction of adolescent English language learners. Instructional recommendations for each area can be found in specific sections of the document and in the Demonstration of Alignment tables.
• Decoding
• Fluency
• Vocabulary
• Developing key background knowledge
• Comprehension and content-area literacy
• Integrating language modalities
• Collaborative learning strategies
• Motivation and engagement
• Diverse texts
• Writing
• Assessment
• Differentiated instruction
• Technology
• Professional development
• Support for infrastructure improvement
The high standards of California Treasures have not been altered for ELs. The curriculum extends to them the opportunity to fully engage in literacy learning. It challenges them to work toward the same goals. But do English Learners receive additional supports on their way to mastery? ¡Sí!
Research and expert opinion support a variety of instructional practices for use with ELs that are incorporated as an integral part of the California Treasures reading program. Many of these practices correspond to recommendations for instruction of struggling adolescent readers in general and have been included in the Demonstration of Alignment at key junctures such as word analysis, fluency, vocabulary development, and reading comprehension.
California Treasures also provides writing resources for ELs that are customized to meet their specific needs. Some of these resources include: Spanish Glossaries; Vocabulary Word Cards with Spanish cognates; Spanish issues of inTime Magazine; and reteaching suggestions.
Research supports the claim that especially for ELs and adolescents there is a strong correlation between motivation, literacy development, and achievement. Studies suggest that the link between greater comprehension and motivation to read is powerful (Allington, 1986; Anderson, Wilson & Fielding, 1988; Hidi, 1990; Tobias, 1994). When a student has a personal reason for reading, he or she will put more effort into learning. According to Ford (1992) students are motivated to read when they have confidence that they can read and when the information is of value to them personally. Several research studies sustain the importance of the role of high self-concept and enhanced reading performance (Paris & Oka, 1986; Schunk, 1985).
A study by Flippo (2001) found that there was consensus among teachers and literacy experts that specific classroom characteristics promoted motivation and engagement in reading: (1) access to books, magazines, and anthologies; (2) opportunity to select reading materials; (3) time for personal reading; (4) interacting with others around reading; (5) personal identification with cultural qualities of characters, settings, and circumstances (Gambrell, 2004).
The read-aloud strategy is a way of making literature accessible to students who may be struggling with reading. Research suggests that students are very motivated to read stories and books that the teacher has read aloud to the class (Chasen & Gambrell, 1992). Often, teachers read mostly narrative texts to their students. However, reading aloud informational texts also is critical to student motivation (Doiron, 1994). Teachers should strive to read a wide range of genres during read-aloud time. Students need to listen to narratives that reflect their own culture as well as texts about other ethnicities, characters, and circumstances.
Research also identifies robust findings that student motivation to read increases when there is freedom of choice in reading materials. When students select books that interest them, they are highly engaged in finding out, and they are more interested in learning and in understanding (Gambrell, 1995).
Studies indicate that providing time for students to read independently also increases motivation to read. Self-selected reading and time for quiet, sustained independent reading practice promotes proficiency (Allington, 1983; Stanovich, 1986). Cunningham and Stanovich (1998) discovered that students who spend extended time in independent reading enhance their verbal intelligence. According to their research, all students benefit from sustained reading, but struggling readers benefit the most.
Studies support the notion that students are more motivated to read and have higher achievement in reading when they discuss what they have read with others. Social interaction around literature has a positive influence on higher-level cognition and an intrinsic desire to read (Almasi, 1995; Guthrie, Schafer, Wang & Afflerbach, 1995). The NAEP report on trends in academic progress, cited student discussions about books and articles with family and peers as being an extremely valuable factor in increased reading scores (Campbell, Hombo & Mazzeo, 2000).
The “Big Five” Components of Reading
To meet Reading First guidelines, reading programs must be based on scientific evidence related to the five elements that have been identified as essential in reading instruction—“The Big Five.”
What are the components of reading?
1. Phonemic awareness
2. Phonics
3. Fluency
4. Vocabulary
5. Comprehension
This document summarizes major research findings and research-based recommendations related to effective reading instruction from two key sources describing the body of research on which Reading First was based:
( Report of the National Reading Panel. Teaching children to read: An evidence-based assessment of the scientific research literature on reading and its implications for reading instruction: Reports of the subgroups (National Institute of Child Health and Human Development [NICHHD], 2000). This source presents an extensive, detailed research review related to five broad categories (see under Reading First Content Focus). In cases where the data were of sufficient quality and uniformity, research results were summarized in a meta-analysis, a method for statistically combining research results across an entire body of research studies.
( Preventing reading difficulties in young children, a review of research on early childhood reading commissioned by the National Research Council (Snow, Burns & Griffin, 1998). This source represents a broad-ranging research summary and review but without inclusion of specific details of the research.
The Five Components of Reading Discussed
|Components of Reading |Phonemic Awareness |1 |
| |
|“Phonemic awareness instruction helps children learn to read.” |
|—Put Reading First (Armbruster, Lehr & Osborn, 2003, p. 6) |
| A. What is phonemic awareness? |
|“Phonemic awareness is the ability to hear, identify, and manipulate the individual sounds—phonemes—in spoken words” (Armbruster, Lehr, & Osborn, |
|2003, p. 10). It is the foundation for reading. It is the ability to detect individual speech sounds within words. This ability is a requirement for |
|developing accurate decoding skills and strategies (McShane, 2006, p. 13). Phonemic awareness is often described as part of a broader category known |
|as phonological awareness. Phonological awareness includes the ability to work with larger units in spoken language such as syllables and rhymes, |
|which often include more than one phoneme. Children typically find it easier to work with these larger units (e.g., rhyming words) before proceeding |
|to develop skills with individual phonemes (NICHHD, 2000, p. 2-10). |
| |
|B. Why is phonemic awareness instruction important? |
| |
|Strong phonemic awareness is considered an early indicator of eventual success in beginning reading. Phonemic awareness instruction helps children |
|learn to read words, spell words, and comprehend text. The National Reading Panel reached three conclusions about phonemic awareness instruction in |
|its Teaching Children to Read document: |
| |
|— Phonemic awareness instruction has a positive overall effect on reading and spelling. |
|— Phonemic awareness instruction leads to lasting reading improvement. |
|— Phonemic awareness instruction can be effectively carried out by teachers. |
| |
|Source: Report of the National Reading Panel. Teaching children to read: An evidence-based assessment of the scientific research literature on |
|reading and its implications for reading instruction: Reports of the subgroups (National Institute of Child Health and Human Development [NICHHD], |
|2000). |
| |
|C. Who benefits from phonemic awareness instruction? |
|Readers do. Phonemic awareness instruction has been shown to have a positive impact on reading skills across many student categories and grade |
|levels. The Reading Panel cited normally developing readers, children at risk for future reading problems, and (later research) specifically |
|kindergartners at risk for developing dyslexia (Elbro & Petersen, 2004), disabled readers, preschoolers, kindergartners through sixth graders, |
|children across various socioeconomic status (SES) levels, and children learning to read in English as well as in other languages. |
| |
|Spellers do. Phonemic awareness instruction has been shown to have a positive impact on spelling skills across many student categories and grade |
|levels. The Reading Panel cited kindergartners, first-graders, children at risk for future reading problems, normally developing readers, children |
|across various SES levels, and children learning to spell in English as well as in other languages. |
| |
|English Language Learners do. Short and Fitzsimmons (2007) stated, “For adolescent ELL students who do not read or write in any language, it is |
|important to teach them the components of reading: beginning with phonemic awareness and phonics (the sounds of a language and how to put sounds |
|together to form words) and adding vocabulary, text comprehension, and fluency” (p. 34, citing August & Shanahan, 2006). |
| |
|Struggling Adolescent Readers do. Researchers estimate that approximately 10 percent of adolescent readers do, in fact, struggle with decoding |
|(Biancarosa & Snow, 2006, p. 11; NASBE, 2006, p. 19; Kamil, 2003, p. 8, citing Curtis & Longo, 1999). For these students, it is important to provide |
|instruction that addresses their specific decoding needs. |
| |
|D. Common Phonemic Awareness Tasks and Examples |E. Research Recommendations |
| |E.g.: What sound do you | |
|Phonemic Isolation |hear at the beginning of |1. Range and scope of instruction |
|Recognizing individual sounds in |pin? (/p/) | |
|words. | |Grade Levels |
| | | |
| | |Research summarized by the NRP suggests that Phonemics Awareness (PA) instruction should|
| | |be provided |
| | | |
| | |— At the kindergarten level |
| | |— At the first-grade level |
| | |— At elementary levels above first grade as supplemental instruction for English |
| | |Learners and other students with special needs |
| | |— At the middle school level |
| | | |
| | |According to the National Reading Panel, “[Phonemic awareness] instruction helped all |
| | |types of students improve their reading, including . . . children in 2nd through 6th |
| | |grades (most of them were disabled readers)” (NICHHD, 2000, p. 2-50). Reading Next’s |
| | |general endorsement of the National Reading Panel’s findings as applicable to struggling|
| | |adolescent readers suggests that phonemic awareness instruction also may be appropriate |
| | |for students at higher grade levels who lack needed phonemic awareness skills. |
| | | |
| | |Reading at Risk: The State Response to the Crisis in Adolescent Literacy reported that |
| | |“about 10 percent of students enter middle and high school with deficits in their |
| | |ability to decode print that will impair their fluency and comprehension” (NASBE, 2006, |
| | |p. 19). |
| | | |
| | |Writing more specifically about beginning ELL students, Short and Fitzsimmons (2007) |
| | |stated, “For adolescent ELL students who do not read or write in any language, it is |
| | |important to teach them the components of reading: beginning with phonemic awareness and|
| | |phonics (the sounds of a language and how to put sounds together to form words) and |
| | |adding vocabulary, text comprehension, and fluency” (p. 34, citing August & Shanahan, |
| | |2006). |
| | |Letters plus sounds. |
| | | |
| | |The National Reading Panel found that instruction that used letters to teach phoneme |
| | |manipulation had a considerably greater impact on reading than instruction that did not |
| | |use letters but was limited to spoken sounds only (NICHHD, 2000, pp. 2-64, 2-73). |
| | | |
|Phonemic Identification |E.g.: What sound do you | |
|Recognizing the common sound in |hear that is the same in | |
|words. |sat, sun, and soup? (/s/) | |
|Phoneme Categorization |E.g.: Listen to these | |
| |words—hand, heart, sun. | |
|Recognizing the odd |Which word begins with a | |
|sound in a set of words. |different sound? (sun) | |
| |E.g.: What word is /b/ - | |
|Phoneme Blending Listening to a |/a/ - /t/? (bat) |2. Instructional methods and features |
|sequence of separately spoken | | |
|sounds and then blending them | |Spoken and written versus spoken only. Instruction that used letters to teach phoneme |
|naturally into a recognizable | |manipulation had a considerably greater impact on both reading and spelling than |
|word. | |instruction that did not use letters but was limited to spoken sounds only. |
| | | |
| | |Assessment for kindergarteners based on phoneme recognition. Findings suggest that a |
| | |group-administered assessment based on phoneme recognition can serve as a useful |
| | |screening tool for identifying the general level of students’ PA skills in kindergarten,|
| | |which in turn is a useful indicator of students who might need targeted PA skills |
| | |intervention. |
| | | |
| | |Guidance by initial and ongoing assessment in the first and second grades. Based on |
| | |the research findings, the NRP recommended a design in which assessment results drive PA|
| | |instruction at the first- and second-grade levels, both initially and through ongoing |
| | |formative assessments. |
| | | |
| | |Assessments conducted before PA instruction begins should “indicate which children need |
| | |the instruction and which do not, which children need to be taught rudimentary levels of|
| | |PA (e.g., segmenting initial sounds in words), and which children need more advanced |
| | |levels involving segmenting or blending with letters” (NICHHD, 2000, p. 2–6). |
| | | |
| | |In order to determine the length of PA instruction, “what is probably most important is |
| | |to tailor training time to student learning by assessing who has and who has not |
| | |acquired the skills being taught as training proceeds” (NICHHD, 2000, p. 2-42). The NRC |
| | |research review argued that “intensity of instruction should be matched to children’s |
| | |needs” (Snow, Burns & Griffin, 1998, p. 321). |
| |E.g.: How many sounds do | |
|Phoneme Segmentation |you hear in cat? (three) | |
|Breaking a word into its sounds by| | |
|tapping out or counting the | | |
|sounds. | | |
| |E.g.: What word do we have| |
|Phoneme Deletion Recognizing the |when we say smile without | |
|word that remains when a specific |the /s/? (mile) | |
|phoneme is removed. | | |
|. | | |
Demonstration of Phonemic Awareness Alignment
in California Treasures
|Summary of Research Recommendations for |Demonstration of Phonemic Awareness Alignment in |[pic] |
|Phonemic Awareness |California Treasures K–8 | |
| | |
|Kindergarten instruction is designed to provide|California Treasures Kindergarten: |
|practice with the sound structure of words and |Phonemic awareness tasks begin with skills such as “concept of a word,” “rhyme,” and “count syllables.” |
|the recognition and production of letters. |The tasks then progress to “oral blending” (with continuous first sounds) and “oral segmentation” (with |
| |continuous first sounds—2-letter words, then 3-letter words). Finally, tasks progress to “oral |
| |manipulation” and more complex |
|English-Language Arts |blending and segmentation of words beginning with stop sounds and longer words (4 or more phonemes). |
|California Content Standards | |
| |Sample of a Typical Primary-Level Lesson in California Treasures |
|Phonemic Awareness | |
|1.7 Track isolated phonemes. |Unit 4, Week 1—Phoneme Isolation: /n/ |
|1.8 Track and represent changes in simple |The teacher models the new sound using the corresponding Alphabet Card and California Treasures Photo |
|syllables and words. |Card. Students practice listening to the sound and repeating it. Students then review previously |
|1.9 Blend vowel-consonant sounds; |introduced sounds such as /i/ and /t/ with Photo Cards. During guided practice, the teacher displays Photo|
|1.10 Rhyming Words |Cards and the children identify and pronounce the initial sounds. |
|1.11- 1.13 Sounds and syllables in words. | |
|Decoding and Word Recognition |Weekly themes in kindergarten lessons are aligned with phonemic awareness tasks. For example, in Unit 5, |
|1.14 Match all consonant and short-vowel sounds|Week 3, the theme is “Animal Homes.” The main selection for that week is “Mole and the Baby Bird”; the |
|to appropriate letters. |paired selection is “The Pond is Our Home.” The phonics/spelling skills that go along with these |
|1.15 Read simple one-syllable and |selections are review initial: o, f; medial: o, -at, -am, -an, -ap word families. The fluency strategies |
|high-frequency words. |are Choral-Read, Echo-Read, and Word Automaticity (high-frequency words)—presenting a synergistic plan |
|1.16 Understand that as letters of words |designed for students to practice a specific sound structure. |
|change, so do the sounds. | |
| |California Treasures Phonemic Awareness Scope and Sequence |
| | |
| |Grades K–2: Identify and distinguish phonemes (initial, medial, final); count phonemes; blend phonemes; |
| |and segment phonemes. |
| |Primary Grades (K–3): Manipulate phonemes (addition, deletion, substitution). |
| |Grades 1–6: Silent letters; inflectional endings; and triple-consonant clusters. |
| |Grades 2–6: Schwa words. |
| |Grades 3–6: Unfamiliar and complex words families. |
| |Phonemic awareness and phonics skills are assessed together in kindergarten, especially in the beginning |
|Assessment for kindergarteners is based on |units of this level. A new letter is introduced at the beginning of each unit and it is at this point |
|phoneme recognition. |that phoneme isolation is practiced. At the end of the unit, teachers assess these skills by using “Pencil|
| |and Paper Assessments.” These assessments are a combination of Activity Book and Practice Book pages. For|
| | |
| |an example, see page 64 of Kindergarten Unit 1. In this typical unit, Activity Book page 12 and Practice |
| |Book pages 25–26 are suggested as a Pencil and Paper Assessment for the sound/letter /m/. |
|English-Language Arts | |
|California Content Standards |Typical Kindergarten Examples: Phonemic Awareness Warm-Up—Recognize Rhyme. After children become familiar |
|Phonemic Awareness |with a rhyme, the teacher says word pairs and gives a “thumbs up” if the words rhyme: Muffet/tuffet, |
|1.9 Blend vowel-consonant sounds orally to make|whey/spider, whey/away, sat/her. |
|words or syllables. |Another example: Children engage in fingerplay in the rhyme “My Apple.” The teacher says sets of words and|
|1.10 Identify and produce rhyming words in |guides the children to repeat the two words from each set that rhyme: round, do, ground; do, two, round; |
|response to an oral prompt. |two, down, you. |
| | |
| |Phoneme Categorization: The children are shown Photo Cards. They say the picture names with the teacher. |
| |Children identify the picture name that does not begin with the same sound. |
| |Phoneme Blending: Children listen to a fingerplay from the Audio CD Listening Library. They join in as |
| |“Bake a Cake” is read. The teacher models blending the sounds to say the words: /k/ /a/ /k/, cake; /m/ /i/|
| |/ks/, mix; /i/ /n/, in; /m/ /a/ /k/, make; /i/ /t/, it. |
| | |
| |Instructional Routines for phonological awareness/phonemic awareness in kindergarten are: rhyme, oddity |
| |tasks, sound categorization, oral blending, oral segmentation, and manipulation. |
| | |
| |The first-grade curriculum builds upon the phonemic awareness foundation that is begun in kindergarten. |
| | |
|First-grade instruction is designed to provide |Phonemic awareness instruction and practice are incorporated into daily lessons. Teachers are prompted to|
|explicit instruction and practice with sound |explicitly model proper pronunciation of sound structures using visual cues such as letter and alphabet |
|structures that lead to phonemic awareness. |cards. After modeling, teachers guide students in group and individual practice of the new sound structure|
| |or letter. For additional phonemic awareness instruction, students may also be asked to independently |
|English-Language Arts |complete complementary pages in the leveled Student Activity Book. |
|California Content Standards | |
|Grade 1 Reading |Weekly themes in first-grade lessons are aligned with phonemic awareness tasks. For example, a unit theme|
|1.0 Word Analysis |is “Kids Around the World.” The main selection for that week is “Kids Can Help,” and the paired selection |
|Phonemic Awareness |is “Poems by Kids.” The phonics/spelling skills that go along with these selections are s blends /sl/sl-, |
|1.6 Rhyming Words; Consonant Blends |/sm/sm-, /sn/sn-, /sp/sp-, /st/st-, /sw/sw, and the fluency strategy is pausing for sentence |
|1.8 Blend two to four phonemes into |punctuation—presenting a synergistic plan designed for students to practice a specific sound structure. |
|recognizable words. | |
| | |
|At elementary levels above first grade, |Sample of a Typical Second-Grade California Treasures Unit: |
|phonemic awareness is provided as supplemental |Unit 2, Weeks 1–5, features short /u/u, long /ū/ u_e; blends /sl/sl, /dr/ dr, /sk/ sk,/sp/sp, /st/ st; |
|instruction for EL students and other students |long /ā/ ay, ai; long /ī/ I,, igh, ie, y; and long /ō/ o, oa, ow, oe. The correlating Phonemic Awareness |
|with special needs. |skills are reinforced in the Leveled Reader Program, Leveled Practice Books, and the Intervention |
| |Anthology for Approaching Level, Beyond Level, and EL students. |
| | |
| |Each lesson has a separate phonemic awareness plan, for example: |
|English-Language Arts |Second Grade, Unit 2, Week 1, Day 1: (p. 155A) Phoneme Categorization—The |
|California Content Standards |teacher models words with the central /u/ sound. Guided practice and independent practice activities |
| |provide children with opportunities to learn the phoneme. Further practice and assessment are provided in |
|Phonemic Awareness |Approaching Practice Book A. A similar procedure is followed for Day 2 and long u; Day 3, blending |
|Fourth Grade |phonemes; Day 4, phoneme substitution; and Day 5, blending practice. |
|1.0 Students use phonics, syllabication, and | |
|word parts. They use this knowledge to achieve |Third–Grade Example: Cross-Curricular Activities, Word Study. Consonant Blends /thr/, /spr/, /scr/, /str/.|
|fluent oral and silent reading |Students write words that contain these blends on note cards. They underline the first three letters of |
| |each word. Then they sort the cards into three piles. They make one pile for each three-letter blend. As |
| |an extension, students use a dictionary to look up the meaning of unfamiliar words and write the meaning |
| |next to the word. |
| | |
| |End of Fourth–Grade Example: |
| |Students sort Spelling Word Cards according to how the schwa + n sound is spelled. They take turns sorting|
| |cards and explaining their sorting system. In Unit 6 of fourth grade, the weekly theme is “Discovering |
| |Nature's Secrets.” The main selection is “Meet a Bone-ified Explorer;” the phonics/spelling skills are |
| |words with prefixes [dis-, mis-, non-, un-] (uncover, nonstop, dislike, misfire); and the fluency strategy|
| |is pronunciation of vocabulary and other hard words— presenting a synergistic plan designed for students |
| |to practice a specific sound structure. |
| | |
| |Fourth-Grade EL Example: |
| |EL students use phonics and multisyllabic decoding to learn spelling and vocabulary words. In the section |
| |“ELL: Access for All—Practice Spelling,” the teacher supplies a list of words for each long i pattern in |
| |the spelling words. The teacher pronounces each word with the EL students. Then she randomly says a word |
| |and has students repeat it and spell it aloud. Finally, she covers the words after she says them and |
| |challenges students to spell them. |
| | |
| |EL Students and Adolescents with Special Needs: |
| |Phonemic awareness skills instruction starts at the beginning of an individualized scope and sequence as |
| |determined through the examination of the most recent test score data. |
| | |
| |For example, upon analysis of post-test data, an EL student may be diagnosed with a short-vowel-sound |
| |skill need. This student will engage in age-appropriate practices to learn how to attack and master the |
| |short-vowel sound in a variety of examples even though the specific activities are typically found in |
| |first-grade-level instruction. |
| | |
|Phonemic awareness instruction is a part of |Typical Second-Grade Example: |
|both reading and spelling. | |
| |Each week, spelling words are taken from a decodable reader and reflect the skills emphasized in the |
|English-Language Arts |phonemic awareness lessons. For example, in Unit 2, Week 1, Day 1, fifteen spelling words with the short u|
|California Content Standards |sound are introduced and pretested. The decodable reader, Luke’s Tune, provides fluency practice when |
| |students echo-read words with the short- and long-u sounds. Students complete the activity in the Spelling|
|Grade Two |Practice Book using these high-frequency words. On Day 3, students complete a Word Sort with the |
|1.0 Word Analysis, Fluency, and Systematic |high-frequency words. On Day 4, students work in pairs using the Spelling Word Cards. Day 5 brings review |
|Vocabulary Development |and assessment of phoneme blending and a spelling test with words that have short and long u. |
|1.1 Spelling patterns. | |
|1.1 Spelling patterns. |Typical Third-Grade Example: Word Families—Words with th, ph, wh, sh (voiced and unvoiced th, beginning, |
|1.2 Syllabication. |medial, final) Unit 2, Week 3; Unit 4, Week 3: Words |
|1.3 Decode two-syllable nonsense words. |with soft c and g (cent, gym—beginning and final); Unit 5, Week 4: Words with VC/CV pattern (closed |
| |syllables) (The teacher models counting syllables with clapping here; including words with different |
| |consonants as in basket and doublets as in summer). |
|English-Language Arts |Multisyllabic words: Unit 6, Week 5–words with accented syllables. |
|California Content Standards | |
| |Typical Middle-Grades (6–8) Example: Weekly themes in middle school lessons are aligned with phonics |
|Grade Three |tasks. For example, in Unit 6, Week 4, the theme is “Print, Past and Present.” The main selection for |
|1.0 Word Analysis, Fluency, and Systematic |that week is “Breaking into Print: Before and After the Printing Press;” the paired selection title is |
|Vocabulary Development. Decoding and Word |“Future Bookmaker.” The phonics/spelling skills that go along with these selections are words from |
|Recognition. |mythology (Ceres—cereal, Mars—martial, Pan—panic, Jove—jovial), and the fluency strategy is choral reading|
|1.1 Complex word families. |with tempo. The progression presents a synergistic plan for each lesson designed for students to practice |
|1.2 Multisyllabic words. |a specific sound structure. |
| | |
|Assessment results drive phonemic awareness |The assessments in California Treasures are designed to inform phonemic awareness instruction at the |
|instruction at the first- and second-grade |first- and second-grade levels. Therefore, assessment is ongoing, varied, and rigorous. Teachers use |
|levels, both initially and through ongoing |results to modify instruction. |
|formative assessments. | |
| |Example of Informal Assessment: |
| |Throughout the lessons, students are observed informally. Because lessons are highly interactive and the |
| |student-response rates are high, teachers have ample opportunity to check each student’s daily phonemic |
| |progress. |
| | |
| |Daily “Quick Check” Observations in the Teacher’s Guide (TE) remind teachers what to observe. If students |
| |encounter difficulties, immediate lesson modifications are provided via the “Corrective Feedback” |
| |suggestions. If additional phonemic awareness instruction and/or guided practice are required, the TE |
| |directs teachers to the “Additional Instruction” section. |
| | |
| |Example of Formal Assessment: |
| |Weekly Assessments and Unit Tests are used as ongoing formative assessments to monitor students’ phonemic |
| |awareness acquisition. Additionally, the Daily Quick Check Observations are compiled and compared with the|
| |Quick Check Rubric to assess student skills diagnose, and prescribe additional lessons or intervention |
| |instruction if necessary. |
|Components of Reading |Phonics |2 |
|“Identification of sounds and letter-sound relationships should be modeled, demonstrated, and applied in a logical and systematic manner” (Curtis, 2004, |
|p. 128). |
| A. What is phonics? |
| |
|Phonics instruction teaches children the relationship between letters (graphemes) and the sounds in spoken language (phonemes) and how to apply that |
|knowledge in reading and spelling words. |
| |
|Phonics instruction builds on phonemic awareness. |
|Although it includes some types of phonemic awareness activities, in which students “use grapheme-phoneme correspondences to decode or spell words,” it |
|[phonics instruction] extends beyond such tasks to “include other activities such as reading decodable text or writing stories” (NICHHD, 2000, p. 2-11). |
| B. What is “systematic and explicit” phonics instruction? |
| |
|Research recommendations favor phonics instruction that is “systematic and explicit.” An explicit approach includes specific directions to teachers for |
|teaching letter-sound correspondences. A systematic approach is one that incorporates a planned, sequential set of phonetic elements to master. These |
|elements must be explicitly and systematically introduced in meaningful reading and writing tasks. |
| |
|Systematic and explicit phonics instruction includes teaching a full spectrum of key letter-sound correspondences: not just major correspondences between|
|consonant letters and sounds, but also short- and long- vowel letters and sounds, and vowel and consonant digraphs such as oi, ea, ou, sh, and th. |
| |
|Several different methods have been developed to teach phonics systematically and explicitly, including synthetic phonics, analytic phonics, embedded |
|phonics, analogy phonics, onset-rime phonics, and phonics through spelling. Broadly speaking, these approaches are all effective (NICHHD, 2000, p. 2-89).|
|C. Why is phonics instruction important? |
| |
|Phonics instruction leads to an understanding of the alphabetic principle—the set of systematic and predictable relationships between written letters and|
|spoken sounds. For children to learn how to sound out word segments and blend these parts to form recognizable words, they must know how letters |
|correspond to sounds. |
| |
|Three top-level examples of the effects of phonics instruction: |
| |
|Phonics instruction has a positive overall effect on reading. A meta-analysis by the National Reading Panel (NRP) found that systematic and explicit |
|phonics instruction had a significantly stronger effect on children’s reading than every category of nonsystematic or non-phonics instruction that was |
|studied. |
| |
|Phonics instruction has positive overall effects on specific skill areas. The NRP meta-analysis found that across grades K–6, phonics instruction was |
|“most effective in improving children’s ability to decode regularly spelled words . . . and pseudowords,” but also helped students to read miscellaneous |
|words (some of which were irregularly spelled) and read text orally (NICHHD, 2000, pp. 2-94, 2-159). |
| |
|Phonics instruction has a lasting impact on reading. Follow-up tests in the NRP meta-analysis found that the effects of phonics instruction were |
|reduced, but still significant, several months after the instruction ended, “indicating that the impact of phonics instruction lasted well beyond the end|
|of training” (NICHHD, 2000, pp. 2-113, 2-159, 2-161). |
|D. Who benefits from phonics instruction? |E. Research Recommendations |
| | | |
|1. The NRP meta-analysis found |3. Similarly, a research summary |Level at which phonics should be taught. The NRP finding that phonics instruction |
|that students in kindergarten |commissioned by the Southwest |benefited students in kindergarten, first grade, and grades 2–6 (the majority of |
|and first grade experienced |Educational Development Laboratory |whom were disabled readers) suggests a value to including phonics instruction at the|
|significantly better |found that “explicit instruction |kindergarten and first-grade levels and beyond, particularly for disabled readers. |
|improvement from phonics |for word recognition . . . has been| |
|instruction than from other |effective with struggling secondary|Level at which phonics instruction should begin. The NRP meta-analysis found that |
|types of instruction in all six|readers” (Peterson et al., 2000, p.|phonics instruction in kindergarten and first grade was “much more effective” than |
|areas measured (decoding |13, citing Gaskins, Cuncelli & |phonics instruction that began in second grade or later, after students have learned|
|regular words, decoding |Satlow, 1992; Lenz & Hughes, 1990; |to read independently. |
|pseudowords, reading |Lewkowicz, 1985; Meyer, 1982). | |
|miscellaneous words, spelling, |Peterson et al. (2000) also cited |Letter knowledge is a precursor to reading. Two developmental studies, drawing on |
|reading text orally, and |Henry (1993) in support of the |and extending a body of existing research, suggest that knowledge of letter names |
|comprehending text), with a |argument that “these readers need |and/or letter sounds is an important precursor to the earliest stages of reading |
|moderate- to large- effect size|extended decoding and spelling |knowledge. Muter et al. (2004) found that students’ ability to identify letter |
|for all areas except reading |instruction to help them decode |sounds and/or names on entering schooling (average age 4 years, 9 months) was one of|
|text orally (NICHHD, 2000, p. |multisyllabic words” (p. 13). |two significant predictors, together with phoneme sensitivity, of word-recognition |
|2-159). | |ability a year later (pp. 671–672). |
| |When working with older readers, | |
|2. Students in grades 2–6 also|instruction should include the |Instruction should be continued over multiple years. Results of a few multi-year |
|experienced significantly |major sound-spelling relationships |studies examined by the NRP “suggest that when phonics instruction is taught to |
|better improvement from phonics|of consonants and vowels, syllable |children at the outset of learning to read and continued for 2 to 3 years, the |
|instruction in four out of six |types, and basic reading-spelling |children experience significantly greater growth in reading at the end of training |
|areas (decoding regular words, |vocabularies” (p. 128, citing |than children who receive phonics instruction for only one year after first grade” |
|decoding pseudowords, reading |Graham, Harris & Loynachan, 1993). |(NICHHD, 2000, p. 2-118). |
|miscellaneous words, and | | |
|reading text orally), with | |Instruction should take place in a systematic and explicit manner. Summarizing |
|effect sizes for the various | |“suggestions for helping adolescents who struggle with word identification [that] |
|areas ranging from small to | |have emerged from the work of researchers and clinicians,” Curtis (2004) stated, |
|moderate (NICHHD, 2000, p. | |“Systematic, explicit, and direct instruction produces the best results. |
|2-159). | |Identification of sounds and letter-sound relationships should be modeled, |
| | |demonstrated, and applied in a logical and systematic manner” (p. 128; emphasis in |
| | |original). |
| | | |
| | |Approach to decoding instruction: Mastery versus implicit understanding. Curtis |
| | |(2004) described a “difference in opinions . . . relative to whether instructional |
| | |emphasis is best placed on mastery of the phonetic patterns that characterize the |
| | |relationships among sounds and letters or on development of an implicit |
| | |understanding of those phonic generalizations via examples and discussions” (p. |
| | |124). According to Curtis, “Research suggests that both approaches can be effective |
| | |. . . and that a combination of the two—beginning first with an emphasis on pattern |
|“Instruction should be | |mastery, then shifting to a focus on pattern generalization—may be most productive” |
|reflective” (Curtis). | |(p. 125, citing Lovett, Lacarenza & Borden, 2000; Lovett & Steinbach, 1997). |
| | | |
| | |Reflective approach is a goal of instruction. Based on “the work of researchers and |
| | |clinicians,” Curtis (2004) concluded, “Instruction should be reflective. Learning to|
| | |recognize patterns and making generalizations from and about them—not memorizing |
| | |rules—should be the goal of instruction” (p. 128; emphasis in original). |
| | | |
| | |Lesson characteristics should include specific elements. Several researchers |
| | |identified specific elements that should be a part of phonics/decoding lessons. |
| | | |
| |Lessons should be: |According to Curtis (2004), “Lessons should be fast-paced, multisensory, lively and |
| |Fast-paced. |brief, and include materials that encourage students to apply the knowledge and |
| |Multisensory. |skills being learned” (p. 128, citing as examples Curtis & Chmelka, 1994; Curtis & |
| |Lively and brief. |McCart, 1992). |
| |Inclusive of materials that |Curtis also cited the National Reading Panel report in support of modeling, |
| |encourage students to apply what |demonstration, and application of sounds and letter-sound relationships (p. 128, |
| |they have learned. |citing NICHHD, 2000). |
| | | |
| | |Peterson et al. (2000) claimed that “Successful programs . . . include an |
| | |explanation of what skill is being taught, regular modeling of how to perform the |
| | |skill, constant discussion of why the skill is important, and demonstrations of when|
| | |it is best to apply the skill” (p. 13). |
| | | |
| | |Instruction should focus on high-frequency-word elements. According to Curtis |
| | |(2004), “High-frequency sound-spelling relationships and words should be the focus |
| | |of instruction. When working with older readers, instruction should include the |
|Lessons should highlight: | |major sound-spelling relationships of consonants and vowels, syllable types, and |
|High-frequency words. | |basic reading-spelling vocabularies” (p. 128, citing Graham, Harris & Loynachan, |
|Word identification by analogy.| |1993; emphasis in original). |
|Opportunities for students to | | |
|apply what they have learned. | |Word identification by analogy is effective. Curtis (2004) identified word |
|Opportunities to decode in | |identification by analogy as a “successful strategy” for word analysis. In this |
|context. | |method, “Students learn how to use familiar words that rhyme with unfamiliar word |
| | |parts to aid in their word identification” (Curtis, 2004, p. 126, citing Gaskins et |
| | |al., 1988; emphasis in original). |
| | | |
| | |Students need practice with multiple word types. Curtis (2004) stated, “Beyond |
| | |instruction and practice in analyzing words, providing students with opportunities |
| | |to apply what they have learned is also an essential part of improving their reading|
| | |ability. . . . [A]pplication needs to occur with words that require students to use |
| | |the knowledge and skills they are acquiring. For example, multisyllabic words such |
| | |as cockroach and scapegoat provide students with a chance to generalize |
| | |understanding of the sound of oa in ways that practice with words such as boat and |
| | |coat do not” (p. 126, citing Curtis & Chmelka, 1994). This argument suggests a |
| | |general value to practicing decoding skills with many different types of words, |
| | |including multisyllabic words. |
| | | |
| | |Students need practice with decoding in context. Curtis (2004) also argued, |
| | |“Opportunities to practice identification of words in context should be frequent. |
| | |Word identification should never be viewed by students as an end in itself; it must |
| | |always be seen as a means to an end. To accomplish this, regular opportunities to |
| | |engage in oral reading—in a setting where teens are comfortable with taking |
| |Students should use decoding skills|risks—should be provided” (p. 129; emphasis in original). More specifically, |
| |with many types of words. |“[A]pplication needs to occur in context, so that students can be encouraged to use |
| | |their developing word-analysis skills to read unknown words on the page (rather than|
| | |relying on the context to guess at them)” (Curtis, 2004, p. 126). Taken together, |
| | |these recommendations suggest that students should be provided with opportunities to|
| | |practice decoding in context, including oral reading, and should be encouraged to |
| | |use their decoding skills in those contexts. |
| | | |
| | | |
| |Students should learn to build, | |
| |apply, and practice decoding | |
| |skills. | |
|Benefits by Student Categories |Instructional Methods and Features |
| | | |
|Phonics instruction has been |Kindergartners at risk of |Spelling instruction. An analysis of research commissioned by the NRC claimed that |
|shown to have a statistically |developing future reading problems;|spelling instruction, in particular at the second-grade level, is important in |
|significant positive impact |First-graders at risk of falling |building “phonemic awareness and knowledge of basic letter-sound correspondences” |
|across many student categories |below grade level; |(Snow, Burns & Griffin, 1998, p. 212). |
|(NICHHD, 2000, p. 2-160): |First-grade normally achieving | |
| |readers; |Phonics instruction. Based on their interpretation of the research results, the NRP|
| |Second- to sixth-grade normally |argued that phonics instruction (i.e., “the teaching of letter-sound relations”) |
| |achieving readers and |should not be pursued as an end in itself, but should be directed toward the goal of|
| |disabled readers; and |helping students in their “daily reading and writing activities” (NICHHD, 2000, p. |
| |students across various SES levels.|2-96). Students should understand that this is the goal of learning letter-sounds |
| | |and should have practice in putting their skills to use. |
| |EL and struggling secondary readers| |
| |who “need extended decoding and |Variable, guided by assessment. Based on their interpretation of the research |
| |spelling instruction to help them |results, the NRP argued that, ideally, phonics instruction should be variable based |
| |decode . . .” (Peterson et. al., p.|on the needs of individual students as determined through assessment (NICHHD, 2000, |
| |13). |pp. 2-96, 2-97). Similarly, the NRC research review argued that “intensity of |
| | |instruction should be matched to children’s needs” in applying explicit instruction |
| | |on the connection between phonemes and spellings (Snow, Burns & Griffin, 1998, p. |
| | |321). |
| | | |
Demonstration of Phonics Alignment
in
California Treasures
| | |[pic] |
|Summary of Research |Demonstration of Phonics Alignment | |
|Recommendations for |in California Treasures K-8 | |
|Phonics | | |
| | |
|Phonics instruction begins before |In kindergarten, each lesson begins with a phonemic awareness Warm-Up that is followed by Oral Language. |
|reading is introduced. |Next, the teacher uses the Big Book while students practice listening comprehension. Children talk about the |
| |story. In every lesson, students engage in phonemic awareness and phonics before reading is introduced. |
| | |
| |The instructional routines for kindergarten Unit 1 Phonics are: blending; introducing sound-spelling cards; |
| |letter recognition; building words; building fluency; reading decodables; and multisyllabic words/routine. |
| | |
| |California Treasures Phonics and Decoding Scope and Sequence |
| |First Grade: Understand the alphabetic principle. |
| |Grades K–2: Blend sounds into words, including VC, CVC, CVCe, CVVC words. |
| |Primary Grades (K–3): Sound-letter correspondence; blend common word families; decode one-syllable words in |
| |isolation and in context; and identify common irregular words, high-frequency words. |
| |Grades 1–6: Identify compound words, contractions; long vowels; variant vowels; r-controlled vowels; initial |
| |consonant digraphs; medial and final consonant digraphs; and diphthongs. |
| |Grades 2–6: Hard/soft consonants; abbreviations, regular and irregular plurals; use knowledge of spelling |
| |patterns to identify syllables; and decode multisyllabic words in isolation and in context. |
| | |
|Letter names and sounds are taught to |Letter-name identification and sound instruction begin on the first day of kindergarten. Throughout the Smart|
|students early in kindergarten. |Start period (i.e., the first three weeks of kindergarten), the entire alphabet is introduced, and students |
| |are guided in letter names and sounds through individual practice and group participation. The “Sing, Talk, |
| |Rhyme Chart 1,” Letter Cards, Alphabet and Sound Cards, and Big Book are resources used by teachers to |
| |reinforce letter- and sound-recognition skills throughout kindergarten. |
| |California Treasures |
|Phonics instruction begins in |Instruction begins with the continuous consonants m and s. After several consonants are learned, students are|
|kindergarten and continues regularly |taught short vowel a and how to blend VC and CVC words with short a (beginning with continuous sounds). First|
|for 3 years. |grade follows this same pattern,which continues through third grade. |
| | |
|English-Language Arts |California Treasures Kindergarten Example: TE Unit 1, p. 215. Model—Distribute High-Frequency Words Cards for|
|California Content Standards Grade K |I, am, the and the Photo Card for astronaut. Have children stand in sequence. Repeat with ant. |
|R K.1.6 Recognize and name all | |
|uppercase and lowercase letters of the |California Treasures First Grade Example: Unit 1, TE p. 111F. ABC Order. Teach the order of the letters of |
|alphabet. |the alphabet. Show how to put the letters in order. Model ABC order. Have children practice and apply. |
| | |
| | |
| | |
|Phonics instruction teaches students to|In California Treasures, phonics follows a “smart” scope and sequence in which letter-sounds are introduced |
|convert letters into sounds and then to|and then applied to simple VC and CVC words. As the sequence progresses, students encounter more |
|blend the sounds to form recognizable |sophisticated sound-spelling patterns and more complex words, including multisyllabic words. |
|words. | |
| |Kindergarten Example: In a typical lesson, the teacher models the sound for T. She places the Large Letter |
|English-Language Arts |Card T in the pocket chart. Next to the T, she places the card i. She moves her hand from left to right |
|California Content Standards Grade K |below the letters as she sounds out the blending of the two sounds. Students practice blending the sounds. |
|R K.1.5 Distinguish letters from words.|Next, she places the Letter Card m in the pocket next to the Ti. She moves her hand from left to right as she|
| |blends the three sounds. Students then blend the sounds with the teacher. This routine is repeated with other|
|R K.1.4 Recognize that sentences in |words. |
|print are made up of separate words. |Kindergarten Example: TE Unit 1, p. 185. Students say the cues together as they trace with their index |
| |fingers the letter the teacher wrote on the board. Children write M and m in the air as they say /mmm/. |
|English-Language Arts |Repeat with A and a. |
|California Content Standards Grade 5 |Second-Grade Example: In a typical lesson, the teacher places Letter Cards c, h, e, e, r in the chart pocket.|
|R 5.1.2 Use word origins to determine |Students and the teacher blend the sounds together and read the word. After blending the phonemes, they |
|the meaning of unknown words. |replace the letters to build new words. Finally, students use their own Small Letter Cards to blend and build|
|R. 1.3 Recognize the origins and |word pairs such as near/dear and year/fear. |
|meanings of frequently used foreign |Fourth-Grade Example: By the fourth grade, students decode the words as a class. For example, they underline |
|words in English and use these words |the long i syllable or syllables in each of their vocabulary words. They also underline clues that show how |
|accurately in speaking and writing. |to pronounce the words. Following an activity such as this, partners play a game with spelling words having |
| |the long i sound. |
|ELD Standards |Fifth-Grade Example: By fifth grade, Students analyze words such as tractor, pointing out the Latin root, |
|Reading Grades 6-8 |tract, and the suffix, -or. They analyze attraction from “A Song for Makaio,” their main reading selection. |
|EA1 Apply knowledge of word |As they read the selection, they identify clues that reveal the meanings and pronunciations of the vocabulary|
|relationships, such as roots and |words (Examples: Unit 1:31B; Unit 2:234, 253A, Unit 6: 728, 747A). |
|affixes, to derive meaning from |Typical Fifth-Grade EL Example: English learners practice sounds that are difficult for them to pronounce in |
|literature and texts in content areas. |isolation as well as within words. |
| |Typical Middle School Example: Advanced phonics skills, such as prefixes, suffixes, and multi-syllabic words |
|English-Language Arts |are taught in isolation via the blending lines and explicit instruction. Students read words containing the |
|California Content Standards |skills in the connected text in their Student Anthologies and Student Workbooks. |
|Grade 6: Reading | |
| |Typical Sixth-Grade Example: The weekly theme is “Taking a Stand.” The main selection is Let It Shine: |
|1.0 Word Analysis, Fluency, and |Stories of Black Women Freedom Fighters, and the phonics/spelling skills are Suffixes –ant, –ent; -ance, |
|Systematic Vocabulary Development. |-ence (important, importance; present, presence). The paired selections are from "Caged Bird" and "I Dream a |
| |World," and the fluency strategies are Rhyme, Simile, and Repetition—all of which work together to help |
| |students to convert letters into sounds and then to blend the sounds to form recognizable words. |
| |Glencoe Literature, Middle Grades Example: Word Parts, Connection to Literature. Students find clues to the |
| |meaning of words by looking at its parts. A suffix can change a word from one part of speech to another. For |
| |example, the word disgusting includes the root gust, which means “to taste.” The prefix dis- means “not.” The|
| |suffix –ing signals an adjective. Students practice with other words. |
|Spelling instruction is used to build |California Treasures Primary Grades Example: Each week has a 5-Day Spelling plan: Day 1—pretest; word sort. |
|phonemic awareness. |Day 2—Teacher-modeled word sort. Day 3—Student word sort; game. Day 4—Test Practice: Dictation. Day |
| |5—Posttest. For example, in second grade, on the first day of each week, students are given the pretest for |
| |ten spelling words, two review words (from pervious lessons), and three high-frequency words. Word cards are |
|English-Language Arts |displayed for high-frequency words. The teacher says the words; the children read the words and use each one |
|California Content Standards |in a sentence in a “display, say, spell, read, and write” routine. Students then decode the words in the |
|Grade 5 |connected text (story in a Decodable Reader). Students complete sentences with each word in the On Level |
|R 5.1.4 Know abstract, derived roots |Practice Book O. (An Approaching Practice Book A and a Beyond Practice Book B are also provided, targeted to |
|and affixes from Greek and Latin and |the student’s current reading level.) |
|use this knowledge to analyze the | |
|meaning of complex words. |Second-Grade Example: In a typical second-grade lesson, students identify and make oral rhymes with the |
| |spelling words for phonemic awareness practice. On Day 2, Large Letter Cards are used to model blending |
|LC 5.1.5 Spell roots, suffixes, |sounds followed by Guided Practice/Practice and Cumulative Review. Students use Spelling Pattern Cards in a |
|prefixes, contractions, and syllable |pocket chart to build word automaticity followed by completing a page in their Spelling Practice Book. On Day|
|constructions correctly. |3, students work independently or in pairs with Spelling Cards to practice sorting the spelling words. They |
| |complete the next page in the Spelling Practice Book. On Day 4, students work in pairs to take turns |
| |dictating the spelling words. They also use their Spelling Cards to practice reading each word quickly. They |
| |complete the next page in the Spelling Practice Book and write from a prompt using the words. On Day 5 |
| |students repeat each word the teacher pronounces before they write it for the posttest. |
| | |
| |Upper Elementary Grades Example: By fifth grade, spelling words fit a pattern such as “all of the words have |
| |a suffix.” Students learn that spelling sometimes changes when a suffix is added. They use spelling words in |
| |dictation sentences. They invent sorting schemes for Spelling Word Cards and participate in daily teacher and|
| |student word sorts. Students create graphics to identify definitions. They proofread and use spelling words |
| |in original writing. (Examples: Unit 1: S11, Unit 4: 456, 465A, Unit 5: 542, 559A, 586, 595A; Unit 6: 683C, |
| |683D, 711C.) |
| | |
| | |
| |Grades 6–8 Middle School Example: Spelling lessons further emphasize words with spelling patterns, words |
| |families; words from mythology; words with Greek and Latin roots; syllables: patterns, rules, accented, |
| |stressed, closed, open; and root and base words. |
| | |
| |Middle School EL: California Treasures recognizes that phonics, word recognition, and spelling are influenced|
| |by what students know about the sounds, word structure, and spelling in their primary languages. For example,|
| |beginning readers who speak Spanish and are familiar with its spelling will often spell short o with an a, a |
| |letter that in Spanish makes the short o sound. Students learn about the way pronunciation influences their |
| |reading and spelling, beginning with large contrasts among sounds. Then they study the finer discriminations.|
| |As vocabulary advances, the meaning of words leads students to the sound contrasts. |
| | |
| |For example, shoe and chew may sound alike initially, but meaning indicates otherwise. Students’ reading and |
| |discussions of what they read advance their word knowledge as well as their knowledge in all language and |
| |literacy systems, including phonics, pronunciation, grammar, and vocabulary. |
| |
|The California Treasures program provides “Language Transfers: |
|the Interaction between English and Students’ Primary Languages” (J. Echevarria & D. Bear) |
|to help teachers with phonics transfers, areas where a positive transfer of sounds and symbols occurs for English Learners from their native |
|languages into English. |
| |Language Transfers are used on charts that help teachers anticipate and understand possible student errors in|
| |pronouncing or perceiving certain English sounds. Skills are highlighted for preteaching and for additional |
| |practice time. |
| |The transfers are located in the lessons as illustrated below: |
|ELD Standards | |
|Reading Grades 6–8 |Sound-Spelling Cards with Articulation Photos are provided in the program to assist teachers in working with |
|EA3 Use knowledge of English morphemes,|English Learners. |
|phonics, and syntax to decode and | |
|interpret the meaning of unfamiliar |Grammar Transfers with English Learner Response Charts help students move to the next level of language |
|words. |acquisition and master English grammatical forms. |
| | |
|ELD Standards |Lists of Cognates and False Cognates for the academic language are used during lessons. For example, knowing |
|Reading Grades 6–8 |the cognates school/escuela and telephone/teléfono can help with comprehension. Students and teachers must |
|1.0 Word Analysis |also be aware of false cognates—words that look similar in two languages, but have different meanings, such |
|E13, I2, EA2 Distinguish between |as soap in English and sopa (meaning soup) in Spanish. |
|cognates and false cognates in | |
|literature and texts in content areas. |AAVE System |
| | |
| |African American Vernacular English (AAVE) will be the language of some students. AAVE is a language system |
| |with well-formed rules for sounds, grammar, and meanings. Throughout the year, K–8 teachers will help African|
| |American students learn standard academic English by focusing on those places where AAVE differs from the |
| |standards on patterns that will have the most immediate impact on students’ reading and writing |
| |development. |
| | |
| |Teachers use the charts provided in the California Treasures program to identify AAVE linguistic differences |
| |and instructional modifications that can help students as they learn to successfully and fluently speak, |
| |read, and write standard English. |
| | |
| |The AAVE Charts focus on the following: |
| |Providing students with clear enunciation examples during phonics and phonemic awareness lessons targeting |
| |difficult sounds. In addition, practice is provided during small group phonics lessons. For example, use of |
| |r-blends: Many speakers of African American Vernacular English drop the /r/ in worlds with r-blends. These |
| |students may say th’ow for throw. |
| |Using contrastive analysis during whole group and small group time in which students code switch between AAVE|
| |and standard English. The difference in each |
| |grammatical structure is highlighted, and students are provided ample opportunities to practice standard |
| |English in speaking and writing. They are also taught the proper context for each usage. For example, with |
| |the verb to be in speaking: Many speakers of AAVE will use was in the singular and plural forms, as in He was|
| |and They was. |
| |Using Discrimination Drills in which two sentences are read aloud or written on the board. One is standard |
| |English; the other reflects common AAVE structures. Students must determine which is standard English. |
| |Using Translation Drills in which students change an AAVE sentence into Standard English. |
| | |
|Phonics instruction is directed toward |The California Treasures curriculum provides checklists that help students understand specific elements of a |
|the goal of helping students in their |piece of writing. Students use rubrics to identify their efforts to improve their own writing and to provide |
|daily reading and writing activities. |a framework for peer editing. The “Word Work” (phonics and spelling) objectives are reinforced in informal |
| |cross-curricular activities each week. For example, second-graders might play “Guess My Word” with current |
|English-Language Arts |and past Spelling Word Cards. |
|California Content Standards | |
|Reading |Fourth-Grade Example: By the time students are in fourth grade, they use multi-syllabic decoding when reading|
|1.0 Word analysis, Fluency, and |words in all texts. For example, the teacher writes on the board disunity, foolhardy, screwdriver, evolution,|
|Systematic Vocabulary Development. |and uncooked—words that are used in the students’ main selection. The teacher models how to decode disunity, |
|Students use their knowledge of word |focusing on the long u sound and noting the prefix. Students decode the other words on the list, explaining |
|origins and word relationships, as well|how the sounds differ. Students use this technique when reading the main selection in the student text. |
|as historical and literary context |Students also use these words in creative writing. |
|clues, to determine the meaning of | |
|specialized vocabulary and to |Upper Grades Example: In fifth grade, students become even more sophisticated in their daily reading and |
|understand the precise meaning of |writing activities. For example, they may read the words surrounding a homophone to decide on a definition |
|grade-level-appropriate words. |for the homophone that is based on the homophone’s contextual use. Or they may choose, based on clues |
| |gathered from the main selection, which suggested meaning makes the best sense. |
| | |
| |Middle School Example: Eighth-grade California Treasures Literature, p. 450. Apply Good Writing Traits: Word |
| |Choice. Use precise words that clearly express your images and ideas. |
|Phonics instruction is integrated with |Primary Grades: The “Word Work” portion of each reading lesson in the primary grades combines phonics, |
|other reading instruction. |spelling, and vocabulary. Selected spelling words reinforce |
| |specified phonemic awareness strategies and the phonics skill that is highlighted each week. For example, in |
| |second grade, Unit 6, Week 1, phonemic awareness emphasizes the endings –dge, -ge, -lge, -nge, -rge. Phonics |
| |and spelling align with phonemic awareness. |
| | |
| |Upper Grades Example: A phonics instructional strategy used in fourth grade is the “Think Aloud.” For |
| |example, while reading the main selection, the teacher may say, “I see that this word begins with or. That’s |
| |probably pronounced /ô/. I know that ph often has the sound /f/. If the last syllable is unaccented, I should|
| |pronounce it /ən/. When I blend the sounds together, I get /ô fən/. I know that word.” Students learn to |
| |analyze words in this way. |
|Phonics instruction is variable and is |Weekly Assessments and Daily Quick Check Observations are used in determining the need for differentiated |
|based on students’ needs as |phonics instruction. Based on results of the Weekly Assessments and observed student performance, teachers |
|determined through assessment. |are provided leveled options (e.g., Approaching, On, and Beyond Level) to appeal to students’ specific |
| |instructional needs. |
| | |
| |For students in need of phonics intervention, assessments are provided in the Phonics-QPS (Quick Phonics |
| |Screener). This assessment, developed by program author Jan Hasbrouck, evaluates each student’s decoding |
| |skills and provides the teacher with valuable information to address decoding issues. |
|Students are provided with |Typical Middle School Example: Speaking, Listening, and Viewing Workshop: Oral Response to Literature |
|opportunities to practice decoding in |including an Oral Presentation Checklist. |
|context, including oral reading | |
|contexts. |A feature of McGraw-Hill/Glencoe Literature for middle school students is Literature Online. Students can |
| |look online for project ideas and presentation tips using a “Quick Pass” code. |
|ELA/ELD Standards | |
|Grade 8 Reading |Curriculum developers selected texts to match students’ likely interests and to relate to their |
|1.0 Word Analysis, Fluency, and |circumstances, including immigration and changes in culture. Many of the text selections are written about |
|Systematic Vocabulary Development. |adolescents or written from an adolescent’s perspective. The grade-level themes are threaded throughout the |
|Students use…context clues to determine|selections and engage adolescents with issues that are meaningful in their daily lives. |
|the meaning of specialized vocabulary. | |
| |Sixth-Grade Examples: “The Sand Castle,” by Alma Luz Villanueva, of Native American heritage, is a story from|
|English-Language Arts |the author’s Mexican Yaqui Indian heritage. She uses themes in her writing such as the Native American sense |
|California Content Standards |of oneness with nature. Another example is “The Emperor’s Silent Army,” by Jane O’Connor, a story of the |
|Reading |Terracotta Warriors of ancient China. In Unit 2, students explore traditions, such as the oral tradition |
|1.0 |illustrated in “The End of the World,” a tale that a Sioux woman named Jenny Leading Cloud told to the |
|Word analysis, Fluency, and Systematic |authors, Eroes and Ortiz, who wrote American Indian Myths and Legends (1984). Zora Neale Hurston also |
|Vocabulary Development. |contributes to this unit. She grew up in a close-knit African American town in rural Florida. She is best |
|1.4 Use word, sentence, and paragraph |known for her novel Their Eyes Were Watching God, but her folktale “How the Snake Got Poison,” from Dust |
|clues to determine meaning. |Tracks on a Road, is in the sixth-grade text. |
| | |
|Listening and Speaking |Seventh-Grade Examples: Text selections include “All Together Now,” a story by Barbara Jordan, who tried to |
|1.6. Support opinions with detailed |influence others to create a tolerant society. She writes about Lyndon B. Johnson and the Voting Rights Act. |
|evidence and with visual or media |She seeks to persuade young readers that ordinary people can affect the state of society. In the same unit, |
|displays that use appropriate |Clifton Davis shares his “Mason-Dixon Memory,” a story of the invisible line between the North and the South.|
|technology. |The Civil Rights Activist Toni Cade Bambara, contributes a short story about the Vietnam War, “The War of the|
| |Wall.” Also included in the text is a folktale from Puerto Rico by Judito Ortiz Cofer, “Aunty Misery,” that |
| |students use to compare and contrast with “Strawberries,” a different type of literature and across cultures.|
| | |
| |As the literature analysis becomes more advanced, students are challenged to use higher-level skills to |
| |support their opinions. For example, in eighth grade, the Unit 1 Big Question is “How do you stay true to |
| |yourself?” Students build background by reading |
| |and reacting to “And Ain’t I a Woman?” by Sojourner Truth, a traveling preacher born into slavery. Before |
| |reading another selection, “The Medicine Bag,” students talk with a partner about family tradition. The |
| |author of this selection, Virginia Driving Hawk Sneve, tells of traditions of the Sioux and how the |
| |government forced them to leave their land. In another selection, Laurence Yep contributes an ancient Asian |
| |folktale, “Waters of Gold.” |
|Decoding instruction combines mastery |For the upper grades and EL students, decoding instruction is a part of the 5-Day Vocabulary Plan: “Build |
|and |Robust Vocabulary,” and the 5-Day Spelling Plan. |
|implicit instruction. |In the middle grades, the Language Handbook provides spelling rules, examples, and |
| |exceptions that help students master the spelling of many words. For example, spelling unstressed vowels, |
| |prefixes, and suffixes are discussed and illustrated. |
| | |
| |For EL students, decoding is emphasized in the Glosario. This glossary lists the vocabulary words found in |
| |the selections in the student text. The definition given is for the words as they are used in the selection. |
| |There is a student-friendly key for pronunciation in both English and Spanish. |
| |Instruction in California Treasures is designed to help students recognize patterns and make generalizations.|
|Decoding instruction is reflective, not|The curriculum does not use a rule- or algorithm-based approach to teaching decoding. (See the section on |
|rule-based. |Fluency Alignment for additional decoding examples.) |
| | |
|Word identification by analogy is used |ELL Example: Differentiated Spelling Lists, Pretests and Posttests are available in the Teacher’s Resource |
|for EL students to learn decoding. |Book. During the weekly 5-Day Spelling Plan, students learn sounds, such as short vowels, and use them in |
| |spelling words. They use the words when writing Dictation Sentences, completing Word Sorts, and Practice Book|
|ELA/ELD Standards |pages on their individual reading levels. |
|Grades 6-8 Reading. Vocabulary and | |
|Concept Development. |In the eighth-grade text, students continue to analyze poetic structure, sound devices, imagery, and |
|1.1 Analyze . . . analogies . . . to |figurative language. This type of analysis began in the early elementary grades and gradually became more |
|infer the literal and figurative |challenging through the ensuing grades. |
|meanings of phrases. | |
| |By eighth grade, the following Structure and Sound Devices are taught: rhyme, including rhyme scheme; rhythm;|
| |repetition; alliteration; assonance; and onomatopoeia. Imagery and Figurative Language are also emphasized, |
| |including simile, metaphor, and personification. In a typical lesson, students use a web or other graphic to |
| |help them identify the literary elements of a selection. (Course 3, p. 336). |
|Components of Reading |Fluency |3 |
| |
|“Excessively slow, halting reading limits comprehension and the amount of print that can be read, creating a burden that can extinguish the |
|desire to read” (Peterson et al., 2000, p. 12). |
| |
|A. What is fluency? |
| |
|Fluency is the ability to read text quickly, accurately, and with expression. It provides a bridge between word recognition and comprehension. |
|“Fluency is vital to comprehension” (McShane, p. 14). Fluency includes word recognition but extends beyond knowledge of individual words to |
|reflect the meaningful connections among words in a phrase or sentence. Fluent readers are able to recognize words and comprehend them |
|simultaneously. |
| |
|B. Why is fluency instruction important? |
| |
|Fluency is widely acknowledged to be a critical component of skilled reading. A study conducted by the National Assessment of Educational |
|Progress (NAEP) found a “close relationship between fluency and reading comprehension” (NICHHD, 2000, p. 3-1, citing Pinnell et al., 1995). |
|More generally, a National Research Council report stated that “Adequate progress in learning to read English beyond the initial level depends |
|on . . . sufficient practice in reading to achieve fluency with different kinds of texts written for different purposes” (Snow, Burns & |
|Griffin, 1998, p. 223). Additional evidence of this link between fluency and the development of general reading ability, particularly reading |
|comprehension, is provided by several studies that found that student performance on fluency assessments was an effective predictor of their |
|performance on other types of reading measures. |
| |
|In reviewing the research on fluency instruction, the National Reading Panel (NRP) found value in approaches that incorporated repeated oral |
|reading, guided or unguided, as opposed to less focused attempts to encourage reading in general. Three key findings: |
| |
|1. Repeated oral reading instruction has a positive overall effect on reading. |
|A meta-analysis by the NRP found that fluency instruction in the form of repeated oral reading (guided or unguided) “had a consistent and |
|positive impact on word recognition, fluency, and comprehension as measured by a variety of test instruments and at a range of grade levels” |
|(NICHHD, 2000, p. 3-3). The weighted average of these effect sizes resulted in a moderate effect on student reading (NICHHD, 2000, p. 3-16). |
| |
|2. Repeated oral-reading instruction has a positive impact on specific skill areas. |
|The NRP meta-analysis found that repeated oral reading had a moderate effect on reading accuracy, a somewhat less strong effect on reading |
|fluency, and a smaller effect on reading comprehension (NICHHD, 2000, pp. 3-3, 3-18). |
| |
|3. In contrast, encouraging children to read on their own has no research-verified impact on reading achievement. |
|The NRP reviewed research studies on attempts to build fluency through encouraging independent student reading; most of these were studies of |
|sustained silent reading. It found that the body of research failed to confirm any positive effects (NICHHD, 2000, pp. 3-3, 3-24–3-26, citing |
|14 studies). |
| |
|C. Who benefits from fluency instruction? |
| |
|Analysis of grade levels covered by the studies in the NRP meta-analysis led to the conclusion that “repeated reading procedures have a clear |
|impact” on reading ability among “non-impaired readers at least through fourth grade” and “students with various kinds of reading problems |
|throughout high school” (NICHHD, 2000, p. 3-17) |
| |
| |
|Why Is Fluency Important for Struggling Adolescent Readers? |
| |
|Fluency is an essential component of skilled reading, according to the National Reading Panel (NICHHD, 2000, p. 3-1). Many researchers in |
|adolescent literacy argue that for readers who “have not yet achieved automaticity in word recognition (fluency),” the simple task of decoding |
|words takes up cognitive resources that are needed in order to understand the meaning of the text—thereby impacting student comprehension |
|(Rasinski et al., 2005, p. 22, citing LaBerge & Samuels, 1974). This may help explain research findings such as those of Rasinski et al. |
|(2005), who “found a statistically significant . . . and moderately strong relationship” between fluency (reading rate) scores and |
|comprehension scores among 303 ninth-grade students (p. 25). Allington (2006) argued that “there are a substantial number of rigorously |
|designed research studies demonstrating (1) that fluency can be developed, most readily through a variety of techniques that involve rereading |
|texts; and (2) that fostering fluency has reliable positive impacts on comprehension performance” (p. 107). |
| |
|Researchers have also drawn connections among fluency, breadth of reading, and student motivation. For example, a summary of research prepared |
|for the Southwest Educational Development Laboratory argued that “excessively slow, halting reading limits comprehension and the amount of |
|print that can be read, creating a burden that can extinguish the desire to read” (Peterson et al., 2000, p. 12, citing LaBerge & Samuels, |
|1974; Nathan & Stanovich, 1991; Samuels, 1994). Along similar lines, the Study Group on Middle and High School Literacy for the National |
|Association of State Boards of Education declared that fluency of word identification is not sufficient for comprehension. Yet, it is an |
|important prerequisite for it. If children read slowly and laboriously, their comprehension of texts will likely be limited. (NASBE, 2006, pp. |
|20–21) |
| |
|How Can Fluency Be Improved? |
| |
|Research and expert opinion agree that practice with reading—especially oral reading—is the key to helping students become more fluent readers.|
|A variety of specific methods have been developed for helping students improve their fluency skills, with a particular focus on guided oral |
|reading and repeated oral reading procedures, often with a modeling component. A research review and meta-analysis by the National Reading |
|Panel found that “repeated reading procedures have a clear impact on the reading ability of . . . students with various kinds of reading |
|problems throughout high school” (NICHHD, 2000, p. 3-17). |
| |
|D. Research Recommendations on Fluency |
| | |
| |The NRP research findings suggest a value to including fluency instruction in the form of repeated oral reading |
| |procedures at least through the fourth-grade level, and possibly beyond in a supporting capacity for students with|
| |reading problems. A review of research on early childhood reading commissioned by the National Research Council |
| |(NRC) identified fluency instruction as a key component of first-grade instruction and argued that “throughout the|
|Range and Scope of |early grades, time, materials, and resources should be provided” for both daily independent reading and daily |
|Instruction |supported reading and rereading (Snow, Burns & Griffin, 1998, p. 195). |
| | |
| |“[T]he five major factors that impact advanced literacy skills and the ability of adolescents to understand and |
| |learn from what they read [are] speed and accuracy when reading text, vocabulary, background knowledge, |
| |comprehension, and motivation.”—Reading at Risk: The State Response to the Crisis in Adolescent Literacy (NASBE, |
| |2006, p. 19). |
| |Effective Methods | |
| | |Repeated readings (set number of repetitions, set amount of time, or until|
|Instructional Methods and |Some of the methods that produced |fluency criteria were reached) (NICHHD, 2000, p. 3). |
|Features |“clear improvement”—albeit with small | |
| |sample sizes within each |Repeated readings “combined with other [guiding] procedures such as a |
| |category—(NICHHD, 2000, p.3-15) |particular type of oral reading feedback . . . or phrasing support for the|
| |included the following ( |reader” (NICHHD, 2000, p. 3). |
| | | |
| | |Practice of oral reading “while listening to the text being read |
| | |simultaneously” (NICHHD, 2000, p. 3). |
| | | |
| | | |
| | | |
| | | |
| | | |
| | | |
| | | |
| | | |
| | | |
| | | |
| | | |
| | | |
| | | |
| | | |
| | | |
| | | |
| | | |
| | | |
| | | |
| | | |
| | | |
| | | |
| | | |
| | | |
| | | |
| | | |
| | | |
| | | |
| | | |
| | | |
| | | |
| | | |
| | | |
| | | |
| | | |
| | | |
| | | |
| | | |
|Instructional Methods and | | |
|Features (continued) | | |
| | | |
| | | |
| | | |
| | | |
| | | |
| | | |
| | | |
| | | |
| | | |
| | | |
| | | |
| | | |
| | | |
| | | |
| | | |
| | | |
| | | |
| | | |
| | | |
| | | |
| | | |
| | | |
| | | |
| | | |
| | | |
| | | |
| | |
| |Oral reading practice (general). In the their description of effective repeated oral reading programs, the NRP |
| |stated that many of these programs provided increased oral reading practice “through the use of one-to-one |
| |instruction, tutors, audiotapes, peer guidance, or other means,” compared to earlier approaches (NICHHD, 2000, p. |
| |3-11). Similarly, discussing the importance of developing word-analysis skills in context, Curtis (2004) noted, |
| |“In this regard, oral reading is increasingly being recognized for its effectiveness with older as well as younger|
| |readers” (Curtis, 2004, p. 126, citing Allinder, Dunse, Brunken & Obermiller-Krolikowski, 2001; NICHHD, 2000). |
| |Repeated oral reading. Repeated oral reading techniques are widely acknowledged as an effective method to improve |
| |student fluency. For example: |
| |As noted above, the National Reading Panel found that “repeated [oral] reading procedures have a clear impact on |
| |the reading ability of . . . students with various kinds of reading problems throughout high school” (NICHHD, |
| |2000, p. 3-17). |
| |A report on adolescent literacy to the National Association of State Boards of |
| |Education endorsed this finding, stating, “There are specific methods to improve students’ automaticity so that |
| |readers can process text with minimal errors. Repeated readings, assessing word accuracy and reading rates, and |
| |providing models through paired reading or reading aloud can improve decoding, reading rates, expressive reading, |
| |and comprehension of passages that the reader has not seen” (NASBE, 2006, p. 21). |
| |Curtis (2004) acknowledged that “repeated reading techniques . . . are very effective in improving fluency (as |
| |measured by rate) in older as well as younger students,” though she also raised questions about how well those |
| |gains transfer to comprehension (p. 127). |
| | |
| |Modeling. Summarizing “suggestions for helping adolescents who struggle with word identification [that] have |
| |emerged from the work of researchers and clinicians” (p. 128), Curtis (2004) stated, “Fluent reading should be |
| |modeled, with numerous opportunities for students to practice. . . . Teachers should read aloud with their |
| |students, directing their attention to the rhythms in written language” (p. 129; emphasis in original). Similarly,|
| |describing ways to help students build decoding skills, Peterson et al. (2000) claimed, “Struggling readers |
| |benefit from expert modeling of fluent reading” (p. 13, citing Chall, 1996). |
| | |
| |Modeling is also a component, together with monitoring student growth, of “assisted” reading—a procedure that has |
| |been recommended by some experts to help develop student fluency. According to Curtis (2004), “Providing students |
| |with a model of fluent reading, along with a means for monitoring their growth, has been emphasized by some |
| |proponents of the use of repeated readings with adolescents (Harris, Marchand-Martella & Martella, 2000; |
| |Hasbrouck, Ihnot & Rogers, 1999). Based on their review of fluency research conducted with both younger and older |
| |students, Stahl and Kuhn (2002) also conclude that such ‘assisted’ repeated reading produces better results than |
| |an unassisted approach” (Curtis, 2004, p. 127). |
| | |
| |Independent reading. While most of the research on effective fluency practices relates to oral reading in a |
| |planned context, independent reading is also described by some experts as an important part of helping students |
| |develop fluency. For example, after describing oral reading practices, Curtis (2004) stated, “Teens need to be |
| |provided with opportunities and encouragement to read independently as well” (p. 129). |
| |Practice with reading words in meaningful contexts. In response to the question “What kinds of practice develop |
| |fluency?” the National Reading Panel referenced evidence that “reviewing and rehearsing word lists” is |
| |“insufficient as it may fail to transfer when the practiced words are presented in a meaningful context” (citing |
| |Fleischer, Jenkins & Pany, 1979), and then stated, “Competent reading requires skills that extend beyond the |
| |single-word level to contextual reading, and this skill can best be acquired by practicing reading in which the |
| |words are in a meaningful context” (NICHHD, 2000, pp. 3-10–3-11). Curtis (2004) made the same point, arguing that |
| |“Opportunities to practice identification of words in context should be frequent. Word identification should never|
| |be viewed by students as an end in |
| |itself; it must always be seen as a means to an end” (Curtis, 2004, p. 129; emphasis in original). |
| |Level-appropriate texts. Allington (2006) argued that one cause of student difficulties related to reading fluency|
| |may be because “they have had limited reading practice in appropriately leveled materials” (p. 95) and instead |
| |have been reading texts that are too difficult. He stated further, “[T]he widespread evidence that struggling |
| |readers are often placed in texts that are too hard (given the level of support available) and the commonness of |
| |fluency problems in these students suggests that this hypothesis deserves consideration” (p. 96). This suggests |
| |that it may be particularly important to ensure that texts that are made available for student reading should be |
| |at an appropriate level of difficulty. |
| | |
| |Part of a larger reading program context. The National Reading Panel found that in all the repeated oral reading |
| |and guided repeated oral reading studies they |
| |reviewed, “the fluency work was only part of the instruction that students received” (NICHHD, 2000, p. 3-20). They|
| |cited a study cautioning against too much focus on fluency issues as a potential distraction from reading |
| |comprehension, then concluded that repeated oral reading should occur “in the context of an overall reading |
| |program, not as stand-alone interventions” (NICHHD, 2000, p. 3-20, citing Anderson, Wilkinson & Mason, 1991). |
| |Similarly, Underwood and Pearson (2004) argued for “a balance that does justice to issues of comprehension, |
| |writing in response to reading, and critical examinations of text,” providing “rich opportunities to learn to |
| |comprehend printed text, while still providing a focus on the teaching of decoding skills, promoting growth in |
| |sight words, and providing opportunities and incentives for easy recreational reading. . . . Fluency—along with |
| |its attendant correlates, accuracy and automaticity—may indeed be a necessary, but surely not sufficient, |
| |condition for comprehension” (p. 139). |
| |Sight word recognition training. Based on a combination of theoretical analysis and empirical evidence, Pressley |
| |(2000) concluded that training in “rapid recognition” of common words can improve students’ comprehension (pp. |
| |546–547, 552, citing LaBerge & Samuels, 1974; Tan & Nicholson, 1997).[4] Other research has verified that sight |
| |word instruction can be highly effective across multiple age ranges for students with moderate and severe |
| |disabilities (Browder & Xin, 1998).[5] Taken together, these findings suggest a potential value for training |
| |students to recognize the most frequent sight words. |
| |Specific oral reading formats. Allington (2006) identified a variety of specific intervention strategies that |
| |“have demonstrated effectiveness in developing fluency and, concurrently, fostering comprehension” (p. 96). Some |
| |of these included the following: |
| |Choral-reading, in which “all the students in a group read aloud together” (p. 99). |
| |Echo-reading, in which “[t]he teacher provides the fluent model, reading in phrases and with appropriate |
| |intonation” (p. 100), after which the students imitate the teacher. |
| |Rereading for performance, a label for several activities (e.g., Reader’s Theater, Be the Character, and Oprah) in|
| |which “readers must attempt to take on the actual voice of the characters as well as attitude, stance, and |
| |personality. In each case multiple readings of the text, or segments of the text, are necessary” (pp. 103–104). |
| |Extensive reading. Pressley (2000) noted that “[t]he development of fluent, automatic word recognition depends on |
| |many encounters with words . . . with the most natural way for that to occur through reading and lots of it” (p. |
| |553, citing LaBerge & Samuels, 1974). Similarly, Allington (2006) claimed, “In learning to read it is true that |
| |reading practice—just reading—is a powerful contributor to the |
| |development of accurate, fluent, high-comprehension reading” (p. 35). |
| |Regular assessment. The NRP recommended that “teachers should assess fluency regularly,” using both formal and |
| |informal methods (NICHHD, 2000, p. 3-4). Such informal methods can include “reading inventories . . . miscue |
| |analysis . . . pausing indices . . . running records . . . and reading speed calculations” (NICHHD, 2000, p. 3-9, |
| |citing 5 studies). Similarly, the NRC report recommended that “Because the ability to obtain meaning from print |
| |depends so strongly on the development of . . . reading fluency,” fluency “should be regularly assessed in the |
| |classroom, permitting timely and effective instructional response” (Snow, Burns & Griffin, 1998, p. 323). |
| |Allington (2006) cautioned, “For rate and fluency data to be useful, they need to be gathered regularly from texts|
| |that are used in the classroom” (p. 90). He argued specifically against rate of reading for isolated word lists |
| |and pseudo-words. |
| |Validity of oral reading fluency measures. According to Hasbrouck and Tindal (2006), measuring student oral |
| |reading fluency in terms of words correct per minute “has been shown, in both theoretical and empirical research, |
| |to serve as an accurate and powerful indicator of overall reading competence, especially in its correlation with |
| |comprehension. The validity and reliability of these measures has been well established in a body of research |
| |extending over the past 25 years” (citing Fuchs, Fuchs, Hosp & Jenkins, 2001; Shinn, 1998). For example, several |
| |studies have shown that third-grade tests of oral reading fluency from the DIBELS correlated well to high-stakes |
| |reading assessments from Arizona, Colorado, Florida, North Carolina, and Oregon. |
| |Oral reading fluency norms. Based on analysis of assessment data from a pool ranging from approximately 3,500 to |
|Instructional Methods and |over 20,000 students collected between 2000 and 2005, Hasbrouck and Tindal (2006) have developed a new set of oral|
|Features (continued) |reading fluency norms to replace the widely used norms that were published in 1992 (Hasbrouck & Tindal, 1992). The|
| |new norms “align closely with both those published in 1992, and also closely match the widely used DIBELS norms . |
| |. . with few exceptions.” These new norms cover grades 1–8 and provide information for 90th, 75th, 50th, 25th, and|
| |10th percentile rankings. |
| | |
|Researchers also provided specific norm-related recommendations for using oral reading results for screening, diagnosis, and monitoring student|
|progress: |
| |
|Screening. “Fluency-based assessments have been proven to be efficient, reliable, and valid indicators of reading proficiency when used as |
|screening measures” (citing Fuchs et al., 2001; Good, Simmons & Kame’enui, 2001). |
| |
|Diagnosis. According to the authors, oral reading fluency norms “can play a useful role in diagnosing possible problems that are primarily |
|fluency based.” |
| |
|Monitoring Progress. Oral-reading fluency measures “have been found by many educators to be better tools for making decisions about students’ |
|progress than traditional standardized measures, which can be time-consuming, expensive, are only administered infrequently, and have limited |
|instructional utility” (citing Good et al., 2001; Tindal & Marston, 1990). |
| |
| |
|Demonstration of Fluency Alignment |
|in California Treasures |
|Summary of Research |Demonstration of Fluency Alignment |[pic] |
|Recommendations for Fluency |in California Treasures K–8 | |
| |
|California Treasures provides support for fluency through daily opportunities to practice fluency and weekly fluency lessons with explicit |
|instruction and leveled practice. Fluency instruction reflects the guidance of Jan Hasbrouck with the basic belief that fluency refers to accuracy, |
|speed, and proper expression during oral reading. This belief has been enhanced by Tim Shanahan’s contributions and his work on the National Reading |
|Panel. |
| |
|The goal of fluency instruction in California Treasures is for students to perceive authors’ written thoughts with clear understanding and with the |
|kind of phrasing, pausing, and emphasis that make their reading sound like fluid language. The following Best Practices are emphasized in the |
|curriculum: |
| |
|◦Fluency progress is monitored to determine students’ needs |
|◦Models of fluent reading are available (audio CDs of main selections and Leveled Readers) |
|◦Students have repeated opportunities to read and reread text orally |
|◦A variety of formats are available for fluency practice, including partner-reading, echo-reading, reading while listening, and choral-reading |
|◦Students are taught how to time their own reading and chart progress to provide evidence that practice helps. |
| |
|Examples: Grade 1, Unit 1, pp. 37D, 65D, 65J-K |
|Grade 2, Unit 1, pp 77A, 77I, 81X, 81Y, 81Z |
|Grade 3, Unit 2, pp. 188, 205A, 211M-N, 211Q, and 211S. |
| |
|To further monitor fluency, the Fluency Assessment component provides leveled assessments. The DIBELS Correlation provides teachers guidance in using|
|DIBELS results to inform instruction. |
| | |
|Fluency instruction is included in |California Treasures Primary Grades Example: Students read each story multiple times with varying degrees of |
|the form of repeated oral reading |scaffolded supports, such as Choral-Reading with the teacher providing modeling and corrective feedback; |
|procedures through the fourth-grade|Partner-Reading and Independent Reading with the teacher circulating and listening in to provide support and |
|level. |feedback; or Echo-Reading, with the teacher modeling pronunciation and students reading back to the teacher one |
| |sentence at a time. Students also echo-read with a partner giving the partner feedback, such as “sound out this |
|English-Language Arts |word.” |
|California Content Standards | |
|Kindergarten |Typical Example: Kindergarten TE Unit 1, p. 180. Instructions to the teacher: |
|Substrand: Concepts about Print | |
| |Write the following question on chart paper: How can families change? Track the print as you read the question. |
|R K. 1.2 Follow words from left to |Point to the top and bottom of the page. Prompt the children to point to the top and the bottom of the page. |
|right and from top to bottom on the| |
|printed page. |Typical Example: Kindergarten TE Unit 1, p. 202. Instructions to the teacher: |
| |Tell the children that photographs can give information more easily than words can. Turn to the photograph on |
|R K.1.3 Understand that printed |page 29. Ask children to describe what a skunk looks like. [Content Big Book, “Wonders.”] |
|materials provide information. | |
| |First-Grade Example: Unit 3, Weeks 4 & 5. Students read dialogue in Smile, Mike! and Gram and Me. These |
|Grade1: |selections emphasize long /ī/i_e and blends /skr/scr-, /spl/spl-, /spr/spr-, /str/str. |
|1.0 Decoding and Word Recognition | |
|1.16 Read aloud with fluency in a |Upper Grades Example: By the fourth-grade level, students echo-read the main selection. They vary the intonation |
|manner that sounds like natural |of their voices to make what is happening in the text clearer. For the same reason, they also pause at |
|speech. |appropriate places. The teacher models reading aloud from a transparency that contains excerpts of the main |
| |selection. She reads one sentence at a time while students echo-read each sentence. Students practice intonation |
|Grade 5: |and pauses independently. |
|1.1 | |
|Grade 6: |Fifth-Grade Example: Unit 1 emphasizes Proper Phrasing (Pauses and Intonation); Echo- Reading: Punctuation; and |
|1.1 Read aloud narrative and |Choral-Reading: Pronunciation. This unit also emphasizes oral reading tempo. |
|expository text fluently and | |
|accurately and with appropriate |Sixth-Grade Units emphasize Phrase-Cued Text: Pause, stops, and intonation; and reading tempo. |
|pacing, intonation, and expression.| |
| |EL Example: Read with Expression. The teacher models reading a passage phrase by phrase and the dialogue |
| |line-by-line, using expression. The students repeat the reading. Then they are encouraged to read the passage |
| |aloud on their own. In writing, they summarize what is happening in each paragraph. Finally, they practice using |
| |expression when reading their summaries. |
| | |
| |California Treasures Fluency Scope and Sequence |
| |Apply letter/sound knowledge to decode phonetically regular words accurately and quickly (K–8); recognize |
| |high-frequency words; read regularly on independent and instructional levels (K–8); read orally with fluency from|
| |familiar texts (choral, echo, partner, Readers Theater) (K–6); use appropriate pace, expression, intonation, and |
| |phrasing (1–8); read with automaticity (K–8); use punctuation cues in reading; adjust reading rate to purpose, |
| |text difficulty, form, and style; repeated readings; and timed readings (1–8). |
| |Using California Treasures, students read multiple short passages and stories each week in both the Student |
|In grades K–3, materials and |Anthology and Student Workbook. Student texts and Practice Books provide rich independent reading sources. Each |
|resources are provided for daily |week has its own theme and genre. For example, for second grade, Unit 6, Week 5, the weekly theme is “Other |
|independent reading as well as |People, Other Places,” and the genre is Realistic Fiction. The Decodable Reader is “How Bird Was Lured away from |
|daily supported reading and |Fire”; the main selection is “Babu’s Song”; the Vocabulary/Comprehension selection is “E-mails from Other |
|rereading. |Places”; and the Social Studies Link nonfiction article is “Where in the World is Tanzania?” Each Leveled Reader |
| |is realistic fiction with the same theme, vocabulary, and comprehension skills: Approaching Level, “Ice Cool”; On|
| |Level, “Lions at Last”; Beyond Level, “Jolly Good Hockey!”; and the ELL Reader is “The Soccer Team.” The books in|
| |the Classroom Library for the week are about George Washington, Jackie Robinson, and Harriet Tubman. All work |
| |together in a synergy of daily supported reading. |
|Repeated readings are a part of |In the lower grades, students read each story multiple times with varying degrees of scaffolded support such as |
|instruction. |choral-reading, with the teacher providing modeling and corrective feedback. They also echo-read, taking turns |
| |with the teacher or a partner. They |
| |participate in partner-reading and independent reading with the teacher circulating and listening in to provide |
| |support and feedback. |
| | |
| |Typically, in the upper grades, students read aloud literary/narrative text accurately using appropriate |
| |phrasing. A typical fourth-grade lesson example: |
| |The teacher tells students that good readers learn to read groups of words together in phrases. The teacher uses |
| |Transparency 1 to show how the text has been marked with slashes that indicate pauses and stops. A single slash |
| |indicates a pause—usually between phrases. A double slash indicates a stop—usually between sentences. Students |
| |listen carefully to the teacher’s pauses and intonation as the passage is modeled. Students read aloud the |
| |sentences paying close attention to the phrasing. |
|California ELA/ELD Standards | |
|Reading Grades 6–8: |Upper Grades Example: In fifth and sixth grades, typically one student reads aloud, and then a second joins in, |
|E17 Read aloud with appropriate |then a third, and so on, until all students are reading aloud. Another approach is for pairs of students to read |
|pacing, intonation, and expression.|aloud, marking the passage for speed, accuracy, and emphasis. They take turns reading aloud with appropriate |
| |phrasing and intonation. |
| | |
| |EL Example: Guided Support. Throughout the year, the “Teach/Practice/Apply Routine” and the English Learner |
| |supports on transparencies are used to provide additional instruction and practice. |
| | |
| |Primary Grades Example: As a part of a primary grades weekly lesson, the teacher reads aloud a passage from the |
|Fluency instruction includes oral |Practice Book. Students note the teacher’s pronunciation of the vocabulary words and her use of expression. The |
|reading feedback and phrasing |TE provides Think Alouds for the teacher to use to encourage student participation. For example, “If I see words |
|support. |I do not know how to pronounce, I can read slowly, sound out each word, and see if it makes sense in the |
| |sentence. If I can’t figure it out, I can write it down and look it up later.” Next, the teacher reads the |
| |passage one sentence at a time, and asks the students to echo-read. Later, partners take turns echo-reading the |
|California ELA/ELD Standards |passage. Children write down any words that they could not pronounce and look them up later. There are variations|
|Reading Grades 6-8: |of this procedure each week. |
|E17 Read aloud with appropriate | |
|pacing, intonation, and expression.|Upper Grades and EL Example: In the upper grades, typically students read a Practice Book selection aloud. They |
| |watch for commas and exclamation points. Pairs of students read aloud to each other while marking the passage for|
| |speed, accuracy, and emphasis. They take turns reading aloud with appropriate phrasing and intonation. |
|Students practice oral reading |California Treasures Fluency Transparencies with single and double slashes to indicate phrasing are provided for |
|while listening to the text being |choral reading. The transparencies contain several paragraphs from each week’s main selection. Often |
|read simultaneously. |choral-reading is repeated to give students more practice with natural phrasing, tempo, and expression. |
|Increased oral reading practice is |Frequently, students read aloud with the teacher or a partner. For additional fluency practice, students use the |
|provided through the use of |passages in the Practice Book, or they follow along with the reader on the Fluency Solutions Audio CD’s rendition|
|one-to-one instruction, tutors, |of the weekly main selection. |
|audiotapes, and peer guidance. | |
| |Upper Grade Example: Monitor and Clarify—adjust reading rate. Students learn to adjust their rate when reading |
|California English-Language Arts |historical fiction. |
|Content Standards | |
|Reading |Middle Grades and EL Examples: Each new vocabulary word appears in bold type when it first appears in the reading|
| |selection. The word and its pronunciation, part of speech, and |
| |definition appear at the bottom of the same page. Some vocabulary words are explained with the help of pictures. |
|1.0 Word Analysis, Fluency, and | |
|Systematic Vocabulary Development. | |
|Word Recognition |Selection footnotes explain words or phrases that students may not know so that they can better understand the |
|1.1 Read aloud narrative and |story. On the “After You Read” pages, students can practice using the vocabulary words in an exercise. This |
|expository text fluently and |exercise shows them how to use a |
|accurately and with appropriate |vocabulary strategy to understand new or difficult words. Many of the “After You Read” pages also introduce |
|pacing, intonation, and expression.|students to examples of academic vocabulary. They use these words to answer questions. |
| | |
|California ELA/ELD Standards |In the middle grades, students are taught to speak slowly, clearly, and in a normal tone of voice. They are |
|Reading Grades 6-8: |encouraged to pause a few seconds after making an important point. They practice pronunciation and vocal |
|B1, E1, I1 Recognize and correctly |projection with partners. |
|pronounce most English phonemes | |
|while reading aloud. Produce most | |
|English phonemes comprehensibly | |
|while reading aloud. Apply | |
|knowledge of common English | |
|morphemes in oral reading. | |
| | |
| | |
|Students read texts at the |Student Readers and the ELL Readers highlight the weekly literature theme and genre, and all students, regardless|
|appropriate instructional level to |of reading level, share the same theme, vocabulary, and comprehension skills. The Decodable Reader, Student Text,|
|supplement repeated oral reading. |with the main selection, Vocabulary/Comprehension Book, and book for the content links, such as Social Studies or|
| |Science, are supplementary texts. The audio CD Listening Library contains main selections, leveled readers, and |
|California ELA/ELD Standards |the Intervention Anthology for fluency solutions. Leveled Trade Books that reflect the week’s theme and genre are|
|Reading Grade 8 |available in the Classroom Library. There is also a Leveled Reader Database with available titles at |
|1.0 Word Analysis, Fluency, and |. |
|Systematic Vocabulary Development. | |
| |Middle School Example: Students analyze Academic Vocabulary using graphic organizers. On page 380 of the sixth |
|Students use their knowledge of |grade text, students analyze a selection using “mental activity.” In another example (p. 355), they compare the |
|word origins and word |word instructor with the word teacher. They fill in the blanks of a sentence that is based on the selection they |
|relationships, as well as |are reading to further enhance their understanding of the words’ relationships. |
|historical and literary context | |
|clues, to determine the meaning of | |
|specialized vocabulary and to | |
|understand the precise meaning of | |
|grade-level-appropriate words. | |
| |Retelling Cards are used each week as part of the fluency program. Leveled Readers are used each day to reinforce|
| |the weekly theme. Graphic organizers and strategies such as compare and contrast also emphasize fluency. The |
| |teacher uses Fluency Quick Checks each |
| |day to determine small group instruction. Through use of “Home-School Connection” stories, parents and other |
|Repeated oral reading occurs in the|caregivers can help students become more fluent readers. |
|context of the overall program | |
|and not as a stand-alone |Middle School Example: “Write with Style,” Seventh Grade. California Treasures Glencoe Literature, page 383. |
|intervention. |After reading Annie Dillard’s From an American Childhood, a memoir about growing up in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, |
| |students think of a memorable experience they had when they were younger. They write with a tone that reflects |
| |how they felt. They use a graphic organizer to map out their approach. |
| | |
| |In California Treasures Glencoe Literature, students use a variety of graphic organizers to help them arrange |
| |information. The graphic organizers include: Venn diagrams, compare-and-contrast charts, cluster diagrams, and |
| |chain-of-events charts. |
| |In the California Treasures curriculum, silent reading is supported by audio and oral fluency activities. |
|Adolescent and ELL students read | |
|extensively. |Students practice reading from a variety of genres (short stories, essays, poems, plays) and content areas |
| |(science, literature, social studies). |
|ELD Standards | |
|Reading |The program includes activities and print resources for reading. using anthologies and copies of Time magazine. |
|E15 Read simple paragraphs and | |
|passages independently. |The program also provides a list of suggested additional readings for each unit in the Resources section of the |
| |Teacher Resource Guide. These represent additional book-length texts that teachers can make available to their |
| |students. |
| |In California Treasures, fluent oral reading is modeled by the expert recordings of the fluency passages. |
|Instruction should include modeling|Students can choose to listen to these expert recordings as often as they wish. The Fluency Solutions CD provides|
|of fluent reading. |leveled practice. Leveled Readers meet a wide range of fluency needs. The Listening Library of CDs models many |
| |selections. |
| |The Teacher Resource Guide section on Fluency encourages teachers to model fluent oral reading and provides tips |
| |for doing so effectively. |
| |The Professional Development Module gives guidance to teachers for modeling oral reading. |
| | |
| |An optional on-site professional development session on “Scaffolded Instruction to Build Fluency” helps teachers |
| |explore activities that build accuracy, phrasing, and expression using paired readings, repeated readings, choral|
| |readings, and phrase-cued text lessons, including many techniques that involve modeling fluent reading. |
| |Throughout the program, reading skills are practiced in the context of a paragraph, a passage, or a selection. |
|Fluency practice should focus on |Even when individual vocabulary words are taught, a sample sentence is always provided. Students are not drilled |
|reading words in meaningful |on lists of words. |
|contexts. | |
| |First-Grade EL Example: Unit 1, TE p. 131 HH. Reread for Fluency. Students reread a portion of “Soccer.” They |
|English-Language Arts |tell a partner what the selection is about. They focus on 2–4 pages and work with the teacher and/or other |
|California Content Standards R |children to read with expression and at the appropriate pace. They choral-read each sentence, stopping briefly |
|1.1.16 |whenever they come to the end of a sentence. |
|Fluency programs should train |The units in California Treasures teach common “instant words” that students must learn to recognize by sight, |
|students to quickly recognize |since they do not feature phonemic sound-spelling correspondences. These sight words are first introduced in |
|high-frequency “sight words.” |isolation, and then students gain practice reading them in the context of sentences and poems. According to |
| |reputable research sources, the frequent sight words represent approximately 50 percent of all the words |
| |appearing in |
| |written English (Fry, 1997, 1999, 2004). |
| | |
|Language Modalities should be |The California Treasures program incorporates both oral and written language use. Reading, writing, speaking, and|
|integrated for English Learners. |listening are integrated in a variety of ways; for example: |
| |--Writing activities support reading themes and ideas |
| |--Audio support is provided for written texts |
| |--Online fluency activities integrate reading, listening, and speaking |
| |--Group activities incorporate speaking and listening related to texts students have read |
| |--Reteaching activities include oral teacher modeling, oral student responses, and student reading. |
| |Choral-Reading |
|Instruction should incorporate |The Fluency section of the Teacher Resource Guide encourages teachers to use choral- reading and provides tips |
|formats for oral reading fluency |for how to implement it in the classroom. |
|activities that are supported by |The online oral reading fluency Professional Development Module models choral reading for teachers. |
|research and/or expert opinion, |On-site professional development sessions can also provide modeling of choral reading activities. |
|such as: | |
| |Upper Grades Choral Reading: In Grade 5, Unit 2, Week 1, the main selection is Shiloh. The fluency strategy for |
|Choral reading |this selection is Choral-Reading: Punctuation. This strategy is repeated in Week 3, when “Maya Lin: Architect of|
|Echo reading |Memory” is the main selection. In Unit 6, Week 5, the fluency strategy is Choral-Reading: Pauses and Intonation, |
|Reading for performance |and the main selection is “Hidden Worlds: Looking Through a Scientist's Microscope.” |
| | |
| |Echo-Reading |
| |The Fluency section of the Teacher Resource Guide suggests echo-reading as an activity that students can complete|
| |with each other in pairs or can complete after listening to the teacher model the reading. |
| | |
| |Upper Grades Echo-Reading. For Grade 6, Unit 6, Week 2, the fluency strategy uses punctuation, context voices' |
| |clues, and characters' voices. The main selection is LAFFF. Another example: Pronunciation of vocabulary and |
| |other hard words in Unit 5; the main selection is Many Countries, One Currency: Europe and the Euro. |
| | |
| |Reading for Performance: |
| |The Fluency section of the Teacher Resource Guide includes subsections on Readers Theater and radio reading, both|
| |of which are forms of reading for performance. The Teacher Resource Guide provides tips for implementing both of |
| |these approaches in the classroom. |
| | |
| |Reading for Performance in the Upper Grades: The fluency strategy for Grade 6, Unit 3, is Readers Theater: |
| |Dialogue, Tempo, and Intonation; the main selection is The Case of the Phantom Poet. Another example occurs in |
| |Grade 4, Unit 5, where the fluency strategy is Dialogue and Characters' Roles in Putting on a Play: “Ranita, the |
| |Frog Princess.” |
| |Formal Methods: One group of students per week is assessed using the timed readings in the Grades 1–6 Fluency |
|Fluency is assessed regularly using|Assessment Book. The Oral Fluency Record Sheet is used to track the number of words read correctly. |
|both formal and informal methods. | |
| |Informal Methods: Students are regularly assessed in the classroom through informal reading inventories, miscue |
| |analyses, pausing indices, running records, and reading speed calculations. Leveled Practice Books are also used |
| |for fluency assessment. For example, in |
| |second grade, a fluency assessment strategy for Approaching Level Options is for students to read aloud the |
| |fluency passage in Practice Book A (page 215) paying close attention to |
| |the words inside quotation marks. Another strategy is to have students follow along as the |
| |teacher rereads the fluency passage from the main selection in the Practice Book modeling expressive reading. |
| |Students also practice fluency assessment with partners. |
| |The Fluency Goal for California Treasures is Speed |
|Students’ oral reading fluency is | |
|measured in terms of words correct |As early as first grade, students time each other while partner reading. They become skilled at using the |
|per minute (WCPM). |Informal Reading Inventory to check each other’s reading for miscues and WCPM. They set class goals as well as |
| |personal goals. As the students progress through the grade levels, they increase their speed and accuracy. |
| | |
| |In the Fluency Assessment Book for grades 1–6, text passages that are several paragraphs in length—not words from|
| |a list—are used along with the Oral Fluency Record Sheet to track the number of words read correctly. One group |
| |of students is assessed each week. By second grade, for example, the fluency goal for On Level students is 79–99 |
| |words correct per minute (WCPM). Approaching Level students are tested in weeks 1, 3, and 5; On Level students |
| |are tested in weeks 2 and 4; and Beyond Level students are tested in week 6. Using these assessments, the teacher|
| |is able to diagnose and prescribe. For example, if a student is reading 72-78 WCPM, the Audio CD, Fluency |
| |Solutions, is used for remediation, and if a student is reading 0-71 WCPM, the student is evaluated for |
| |intervention with the Dynamic Indicators of Basic Early Literacy Skills (DIBELS). |
| | |
| |By the end of fourth grade, students read a 179-word unfamiliar text with comprehension check. The teacher |
| |records first-read WPM, Number or Errors, and Words Correct Score; and second-read WPM, Number of Errors, and |
| |Words Correct Score. |
| | |
|English-Language Arts |Example: TE: Unit 1: p. 106. Concepts about Print. The teacher displays the Big Book cover. She turns to the |
|California Content Standards |title page (The Picnic at Apple Park) and reads it with the children as she tracks the print. The teacher |
|Substrand: Concepts about Print |explains that this page is called the title page. The teacher points out the author’s (Alma Flor Ada) and |
|R K.1.1 Identify the front cover, |illustrator’s (Ana Iosa) names. |
|back cover, and title page of a | |
|book. | |
|Grade 1: | |
|R 1.1.2 | |
|Components of Reading |Vocabulary |4 |
| |
|“Of the many compelling reasons for providing students with instruction to build vocabulary, none is more important than the contribution of |
|vocabulary knowledge to reading comprehension” Baumann, Kame‘enui & Ash, 2003. |
| |
|A. What is vocabulary? |
| |
|Vocabulary is knowledge of the meaning, use, and pronunciation of individual words. It includes both oral vocabulary—words we use in speaking or |
|recognize in listening—and reading vocabulary—words we use or recognize in print. Vocabulary is a key component of comprehension. Before readers |
|can understand the meaning of spoken or written text, they must know what most of the words mean. |
| |
|B. Why is vocabulary instruction important? |
| |
|Much of our vocabulary knowledge comes from simple exposure to new words in context. However, research has verified that direct instruction in |
|vocabulary—specifically teaching the meaning of new words, and teaching strategies for vocabulary building—has a positive impact on students’ |
|language development. Two links (comprehension and specific skills) to vocabulary development are discussed below: |
| | |
|Link between vocabulary development and reading comprehension. |Effects on specific skill areas. |
| | |
|According to the National Reading Panel (NRP), although a direct causal link |According to a review of research on early childhood reading |
|between vocabulary development and reading comprehension has not been |commissioned by the National Research Council (NRC), “Vocabulary |
|established by research, still a variety of studies “underscore the notion |instruction generally does result in measurable increase in |
|that comprehension gains and improvement on semantic tasks are results of |students’ specific word knowledge. Sometimes, and to some degree, it|
|vocabulary learning” (NICHHD, 2000, pp. 4-15, 4-20, citing 7 studies). |also results in better performance on global vocabulary measures, |
| |such as standardized tests, indicating that the instruction has |
|Similarly, a longitudinal study on early reading development among British |evidently enhanced the learning of words beyond those directly |
|schoolchildren found evidence that vocabulary knowledge, as tested at the |taught. Second, pooling across studies, vocabulary instruction also |
|start of the students’ first year of school, was one of three predictors of |appears to produce increases in children’s reading comprehension” |
|reading comprehension during the first year, as tested at the start of the |(Snow, Burns & Griffin, 1998, p. 217). |
|students’ third year of school—a span of two school years (Muter et al., | |
|2004). | |
| |
|C. Who benefits from vocabulary instruction? |
| |
|At least five studies reviewed by the NRP supported vocabulary instruction by the third-grade level. The NRC report expanded the grade range of |
|students who can benefit from vocabulary instruction, advocating direct instruction in vocabulary development for “children who have started to |
|read independently, typically second-graders and above” so that they will “sound out and confirm the identities of visually unfamiliar words” |
|(Snow, Burns & Griffin, 1998, p. 322). The NRP analysis underscored the fact that development of reading ability is dependent on oral vocabulary:|
|in order for students to understand a word once it has been decoded, it must already be part of their vocabulary (NICHHD, 2000, p. 4-15). |
|Similarly, the NRC report argues, “Learning new concepts and the words that encode them is essential for comprehension development” (Snow, Burns & |
|Griffin, 1998, p. 217). Based on these factors, it seems reasonable to conclude that even before students can read independently, direct methods |
|for building oral vocabulary may help contribute to students’ ultimate success in reading. |
| |
|“The importance of semantic knowledge shows up in the strong correlations between comprehension and the size and degree of both general and |
|passage-specific word knowledge, and vocabulary.”—Building Reading Proficiency at the Secondary Level: A Guide to Resources, Southwest Educational |
|Development Laboratory (Peterson et al., 2000, p. 13, citing Beck & McKeown, 1991). |
|D. Research Recommendations |
| |Instructional Methods and Features |
|Range and Scope of Instruction | |
|Grade Levels. Given the NRP research findings related to effectiveness of vocabulary|Multiple strategies, incorporating direct and indirect |
|instruction at third grade and above, and the NRC recommendations for direct |vocabulary instruction. Based on research surveyed by the |
|instruction in vocabulary at the second-grade level, instruction in vocabulary seems |NRP, “It is clear that vocabulary should be taught both |
|appropriate by the second- and third-grade levels. Before that point, exposure to new|directly and indirectly”—that is, using both explicit |
|words and concepts through oral vocabulary development is a worthwhile goal, since |instruction in vocabulary and methods of decoding word |
|“even at the youngest ages, the ability to understand and remember the meanings of |meanings, on the one hand, and more contextual approaches to |
|new words depends quite strongly on how well developed one’s vocabulary already is” |exposing students to vocabulary on the other (NICHHD, 2000, |
|(Snow, Burns & Griffin, 1998, p. 217, citing Robbins & Ehri, 1994). “[A]lmost all |p. 4-24). Based on both the research results it reviewed and|
|students need to be supported as they learn unfamiliar vocabulary.”—Position |theoretical considerations, the NRP further recommended that |
|statement from the International Reading Association’s Commission on Adolescent |reading instruction include a combination of different |
|Literacy (Moore et al., 1999, p. 4). |strategies, both direct and indirect, for building |
|To succeed academically in high school and to prepare for college, students need to |vocabulary, rather than relying on only one method (NICHHD, |
|know academic vocabulary—special terms used in classroom discussion, assignments, and|2000, p. 4-27). |
|tests. These words are also used in the workplace. | |
| | |
|Role of Vocabulary Knowledge in Adolescent|Vocabulary knowledge is a key component of both general reading comprehension and content-area literacy.|
|Literacy |As Pressley (2000) stated, |
| |“The extent of a reader’s vocabulary is related to the person’s comprehension skills (e.g., Anderson & |
| |Freebody, 1981; Nagy, Anderson & Herman, 1987). Particularly important here, there are experimental data|
| |making clear that a more extensive vocabulary promotes comprehension skill” (p. 548, citing Beck, |
| |Perfetti & McKeown, 1982; McKeown, Beck, Omanson, & Perfetti, 1983; McKeown, Beck, Omanson, & Pople, |
| |1985). |
| | |
| |As students grow older, vocabulary knowledge becomes critical not only for general reading |
| |comprehension, but also for content-area learning. As Readence and colleagues (2004) wrote, “all groups|
| |of people . . . share special idioms and technical terminology which characterize the group. ‘Insiders’ |
| |use this vocabulary freely and through it gain access to the collective knowledge of the group.” |
| | |
| |The task of the content teacher is to help students become insiders whose minds move with facility in |
| |the fields of science, English, social studies, or mathematics. To a large extent, this is accomplished |
| |by teaching them the technical terminology of each discipline (p. 139). |
| | |
|Vocabulary |According to Pressley (2000), “Although vocabulary can be taught, most vocabulary words are learned |
|Acquisition |incidentally as a function of encounters in context” (p. 548, citing Sternberg, 1987). Such word |
| |acquisition is not automatic; indeed, research has found that only 5 percent to 15 percent of the |
| |unfamiliar words readers encounter will actually be learned from that encounter (Beck et al., 2002, |
| |citing Nagy, Herman & Anderson, 1985; Swanborn & de Glopper, 1999). Researchers have identified a |
| |variety of factors that affect whether and how easily individuals learn specific words from context, |
| |including how many encounters they have with the word; the range and variety of sources for those |
| |encounters; and how the word is referenced within the text for those encounters (Blachowicz and Fisher, |
| |2000, p. 508; Baumann et al., 2003, pp. 755–756). |
| | |
| |An important complicating factor in describing vocabulary learning is the fact that students’ word |
| |learning is not simply an on/off switch, but rather a matter of degree and even type of knowledge. For |
| |example, it may require less knowledge to understand what a word means within a specific written context|
| |than to use it appropriately in writing or speaking (Baumann et al., 2003, p. 755). As Beck and |
| |colleagues (2002) stated, “It is not the case that one either knows or does not know a word. In fact, |
| |word knowledge is a rather complex concept. . . . [T]he extent of knowledge one may have about |
| |individual words can range from a little to a lot, and . . . there are qualitatively different kinds of |
| |knowledge about words” (p. 9). Depending on the measure that is used, the same person may be assessed as|
| |either knowing or not knowing a specific word. |
|Vocabulary Instruction |Researchers describe several broad approaches to learning vocabulary, including: |
| |Encouraging wide reading and broad language exposure to stimulate students’ incidental word learning |
| |Instruction in transferable and generalizable strategies that can help students become more proficient |
| |at learning vocabulary on their own |
| |Direct instruction in specific vocabulary words |
| | |
| |Research supports all three broad approaches. Because they operate in different ways and toward |
| |different goals, there is a potential value in incorporating all these approaches as part of vocabulary |
| |instruction. For example, Baumann and colleagues (2003) recommended that programs for teaching |
| |vocabulary should “include goals that provide for teacher-initiated vocabulary learning as well as ones |
|All three approaches should be |that strive for student independence in vocabulary learning” and should “include instruction in both |
|incorporated in vocabulary instruction. |specific-word and transferable and generalizable strategies” (p. 777). |
| | |
| |Potentially, vocabulary instruction can result in several types of positive outcomes: |
| |Instruction in use of word-learning strategies can transfer, so that students are more likely to |
| |successfully apply the strategies with words they have not previously learned. |
| |Instruction in use of word-learning strategies can transfer, leading to improved comprehension of texts |
| |where use of such strategies is appropriate. |
| |Instruction in specific words can lead to improved word identification or generation of correct word |
| |meanings. |
|Positive outcomes result from best |Instruction in specific words can lead to improved comprehension of texts that use those words. |
|practices in vocabulary instruction. | |
| |Any of these outcomes represent some level of positive results from instruction. The underlying |
| |assumption of research focused on word-level outcomes seems to be that instruction that leads to |
| |improved knowledge of specific vocabulary words may have a long-term, aggregate impact on text |
| |comprehension, even if that outcome is not immediately measurable. |
| | |
| |Vocabulary instruction is particularly critical for English Learners. Describing the immense difficulty |
| |faced by EL students in learning academic English, Short and Fitzsimmons (2007) stated, “The academic |
| |vocabulary challenge alone is overwhelming. Consider that high school students are expected to have a |
| |vocabulary of approximately 50,000 words to be able to master the increasingly complex coursework of |
| |high school (Graves, 2006; Nagy & Anderson, 1984) and the average student learns 3,000 new words each |
| |year. In four years, then, the average beginning ELL might learn 12,000 to 15,000 words without targeted|
| |interventions, falling far short of the 50,000-word goal” (pp. 26–27). |
| | |
| |As noted above, vocabulary knowledge is also particularly important for content-area learning, in part |
| |because so much critical content-area knowledge consists of learning meanings of key technical |
| |vocabulary. Readence et al. (2004) cautioned that much of this vocabulary must be directly taught: |
|Vocabulary instruction is critical for | |
|ELs. |“If there is one thing which contributes most heavily to the burdens of learning technical vocabulary, |
| |it is the simple lack of direct instruction. Teachers frequently assume that students will automatically|
| |assimilate new words just because they are introduced in textbook assignments. This is a mistake. While |
| |incidental learning of word meanings may occur with narrative, story-type material, even across cultures|
| |. . . this will, more than likely, not occur with textbook material” (p. 148). |
| | |
| | |
|Vocabulary knowledge is critical to | |
|content-area learning. | |
| | |
| | |
| | |
|Students do not automatically assimilate | |
|new words—they must be taught. | |
| |Good instruction in vocabulary includes deriving meaning from context (NICHHD, 2000, p. 4-23, citing 2 |
| |studies) and a combination of context-based and definitional approaches (NICHHD, 2000, p. 4-23, citing 2|
| |studies) and “Restructuring the task” of learning new words in a variety of different ways, such as |
|Effective Instructional Methods for Young |providing redundant information and providing sample sentences along with definitions (NICHHD, 2000, pp.|
|Students |4-22–4-23, citing 7 studies). |
| |Direct instruction in “vocabulary items that are required for a specific text to be read as part of the |
| |lesson” (NICHHD, 2000, pp. 4-24–4-25, citing 4 studies). This includes pre-instruction of vocabulary |
| |before the reading or the reading lesson (p. 4-25, citing 3 studies). |
| | |
| | |
| | |
| | |
| | |
|“Active student participation,” which | |
|includes activities such as | |
|student-initiated talk in the context of | |
|listening to storybooks (NICHHD, 2000, pp.| |
|4-21, 4-26, 4-27) is an effective method. | |
| | |
| |Storybook reading. A body of research evidence shows that “reading storybooks aloud to young children .|
| |. . results in reliable gains in incidental word acquisition” (Ewers & Brownson, 1999, p. 12, citing 5 |
| |additional studies). |
| | |
| |These methods call for active student participation, as in finding echoes. These methods reflect the |
| |findings of Ewers and Brownson (1999), who reported on a study in which a storybook with 10 targeted |
| |vocabulary words was read aloud individually to 66 kindergarteners. Pretest-posttest comparison found |
| |that students in both treatments learned a significant number of the targeted vocabulary words; however,|
| |students in the active (question-answering) treatment learned significantly more words than those in the|
| |passive treatment. This result was true both of students with a high phonological working memory and of |
| |those with a low phonological working memory. |
|Characteristics of effective instructional methods for older children, adolescents, and EL students. |
| |A principle identified by Blachowicz and Fisher |“Richness of context in which words are to be learned,” |
| |(2000) was that “students should be active in |including “extended and rich instruction of vocabulary |
| |developing their understanding of words and ways |(applying words to multiple contexts, etc.)” (NICHHD, 2000, |
| |to learn them” (p. 504). |pp. 4-22, 4-27) influence instruction. Along similar lines, |
|Students need richness of context.| |the NRC report cites a review of studies in which “methods in|
| |Similarly, Beck and colleagues (2002) identified |which children were given both information about the words’ |
| |“opportunities for students to interact with word |definitions and examples of the words’ usages in a variety of|
| |meanings in ways that oblige them to think about |contexts resulted in the largest gains in both vocabulary and|
| |what a word means” as a construct that helped |reading comprehension,” compared to drill and practice (Snow,|
| |students develop initial understandings of |Burns & Griffin, 1998, pp. 217–218, citing Stahl & Fairbanks,|
| |vocabulary words (p. 35). |1986). The NRP further recommended that vocabulary items |
| | |should be “derived from content learning materials” and |
| |Extensive reading. |likely to appear in a variety of other contexts as well |
| |There is disagreement among researchers about the |(NICHHD, 2000, p. 4-25). |
| |extent to which vocabulary develops automatically | |
| |in readers—particularly struggling readers—versus |One of four principles identified by Blachowicz and Fisher |
| |the need for direct instruction. There is |(2000) for guiding vocabulary instruction, based on their |
| |universal agreement, however, that vocabulary |analysis of research on vocabulary instruction, was that |
| |knowledge does develop as a side effect of |“students should be immersed in words” (p. 504). |
| |reading. As Baumann and colleagues (2003) stated |According to Blachowicz and Fisher (2000), “Listening studies|
| |in their review of research on vocabulary |. . . studies of family literacy . . . studies of wide |
| |instruction, “We certainly agree with Nagy et al. |reading . . . and more focused studies of incidental word |
| |(1987) and Cunningham and Stanovich (1998) that |learning from context . . . all support the importance of |
|Vocabulary knowledge develops as a|word learning does occur during normal reading and|exposing students to rich language environments. These |
|side effect of reading. |that wide reading is a necessary and probably a |studies with varying contexts and ages of learners all |
| |causal factor for large levels of vocabulary |confirm that environments where language and word use are |
| |growth” (p. 761). Similarly, Allington (2006) |celebrated and noted encourage vocabulary learning” |
| |cited McQuillan’s (1998) summary of correlational |(Blachowicz & Fisher, 2000, p. 507). |
| |studies that “have produced consistent findings |Along similar lines, Baumann et al. (2003) identified one |
| |showing positive correlations between the measures|possible objective for vocabulary instructional programs as |
| |of reading activity [author and/or title |being to “help students to develop an appreciation for words |
| |recognition checklists] and reading comprehension |and to experience enjoyment and satisfaction in their use” |
| |and vocabulary development” (Allington, 2006, p. |(p. 778). Potential ways of doing this included the |
| |39). This suggests an emphasis on broad, extensive|following: |
| |reading as a method to develop vocabulary |“Set a positive model. Demonstrate how word play can be |
| |knowledge, both in order to introduce new words |interesting and enjoyable by expressing the value in |
| |and to broaden and deepen students’ understanding |possessing a versatile vocabulary and by demonstrating how |
| |of words to which they have already been exposed. |word learning can be interesting and fun” (p. 778). |
| | |“Have fun with words. Play word games linked to content |
|There are “positive correlations |Use of audio with written texts. |topics and ones that may be done purely for entertainment and|
|between the measures of reading |According to a review of research on adolescent |enjoyment” (p. 778). |
|activity and reading comprehension|English language learners, “The use of audio books| |
|and vocabulary development” |can also support students’ literacy development, |Systematic and sustained approach. Based on their analysis of|
|(Allington). |especially if students follow along with a written|research on vocabulary instruction, Baumann and colleagues |
| |text; the recordings provide students with models |(2003) recommended to teachers: “Establish vocabulary |
| |for pronunciation and read-aloud fluency. For |learning goals for your students” and “Provide struggling |
| |students whose spoken English is better than their|readers a systematic and sustained program of vocabulary |
| |reading skills, hearing the words read aloud can |instruction that teaches them more important words and |
| |aid in vocabulary comprehension” (Short & |efficient strategies in less time” (p. 777, citing Baker et |
| |Fitzsimmons, 2007, p. 37). |al., 1998a; Kame’enui & Simmons, 1990; Stanovich, 1986). |
| | | |
| |Morphemic analysis. Another general strategy that |Contextual analysis. According to Baumann and colleagues, |
| |has been identified for vocabulary instruction is |“[R]esearch on teaching the process of contextual analysis as|
| |training students in morphemic analysis, which is |a transferable and generalizable skill is somewhat limited |
| |described as “a word identification strategy in |and at times equivocal (cf. Askov & Kamm, 1976; Hafner, |
| |which the meanings of words can be determined or |1965). However, experiments by Buikema and Graves (1993), |
|Use of audio books can support |inferred by examining their meaningful parts,” |Jenkins et al. (1989), Patberg et al. (1984), and Sternberg |
|students’ literacy development |including root words, prefixes, and suffixes |(1987) provide some evidence that instruction in contextual |
|(Short and Fitzsimmons). |(Baumann et al., 2003, p. 773). In their review of|analysis may enable students to infer the meanings of words |
| |research, Baumann and colleagues (2003) |that have not been taught directly” (p. 772). Baumann et al. |
| |determined, “Although several studies suggest that|concluded: “Research on teaching contextual analysis as a |
| |instruction in morphological elements may not be |transferable and generalizable strategy for word learning |
| |fruitful (e.g., Freyd & Baron, 1982; Otterman, |suggests that instruction does facilitate students’ ability |
| |1955), other, perhaps more methodologically and |to infer word meanings from surrounding context, although the|
| |pedagogically sound, experiments suggest that such|relative efficacy of instruction in specific context clues |
| |training may be effective. Specifically, it |versus simple practice in inferring meanings from context |
| |appears as though elementary and middle grade |remains in question” (p. 774). |
| |students can be taught specific morphemic elements| |
| |(e.g., Graves & Hammond, 1980) and that they are |Targeting of appropriate vocabulary words. |
| |able to spontaneously generalize (infer) the |Several researchers have raised issues related to which |
| |meaning of one word from a morphologically similar|specific words should be selected for direct vocabulary |
| |derivative (Wysocki & Jenkins, 1987). There is |instruction. |
| |some indication that students can be taught |--Blachowicz and Fisher (2000) raised the concern that “the |
| |specific morphemes (e.g., prefixes) that may |words chosen for instruction in commercial anthologies might |
| |enable them to unlock the meanings of unknown |be ones that many students already know” (p. 509, citing |
| |words containing these elements; also, there is |Ryder & Graves, 1994; Stallman et al., 1990). |
| |some evidence that teaching students the meanings |--Beck et al. (2002) identified “three things to keep in |
| |of unfamiliar words enables them to infer the |mind” in “evaluating words as possible candidates for |
|Training in morphological elements|meanings of morphologically related words” (p. |instruction”: “How generally useful is the word? . . . How |
|may be effective. |774). |does the word relate to other words, to ideas that students |
| | |know or have been learning? . . . What does the word bring to|
| |Repeated exposures to words. A third principle for|the text or situation?” (p. 29). |
| |guiding vocabulary instruction identified by |Beck and colleagues outlined a multitier system for |
| |Blachowicz and Fisher (2000) was that “students |classifying potential vocabulary words: “The first tier |
| |should build on multiple sources of information to|consists of the most basic words—clock, baby, happy, walk, |
| |learn words through repeated exposures” |and so on. Words in this tier rarely require instructional |
| |(Blachowicz & Fisher, 2000, p. 504). |attention to their meanings in school. The third tier is made|
| | |up of words whose frequency of use is quite low and often |
| |Elaborating further on this principle, Blachowicz |limited to specific domains. . . . The second tier contains |
| |and Fisher (2000) wrote, “Stahl and Fairbanks’ |words that are of high frequency for mature language users |
| |meta-analysis (1986) concluded that methods that |and are found across a variety of domains. Examples include |
| |focus on providing students with multiple sources |coincidence, absurd, industrious, and fortunate. Because of |
| |of information result in superior word learning. |the large role they play in a language user’s repertoire, |
| |Repeated exposures to a word can also be an |rich knowledge of words in the second tier can have a |
| |important component of word learning. Stanley and |powerful impact on verbal functioning. Thus, instruction |
| |Ginther (1991), working with sixth-grade students,|directed toward Tier Two words can be most productive” (p. |
| |supported earlier findings (Gipe, [1978–1979]; |8). Beck et al.’s tier model was described as a “promising |
| |McKeown, 1985) that exposing a word in differing |approach” by Kamil (2003, p. 11). |
| |contexts facilitates word learning” (p. 508). | |
| | |Vocabulary learning outside the classroom. McKeown et al. |
| |This finding connects to the National Reading |(1985) found that fourth-grade students learned vocabulary |
| |Panel’s identification of “multiple, repeated |better when they were motivated to look for targeted |
| |exposures,” including “extended and rich |vocabulary words outside the classroom. Citing this result, |
|Vocabulary words should be useful |instruction of vocabulary (applying words to |Baumann et al. (2003) recommended that teachers should |
|to the text and should relate to |multiple contexts, etc.),” as a characteristic of |“promote student use of vocabulary learned at school in |
|other words and ideas that |effective vocabulary instruction methods in the |nonschool contexts” (p. 778). Along similar lines, they |
|students have been learning |research they surveyed (NICHHD, 2000, p. 4-22). |recommended that teachers should “provide students with |
|(Beck). | |activities that allow them to explore the richness and |
| | |subtleties of word meanings in natural contexts” (p. 778, |
| |Assessment. Based on the variety of measures used |citing Scott, Butler, Asselin & Henry, 1996). |
|Students should have repeated |to assess student vocabulary and the different | |
|exposures to words (Blachowicz and|results those measures can achieve, the National | |
|Fisher). |Reading Panel recommended that vocabulary should | |
| |be assessed in multiple ways in the classroom. In | |
| |particular, they argued that “the more closely the| |
| |assessment matches the instructional context, the | |
| |more appropriate the conclusions about the | |
| |instruction will be” (NICHHD, 2000, p. 4-26). | |
| | | |
| | | |
| | | |
| | | |
| | | |
| | | |
| | | |
| | | |
| | | |
| | | |
| | | |
| | | |
| | | |
|Effective vocabulary instruction | | |
|allows students to apply words to | | |
|multiple contexts. | | |
| | |
| |“High-frequency and multiple, repeated exposures to vocabulary material” is essential (NICHHD, 2000). |
|Specific Strategies for Teaching |Preteaching vocabulary. |
|Vocabulary |Based on their review of the research literature, Baumann et al. (2003) recommended, “Preteach critical |
| |vocabulary necessary to comprehend selections students read in basal readers and in content area textbooks” |
| |(Baumann et al., 2003, p. 778). |
| | |
| |This strategy was also recommended by the National Reading Panel review of vocabulary research. The NRP |
| |recommended direct instruction in “vocabulary items that are required for a specific text to be read as part of |
|Preteach vocabulary (Baumann) |the lesson” (NICHHD, 2000, pp. 4-24–4-25, citing four studies).[6] This included pre-instruction of vocabulary |
| |before the reading or lesson (p. 4-25, citing three studies).[7] |
| | |
| |Introducing word meanings in context. |
| |In contrast with the strategy of preteaching vocabulary, Beck et al. (2002) recommended, “[I]f the word is |
| |likely to affect comprehension of the story, then the most effective place to introduce word meanings may be at |
|Introduce meanings in context |the moment the word is met in the text. . . . [E]ven if students have been introduced to a word’s meaning before|
|(Beck) |reading, their memory for a newly introduced word meaning may still be rather tentative, making it difficult to |
| |bring that meaning into the text” (pp. 42–43). This suggests a value to either teaching students new words in |
| |context, when students first encounter them, or reminding students of previously taught word meanings when they |
| |encounter them in context. |
| | |
| |Student-friendly explanations of new words. |
| |One of the elements Beck and colleagues (2002) identified in the success of their instructional strategy with |
| |fourth-grade students was “student-friendly explanations of words,” which they characterized as incorporating |
| |“two basic principles . . . : (1) Characterize the word and how it is typically used. (2) Explain the meaning in|
| |everyday language” (p. 35). |
| | |
|Explain words in student-friendly |Instructional contexts for vocabulary words. |
|terms (Beck). |Another element Beck et al. (2002) recommended for introducing new words was providing an instructional context.|
| |Instructional contexts were described as differing from natural contexts in that the instructional context is |
| |deliberately constructed so that students can derive the correct meaning of the word from the context (p. 39). |
|Provide an instructional context |In other words, the surrounding words are deliberately designed to help students clarify the meaning of the new |
|(Beck). |word. |
| | |
| |Semantic mapping. |
| |Semantic mapping was identified by Baumann et al. (2003) as a specific research-supported vocabulary-instruction|
| |strategy that “organizes words related to a core concept into meaningful clusters” (p. 766). |
| | |
|Employ semantic mapping (Baumann).|Typically, it involves “[1] Selecting a key or central word from a reading selection about which the teacher can|
| |assume that the students have some familiarity. [2] Having the students free associate on the core word and |
| |generate a list of related words. [3] Organizing the words into categories (and perhaps labeling them). [4] |
| |Discussing alternate ways of categorizing the words, adding new words, and forming new categories” (Baumann et |
| |al., 2003, p. 766). |
| | |
| |Baumann et al. (2003) found that “in the majority of studies . . . semantic mapping . . . appear[s] to be [an] |
| |effective strateg[y] for teaching students the meanings of new words that lie within a semantically related |
| |category [with] which students are familiar. In addition, there is evidence that [this technique] also |
| |promote[s] passage comprehension and [is] effective with learners of diverse ages, ethnic backgrounds, and |
| |reading abilities” (Baumann et al., 2003, p. 767). |
| | |
| |Visual support for word learning. |
| |Describing the needs of adolescent English language learners, Short and Fitzsimmons (2007) identified several |
| |strategies that provide some form of visual support for vocabulary learning: “Students can learn new words |
| |through a variety of methods. Visuals, graphic organizers, [and] demonstrations . . . can help students better |
| |understand and remember words and their meanings” (p. 35). |
| | |
| |Reciprocal peer tutoring. |
| |The National Reading Panel reviewed a research study in which reciprocal peer- tutoring was compared to |
|Adolescents need visual support |traditional vocabulary instruction. The study found that “The 7th and 8th grade students in the reciprocal |
|for new words (Short and |peer-tutoring group had significantly higher scores on weekly vocabulary quizzes” (NICHHD, 2000, p. 4-23, citing|
|Fitzsimmons). |Malone & McLaughlin, 1997). |
| | |
| |Along similar lines, Peterson et al. (2000) stated, “Opportunities for social interaction can help struggling |
| |second language learners acquire linguistic knowledge of English” (p. 14). |
| | |
| |Oral and written composition. |
|Middle School and EL students |Based on their research review, Baumann et al. (2003) recommended, “Engage students in oral and written |
|respond to peer tutoring (NICHHD).|composition on a regular and sustained basis. Have students express themselves in writing and speech daily. |
| |Generative processes must be used and exercised if receptive vocabulary is to become expressive” (p. 778). |
| | |
| |Along similar lines, Blachowicz and Fisher (2000) stated, “For retention and usage, student manipulation of |
| |words in many contexts seems to be critical. We cite . . . Stahl and Vancil's study (1986), which highlights the|
| |importance of discussion in learning and retention of new [content-area] vocabulary” (p. 513). |
| | |
| |Baumann et al. (2003) reviewed one study in particular that showed the potential for writing as part of rich |
|Engage students in written |vocabulary instruction: “Duin and Graves (1987) explored the impact instruction in a set of semantically related|
|composition (Baumann). |words has on essay writing. Seventh-grade students were taught 13 target words over 6 days according to one of |
| |three methods: |
| | |
| |(a) intensive vocabulary and writing instruction (similar to the McKeown et al., 1985, extended rich |
| |instruction, but it included many writing activities), |
|Provide word manipulation in many | |
|contexts (Blachowicz and Fisher). |(b) intensive vocabulary alone (same as intensive vocabulary and writing, but no writing activities were |
| |included), or |
| | |
| |(c) traditional vocabulary instruction (worksheet/definition activities). As measured by a multiple-choice |
| |vocabulary knowledge test, an analysis of the students’ use of target words in essays, and holistic analyses of |
| |the essays, the vocabulary and writing group consistently outperformed the other two groups, and the vocabulary |
| |alone group outperformed the traditional vocabulary group. The authors concluded that teaching a set of related |
| |words to students before they write not only results in students learning the meanings of those words but also |
| |improves the quality of their essays” (Baumann et al., 2003, p. 769). |
| | |
| |Similarly, the authors of the Writing Next report claimed, “Using writing tasks to learn content offers students|
| |opportunities to expand their knowledge of vocabulary” (Graham & Perin, 2007, p. 23). |
| | |
| | |
|Combine vocabulary and writing | |
|instruction (Baumann). | |
…..
|Demonstration of Vocabulary Development Alignment |
|in California Treasures |
|Summary of Research Recommendations for |Demonstration of Alignment |[pic] |
|Vocabulary |Grades K–8 | |
| |
|The strong, explicit vocabulary instruction in California Treasures is based on the research studies of Isabel Beck, Steven Stahl, and the overall |
|guidance of Tim Shanahan. |
| |
|The following concepts form the basis for the instruction: |
| |
|Comprehension improves with well-developed oral vocabulary. |
|Strong vocabulary instruction with emphasis on meaning directly affects reading comprehension. |
|Multiple exposures are necessary for internalization of new words. |
|Instruction needs to include understandable definitions and use of the new words in sentences. |
|Enhanced oral language lessons are important parts of the vocabulary instruction in all grades. |
| |
|In Grades K–2, oral language lessons begin each day to help students build robust oral vocabularies. The oral language lessons in Grades 3–6 appear |
|at the beginning of the week, in the “Prepare” Section. |
| |
|Isabel Beck’s Vocabulary Routine is a strong component of vocabulary instruction in California Treasures: |
|→ Define: Compose a student-friendly definition |
|→ Example: Supply an example that connects to students’ understanding |
|→ Ask: Connect the word to the students’ life experiences |
| |
|Every week, vocabulary instruction in Grades 1–6 begins with a short story for the purpose of word introduction for the three paired selections that |
|follow. The vocabulary lessons use Isabel Beck’s Routine. The new vocabulary is repeated frequently throughout the three selections with additional |
|minilessons at point of use (POU). |
| |
|All Leveled Readers—including the EL Reader—continue to include all of the vocabulary words that are introduced in the first short story of the week.|
|(The EL Reader is a modified version of the On Level Reader.) |
| |
|Guidance for flexible small group instruction is determined through Quick Checks and includes explicit instruction for Approaching, On Level, Beyond,|
|and EL. |
| |
|Enhanced Vocabulary Strategy Instruction begins weekly in first grade, Unit 4, and includes the strategies of dictionary, word parts, and context |
|clues. Vocabulary strategy instruction continues every week in Grades 2–6 and expands the vocabulary strategies taught in those grades. |
| | |
|Vocabulary development begins in kindergarten. |California Treasures Examples for Kindergarten and First Grade: In kindergarten, vocabulary words are|
|Direct instruction in vocabulary begins at the |discussed in relation to the selection in the Read-Aloud Anthology. Students draw pictures of the |
|second-grade level and continues in third grade|words. High-Frequency Word Cards are used for review and assessment of vocabulary words. In Grades |
|and above. |K–1, exposure to new words and concepts comes through oral vocabulary development. |
| | |
|English-Language Arts |Kindergarten Example: TE Unit 1, p. 129. Review Same and Different; TE Unit 1, p. 111. Same and |
|California Content Standards |Different Colors; TE Unit 1, p. 52. Size Words, big, small, tall, short. |
|Kindergarten | |
|1.0 Vocabulary and Concept Development |Kindergarten Example: TE Unit 1, p. 102. Oral Grammar Naming Words (Nouns). Model. Use the Big Book, |
|1.17 Identify and sort common words in basic |The Picnic at Apple Park, to introduce naming words. Nouns can name people, animals, places, or |
|categories (e.g., colors, shapes, foods). |things. |
|1.18 Describe common | |
|objects and events in both general and specific|Kindergarten EL Example: Identify academic language. TE Unit 1, p. 160. Language Objective—Use |
|language. |academic language in classroom conversations. This week’s academic words are boldfaced throughout the|
| |lesson. The teacher defines the word in context and provides a clear example from the selection. EL |
| |students generate examples or words with similar meanings. Newcomer Survival Skill: Basic Requests. |
| | |
|Grades 2 and 3: |First-Grade EL Example: TE Unit 1, p. 131EE. English Learners—Academic Language. Use academic |
|1.7 Understand and explain common antonyms and |language in classroom conversation. The TE supplies a chart of theme words, key selection words, and |
|synonyms; |strategy and skill words for the EL book, StudentWorks Plus, “Soccer.” |
|1.8 Use knowledge of individual words in | |
|unknown compound words to predict their |Primary Grades Example: Grades 2–3: In second and third grades, the words are taken directly from the|
|meaning; 1.9 Know the meaning of simple |main selection. For example in second grade, Unit 6, Week 1, the theme is “Creating Stories.” After |
|prefixes and suffixes. |the teacher accesses prior knowledge, students make a graphic organizer of concept words that expands|
| |their prior-knowledge vocabulary. Next, the teacher begins the routine (define, example, ask) for |
| |vocabulary introduction based upon prior knowledge. Then a vocabulary strategy is introduced. In this|
| |sample lesson, the strategy is to use word parts such as Greek and Latin roots to understand new |
| |words. The vocabulary words are highlighted in a selected text— for example, Vocabulary/Comprehension|
| |Selection, Making Stories Happen. On Day 2, students expand their vocabulary by categorizing the |
| |words in a graphic organizer. Next, students review the words in context using Vocabulary |
| |Transparency 53. |
| | |
| |The teacher uses guided practice first, and then students independently complete the exercise. |
| |Partners check each other’s answers. After reading the main selection as a group, students typically |
| |use vocabulary words in a creative form of writing. On Day 3, students use a transparency to explore |
| |Latin roots, and then they complete a page in their Practice Book using Greek and Latin roots. During|
| |Days 4 and 5, students use vocabulary words in context and review and assess vocabulary words. This |
| |weekly procedure is typical for the second- and third-grade levels. |
| | |
| |K–8 and EL: |
| |Vocabulary words for all grades are taught using authentic contexts and are boldfaced in the reading |
| |selections. California Treasures engages students in writing and speaking tasks that help them |
| |incorporate new words into their expressive vocabulary. The program uses a variety of instructional |
| |aids and devices to teach vocabulary to students, including interactive exercises with immediate |
| |feedback, spoken text, semantic mapping to complete word webs, sample sentences, and word cards. |
| | |
| |Upper Grades: By the end of fifth grade, students use context clues, Greek and Latin roots, and prior|
| |knowledge to predict the meaning of difficult words. Students express orally and in writing why and |
| |how they used specific vocabulary strategies. |
| | |
| |Multiple-meaning words are taught in conjunction with the literature selections. Additionally, |
| |teacher materials include a suggestion to focus on words with multiple meanings in reading context. |
|English-Language Arts | |
|California Content Standards Grade 5 |California Treasures Vocabulary Development Scope and Sequence |
|Vocabulary and Concept Development |Grades 1–8: Identify academic language; identify salient features of vocabulary; and use context |
| |clues—word, sentence, paragraph; definition, example, restatement, description. |
|1.2 Use word origins to determine the meaning |Grades 3–5: (in addition to the above) Synonyms, antonyms, and opposites; use word identification |
|of unknown words. |strategies; multiple-meaning words; use dictionary to locate meanings, pronunciation, and |
|1.3 synonyms, antonyms, and homographs. |derivatives; compound words; base (root) words and their derivations; prefixes and suffixes; Greek |
|1.4 Greek and Latin Roots; and 1.5 figurative |and Latin roots; denotation and connotation; words families; inflectional endings; use a thesaurus; |
|and metaphorical use of words in context. |use reference sources; homographs; homophones; figurative language; idioms; and analogies. |
| | |
| |Middle Grades: Add to the above shades of meaning; origins; and morphology. By the end of fifth |
| |grade, students use context clues, Greek and Latin roots, and prior knowledge to predict the meaning |
| |of difficult words. Students express orally and in writing why and how they used specific vocabulary |
| |strategies. |
| |Strategies used in California Treasures include accessing prior knowledge of vocabulary words; making|
|Reading instruction includes a combination of |graphic organizers; and using words in context—both orally and in writing. |
|strategies, both direct and indirect, for | |
|building vocabulary. |Other strategies are introduced as a unit unfolds: recognizing antonyms, base words, comparatives and|
| |superlatives, compound words, and context clues. Students learn to recognize homophones, inflected |
| |nouns and verbs, multiple-meaning words, prefixes, suffixes, and synonyms. Students also use |
| |syntactic and semantic cues, word parts and families. They use dictionaries, thesauruses, and |
|It is not as important for us to build |glossaries to find word meanings. Typically, by the end of fifth grade, students analyze words with |
|students’ existing knowledge as it is for them |opposite meanings and use a thesaurus or dictionary to find antonyms for words in the main selection.|
|to become aware |Students use vocabulary at the end of each unit in a cumulative research project. They investigate |
|of their prior knowledge |indices and glossaries to find pertinent information or confirm word meanings and to clarify shades |
|and how to develop it |of meaning. |
|and use it | |
|to scaffold |Middle School Example: After each reading selection, students complete an activity designed |
|their own understandings |specifically for reinforcing vocabulary in the selection. Students practice using the words in other |
|~ Lapp, Flood, & Block |contexts. They use graphic organizers to illustrate the meanings of words. |
| | |
|Vocabulary is taught using a variety of |In California Treasures, pre-instruction in vocabulary occurs before the reading lesson begins and |
|specific instructional methods such as |takes the form of accessing prior knowledge regarding vocabulary meaning. Students make graphic |
|context-based approaches, restructuring, and |organizers at the beginning of the lesson and add to them as the lesson unfolds. |
|pre-instruction in vocabulary before the |The curriculum uses a context-based approach—students derive word meanings from context clues. A true|
|reading lesson begins. |“definitional” approach is not used; however, students compose definitions from contextual |
| |information using vocabulary skills and strategies such as restructuring. Vocabulary does not come |
| |from lists of words that are unrelated to the reading selections. Teachers use questioning strategies|
| |that expose vocabulary words and definitions that are required for a specific text as part of the |
| |lesson. Spellings and definitions are confirmed by using reference materials. |
| | |
| |K–8 and EL: California Treasures includes strategies that help teachers ascertain prior knowledge and|
| |ELs develop and activate background knowledge and experience. Pre-reading activities help students |
| |connect new learnings to prior knowledge and experience. Teacher materials and professional |
| |development include suggestions for activating prior knowledge. The program includes features that |
| |help build students’ general background knowledge in a variety of ways, including direct vocabulary |
| |instruction, pre-reading activities, and reteaching suggestions. |
| | |
| |Middle Grades Example: Each selection in every unit begins with a pre-reading section: “Before You |
| |Read.” The pre-reading activities include making prior knowledge connections. Sometimes this is |
| |accomplished with “Partner Talk,” as in Grade 8, Unit 5, p. 640. Before reading “O Captain! My |
| |Captain!” by Walt Whitman, students talk to a partner about how the death of someone you have never |
| |met can have a deep impact on your feelings. Next, students Build Background by finding out how the |
| |author was affected by the brutality of the Civil War. Students are invited to “Log On” to Literature|
| |and do an Author Search to gain additional background knowledge. |
| | |
| | |
| |In California Treasures kindergarten classes, vocabulary words are discussed in relation to the |
|Storybooks are read aloud to children. |selection in the Read-Aloud Anthology. Students discuss the author and illustrator as well as the |
| |characters in the story. They analyze the illustrations and photographs. Their reading is done, for |
|English-Language Arts |the most part, in the large group. Kindergartners draw pictures of the vocabulary words and re-create|
|California Content Standards Kindergarten |their own storybook scenarios. |
|3.0 Literary Response and Analysis |Students in first through third grades also enjoy hearing stories. They learn to emulate the |
|3.2 Identify everyday print materials (e.g., |teacher’s oral expressions, inflections, and pauses. Children read to each other in peer groups or |
|storybooks). |with partners. Through the Home-School Connection, they are encouraged to read to those at home, and |
| |family members are encouraged to read to them. |
| |Using the California Treasures curriculum, students apply words to multiple contexts beginning with |
|Students are given both information about the |what they already know about the words. They extend their knowledge through cross-curricular |
|words’ definitions and examples of the words’ |activities, research, and creative writing. They use vocabulary words in their personal journal |
|usages in a variety of contexts. |entries. They add suffixes to base words to create new words that they use in creative writing. They |
| |locate the words in a variety of genres such as newspaper articles and song lyrics. Students learn to|
|ELD Standards |think of words in terms of cultural perspectives and applications. |
|Reading Grades | |
|6–8. EA5. Use a standard dictionary to |Students are taught to analyze word meanings based on context in content areas. A cross-curriculum |
|determine the meanings of unknown words. |approach, as recommended by Reading Next, is advocated in the California Treasures curriculum. |
| | |
| |The “Glossary/Glosario” section of the MM-H/Glencoe Literature course textbooks contains a |
| |side-by-side English/Spanish vocabulary list of words found in the middle school (6–8) literature |
| |selections. The definitions of the words are given in both languages according to the ways the words |
| |were used in the selections. A pronunciation key is also provided along with the page in the text |
| |where the word was used. |
|Vocabulary items are derived from content |California Treasures vocabulary words related to the weekly theme are taken directly from the weekly |
|learning materials. |main selection. The words are also reinforced in the High-Frequency Word Routine and the |
| |Vocabulary/Comprehension selection. The student Practice Books provide further word exploration. |
| |Student readers and the Classroom Library as well as selected trade books reinforce vocabulary |
| |development. |
| | |
| |All vocabulary is learned and used in the context of reading. |
| | |
| |Words are not used or taught in isolation. After each reading selection, students use the vocabulary |
| |in the text to respond to questions about the selection. They transfer the meanings to other contexts|
| |through activities that are designed specifically to reinforce the meanings of the words. In the |
| |middle grades, Academic Vocabulary is taken directly from the reading selections and applied in other|
| |contexts immediately after reading. A typical example is in Grade 8, Unit 2, p. 264. |
| | |
|Vocabulary is taught through active |Throughout California Treasures, K–8 students are given repeated exposure to vocabulary material. |
|(question-answering) student participation. |They participate in student-initiated conversation in the context of listening to stories related to |
| |the theme and genre of the main selection. The student Practice Books contain sentence excerpts from |
| |the main selection that include targeted vocabulary words. |
| |Students substitute vocabulary words with synonyms. Their interaction with vocabulary is always |
| |active—not a passive treatment—beginning with prior knowledge and continuing with creative writing |
| |and research that uses words in context. They have repeated exposure to vocabulary material |
| |throughout the week as well as later in comprehensive review. |
| | |
| |A typical activity can be found in “Respond and Think Critically,” at the end of the student |
| |selections 6–8. Students are asked to paraphrase events that take place in the story. They predict |
| |word meaning and choose sentences that best use vocabulary words to express intended meaning. (Grade |
| |8, Unit 4, p. 570). |
| | |
|Word recognition is regularly assessed in |California Treasures assessment matches instructional context. In their Practice Books, students |
|multiple ways. |choose vocabulary words from a list to complete each sentence. They write original sentences using |
| |the vocabulary words. Words are highlighted in the reading selections, and students stop at each word|
| |and identify clues to the meanings. Using transparencies, students model how to figure out word |
| |meanings. They suggest or review the meanings as well. They complete graphic organizers such as |
| |semantic webs, and they add words to the Word Wall. Students also use a Practice Book page each week |
| |to demonstrate pronunciation and comprehension of vocabulary words. |
|Components of Reading |Comprehension |5 |
| |
|“Text comprehension can be improved by instruction that helps readers use specific comprehension strategies.” —Put Reading First (Armbruster, |
|Lehr & Osborn, 2003, p. 49) |
| |
|A. What is text comprehension? |
| |
|Comprehension is often identified as the primary goal of reading: Children and adults read in order to understand. If children can “read” |
|words but cannot understand them, they are merely decoding. Real reading requires understanding. Over the past 30 years, reading researchers |
|have come to understand that such comprehension is not merely passive, but is the result of active involvement on the part of the reader. |
| |
|B. Why is text comprehension instruction important? |
| |
|Researchers have identified a variety of strategies effective readers use to actively comprehend texts. Additional research has verified the |
|positive impact of teaching such strategies to students as a means of improving comprehension. Two discussions on instructional effectiveness:|
|Effectiveness of comprehension instruction |Effects on specific skill areas |
| | |
|In examining research on reading comprehension instruction, the National |According to the NRP, research “favors the conclusion that |
|Reading Panel (NRP) identified 16 broad categories, or methods, of |teaching of a variety of reading comprehension strategies |
|comprehension instruction. Of these, seven methods were identified as having |leads to increased learning of the strategies, to specific |
|“a firm scientific basis for concluding that they improve comprehension in |transfer of learning, to increased memory and understanding of|
|normal readers” (NICHHD, 2000, p. 4-42)—demonstrating that comprehension can |new passages, and, in some cases, to general improvements in |
|be improved through explicit, formal instruction. Five of these methods were |comprehension” (NICHHD, 2000, p. 4-52). |
|in use by the third-grade level, and are thus research-verified as appropriate| |
|and effective for instruction in the early elementary grades. | |
| | |
|Similarly, a review of research on early childhood reading commissioned by the| |
|National Research Council (NRC) concluded that “Explicit instruction in | |
|comprehension strategies has been shown to lead to improvement” (Snow, Burns &| |
|Griffin, 1998, p. 322). | |
|C. Who benefits from text | |
|comprehension instruction? |Multiple Grade Levels. |
| |The NRP’s review of research verified the effectiveness of some methods of text comprehension instruction as |
| |early as the second- or third-grade level and ranging up to ninth grade. The NRC, based on its interpretation of |
| |the research evidence, recommended such instruction as early as the kindergarten and first-grade levels, |
| |advocating explicit instruction on text comprehension “throughout the early grades” (Snow, Burns, & Griffin 1998,|
| |p. 323). |
| |
|D. Research Recommendations |
| | | |
|Range and Scope of |Early Grades. |Upper Elementary Grades |
|Instruction |According to the NRC report | |
| |recommendations for reading |Of the seven instructional methods verified by the NRP as having a research |
| |instruction in kindergarten through |base, one (comprehension monitoring) was in use by second grade in the studies |
| |third grade, “Throughout the early |examined, and an additional four were in use by third grade. The NRP concluded |
| |grades, reading curricula should |that “The instruction of comprehension appears to be effective on Grades 3 |
| |include explicit instruction on |through 6” (NICHHD, 2000, p. 4-51). This suggests a solid research base for |
| |strategies such as summarizing the |including comprehension instruction as part of the reading curriculum by the |
| |main idea, predicting events and |third-grade level. |
| |outcomes of upcoming text, drawing | |
| |inferences, and monitoring for |Middle Grades |
| |coherence and misunderstandings. |According the Readence et al. (2004), “As students become more adept, the |
| |This instruction can take place |demonstration and guidance teachers provide should be faded, or withdrawn, so |
| |while adults read to students or |students can be moved toward independence in their reading and learning” (p. |
| |when students read [to] themselves” |10). This aligns with calls for scaffolded reading comprehension instruction in |
| |(Snow, Burns & Griffin, 1998, p. |Reading Next and other sources. |
| |323). | |
|Instructional Methods and | | |
|Features |Methods that were identified |Question answering (17 studies, mostly grades 3–5), in which teachers ask |
| |by the NRP as having “a firm |questions about the text. |
| |scientific basis for |Question generation (27 studies, grades 3–9), in which students “generate |
| |concluding that they improve |questions during reading” (NICHHD, 2000, p. 4-45). |
| |comprehension in normal | |
|Specific effective methods |readers” (NICHHD, 2000, p. | |
| |4-42) and that were |Story structure (17 studies, Grades 3–6), in which students are instructed in |
| |used by third grade in the |the “content and organization of |
| |research studies included the |stories,” including use of graphic organizers in conjunction with story content |
| |following ( |and structure (NICHHD, 2000, p. 4-45) |
| | | |
| | |Comprehension monitoring (22 studies, Grades 2–6), in which students learn how |
| | |to monitor their own understanding of texts using procedures such as Think |
| | |Aloud. |
| | | |
| | |Cooperative learning (10 studies, grades 3–6), in which “peers instruct or |
| | |interact over the use of reading strategies” (NICHHD, 2000, p. 4-45) |
| |In looking at 36 studies featuring instruction that combined a variety of |
|Multiple strategies |different comprehension methods, the NRP concluded that “considerable success |
| |has been found in improving comprehension by instructing students on the use of |
| |more than one strategy during the course of reading” (NICHHD, 2000, p. 4-47). |
| |One particular advantage of this approach is its ability to guide students |
| |through the kind of “coordinated and flexible use of several different kinds of |
| |strategies” that is required for skilled reading (NICHHD, 2000, p. 4-47). |
| | |
|Instructional model |In its discussion of the research, the NRP identified a four-part model for |
| |building student comprehension strategies in which “teachers demonstrate, |
| |explain, model, and implement interaction with students in teaching them how to |
| |comprehend a text” (NICHHD, 2000, p. 4-47, citing 6 studies). |
| | |
|Regular assessment |According to the NRC report, “Conceptual knowledge and comprehension strategies |
| |should be regularly assessed in the classroom, permitting timely and effective |
| |instructional response where difficulty or delay is apparent” (Snow, Burns & |
| |Griffin, 1998, p. 323). |
|Demonstration of Comprehension Development in Treasures |
|Summary of Research Recommendations for Comprehension |Demonstration of Alignment |[pic] |
| |
|“… by grade eight students read one million words annually on their own …” |
|California Content Standards |
| |
|Comprehension strategies are routines or procedures in California Treasures that teachers |
|can use to help students become independent, active, and engaged |
|readers who use multiple strategies as they read. |
| |
|The strategies in the curriculum are written to do the following: |
|Explain the purpose of the strategy and when to use it |
|Model the use of the strategy while reading (teacher and student Think Aloud) |
|Offer guided practice in using the strategy |
|Provide opportunities for students to demonstrate the use of the strategy |
|Teach students to be flexible in the use of the strategies. |
| |
|Authors Tim Shanahan, Scott Paris, and Jan Dole provided research and guidance |
|for the inclusion of the Comprehension Strategies. The instruction is based on the |
|research of Bloom, Marzano, and Harvey. |
| |
|California Content Standards (2.0) Reading Comprehension (Focus on Informational Materials) for sixth grade state: “Students read and |
|understand grade-level-appropriate material. They describe and connect the essential ideas, arguments, and perspectives of the text by using |
|their knowledge of text structure, organization, and purpose. The selections in Recommended Literature, Kindergarten through Grade Twelve |
|illustrate the quality and complexity of the materials to be read by students. In addition, by grade eight students read one million words |
|annually on their own, including a good representation of grade-level-appropriate narrative and expository text (e.g., classic and contemporary|
|literature, magazines, newspapers, online information). In grade six, students continue to make progress toward this goal.” |
| | |
|In kindergarten through third grade, the |Examples of alignment in California Treasures: |
|curriculum includes explicit instruction on | |
|strategies such as (1) summarizing the main |1. Summarizing the Main Idea: Students use graphic organizers to summarize the author’s craft, |
|idea; (2) predicting events and outcomes of |for example. They use outlines and journals to keep track of main events and actions. They learn |
|upcoming text; (3) making inferences; and |to identify pertinent facts and summarize the main ideas. |
|(4) monitoring for coherence and | |
|misunderstandings. |2. Predicting Events and Outcomes: Before beginning to read the main selection, students preview |
| |the title and illustrations and make predictions. Students record their predictions and questions|
|English-Language Arts |that they want to have answered as they read. |
|California Content | |
|Standards |3. Making Inferences: The teacher explains facts about the text or calls attention to the actions|
|Substrand: Structural Features of |of the characters and asks questions to help students understand why events occur. Students state|
|Informational Materials |reasons for believing why story events occurred as they did [cause and effect]. |
|R K.2.1 Locate the title, table of contents,| |
|name of author, and name of illustrator. |4. Monitoring for Understandings: Students monitor comprehension by analyzing text structure. |
|Substrand: Comprehension and Analysis of |They make decisions about the selection based on text and picture clues and prior knowledge. |
|Grade-Level-Appropriate Text | |
|R K.2.3 Connect to life experiences the |5. Draw Conclusions: Students reread the selection for comprehension, paying close attention to |
|information and events in texts. |the text structure. Using what they know from real life, they draw conclusions about the text’s |
|K.2.4 Retell familiar stories. |topic. They use a graphic organizer (Transparency) to record their conclusions. After they |
|W 5.2.2.a Write responses to literature. |complete the Conclusion Chart, they share their facts and conclusions with the class. |
|Demonstrate an understanding of a literary | |
|work. |Kindergarten Example: TE Unit 1, p. 97. Preview the cover, the title, and the names of the author|
|LAS 5.2.3.a Deliver oral responses to |and illustrator. |
|literature. | |
|R 5.2.4 Draw inferences, conclusions, or |Kindergarten Comprehension Scope and Sequence Examples: Compare and contrast, including |
|generalizations about text and support them |character, setting, plot, topics; classify and categorize; fantasy and reality; main idea and |
|with textual evidence and prior knowledge. |supporting details; problem/resolution; and sequence/chronological order. |
| | |
| |Kindergarten Example: TE Unit 1, p. 149. After reading, ask children to retell the story and to |
| |share personal responses. Did the story remind you of eating with your family? What foods do you |
| |and your family like to eat? |
| | |
| |Seventh-Grade Example: California Treasures Glencoe Literature, Unit 1, pp. 14–16. |
| |Identify Cause and Effect Relationships in The Wise Old Woman, a folktale by Yoshiko Uchida. |
| |Students use their cause-and-effect graphic organizer to help explain why the farmer goes against|
| |the lord’s decree. They also describe the effect of his decision. (Analysis) |
| | |
| |Typical Middle School Example: |
| |Students explain a story’s plot. They include the five main parts: (1) background information, |
| |called the exposition, introduces the character and the situation; (2) the conflict is a problem |
| |that causes the events in the story to take place; (3) complication, or rising action, is what |
| |occurs when the main character tries to overcome the conflict; (4) the climax is the plot’s |
| |turning point, which resolves the conflict; and the falling action is the resolution of the |
| |conflict and the events that follow it. Throughout their study in California Treasures, they |
| |describe the events in the selections that identify which main part the event is in. They |
| |describe these events in writing. |
| | |
| |Also: Students summarize the selection by paraphrasing important events using their own words and|
| |Draw Conclusions: After reading “Through My Eyes,” by Ruby Bridges, students infer from the |
| |selection why African American parents wanted their children to go to white schools. |
| | |
| |Eighth-Grade Example: Unit 1, p. 87. Determine Main Idea and Supporting Details. Students use a |
| |graphic organizer to record main ideas and supporting details in “The Question of Popularity,” |
| |Time Magazine. |
| | |
|Comprehension instruction begins in second |Examples in California Treasures: |
|grade and continues as an integral part of |Strategies such as Analyze Story Structure, Generate Questions, Monitor Comprehension, Reread, |
|the third-grade reading curriculum. |Summarize, Visualize,Draw Conclusions, Make Predictions, Retell, and Determine MainIdea and |
| |Details are taught in each unit levels 2–3. The skill—analyze text structure, for example–is |
|English-Language Arts |pre-taught using the Student Book and applied to a short passage before students read the longer |
|California Content Standards |main selection. Students are guided through the application of the strategy with the help of |
|Kindergarten |graphic organizers. |
|R K.2.5 Ask and answer questions about | |
|essential elements of a text. |Students use higher-order thinking skills during “Think and Compare”: (1) Character and Setting; |
|First Grade |(2) Syntheses; (3) Text-to-Self; (4) Text-to-World; and (5) Text-to-Text to answer questions |
|R 1.2.1; R 1.3.1; R 1.3.3 |about elements of the text. |
| | |
|English-Language Arts |Kindergarten Example: TE Unit 1, p. 134. Build Robust Vocabulary. Use the following questions to |
|California Content Standards Grade Six |check children’s understanding: Why would a trip to a park be exciting? What would flowers look |
|Comprehension and Analysis of |like if you gathered them? What is more exhausting—watching television or playing baseball? How |
|Grade-Level-Appropriate Text |do children cooperate when they play sports? What kinds of activities do you do in a park? |
| | |
| |First-Grade Example: TE Unit 1, p. T2. “The Chick and the Duckling,” Strategy: Analyze Story |
| |Structure. The teacher uses a Think |
|2.4 Create outlines and summaries. | |
|2.5 Follow |Aloud to help the children to compare and contrast characters. |
|multiple-step instructions for preparing | |
|applications. |Graphic Organizers are found at the beginning of every main selection providing students with a |
|Expository Critique. |tool to organize information, to help them see relationships, and to make connections. Graphic |
|2.6 Determine the adequacy and |organizers appear again at the end of every main selection to use for summarizing. Retelling |
|appropriateness of the evidence for an |Cards at the end of selections in K–2 include modeling and guided prompts for checking |
|author’s conclusions. |comprehension. (Examples: Grade 1, Unit 1, pp. 14/15, 27; Grade 2, Unit 1, pp. 42, 65; Grade 3, |
|2.7 Make reasonable assertions about a text |Unit 2, pp. 182, 205.) |
|through accurate, supporting citations. | |
|2.8 Note instances of unsupported |California Treasures Comprehension Scope and Sequence |
|inferences, fallacious reasoning, |Primary (1–3) Author’s point of view; author’s purpose; classify and categorize; drawing |
|persuasion, and propaganda in text. |conclusions; making generalizations; and written and oral instructions/directions. |
| |Upper Grades (4–5) Fact and opinion; making judgments; and implied message. |
| |Middle School (6–8) Persuasion/persuasive techniques. |
| | |
| |Upper Grades Example: In Unit 2, Week 5, of the sixth-grade Treasures, the comprehension skill is|
| |Sequence. The comprehension strategy is Summarize. In Grade 6, Unit 6, Week 3, the comprehension|
| |strategy is Summarize, the paired selection skill is Functional Documents (forms). |
| | |
| |The Main Selection for Unit 6, Week 1, is Leonardo's Horse. The comprehension strategy is |
| |Generate Questions, and the paired selection strategy is Text Feature; the skill is Primary |
| |Source. |
| | |
| |California Treasures Glencoe Literature |
| |Eighth-Grade Example: PE, p. 524. Reading skill: Analyze Evidence. Students select probable |
| |evidence to support the author’s conclusion about global warming. |
| |Also, Unit 1, p. 229, Media Workshop. Students analyze standards of behavior related to the |
| |press. |
| |On p. 239, in a small group activity, students discuss excerpts and evidence in “Poe’s Tales of |
| |Terror.” They examine the author’s mood, note details about his thoughts and actions, and make a |
| |general statement on the basis of these details. |
| | |
| |California Treasures Glencoe Literature |
| |Eighth-Grade Example: PE, p. 229. Media Workshop—Media Ethics. “Cite It”: Give credit to the |
| |source. Acknowledge where the information came from (with examples). “Try It”—Analyze Media |
| |Ethics. |
| | |
| |California Treasures Glencoe Literature |
| |Eighth Grade Example: PE, p. 566. Media Workshop—Propaganda. After students study and recognize |
| |types of propaganda, they make a chart showing strategies that advertisers use to make their |
| |products seem appealing. With a partner, they analyze a television commercial |
| |and write a letter to the advertisers, giving them feedback on the impact the commercial has on |
| |them. (Also aligns with California Content Standards, Listening and Speaking 1.7.) |
| | |
|The teacher asks questions about the |In the California Treasures Teacher’s Edition, teachers are regularly prompted to ask students |
|selection. |questions pertaining to the reading selection to maintain and increase comprehension. Such questions|
| |help students to retell the story or preview/predict the plot of a story. Examples: What kind of |
|English-Language Arts |story do you think this is? What do you think it will be about? Was she worried? Why do you think |
|California Content Standards |she tells us this? |
|Kindergarten |Kindergarten Example: TE Unit 1, p. 190. Skill: Make Predictions. Look for clues on pages 8–9; Think|
|Substrand: Comprehension and Analysis of |Aloud. |
|Grade-Level-Appropriate Text |Kindergarten Example: In Unit 2, Weeks 1–3, the comprehension strategy is Ask Questions and again in|
|R K.2.2 Use pictures and context to make |Unit 9, Weeks 1–3. |
|predictions about story content. |Kindergarten Example: TE Unit 1, p. 212. Genre: Fiction. Review fiction: “Jennifer Bing, Why Won’t |
|Kindergarten |You Sing?” It is a story that did not really happen. Remind children that Peter’s Chair is also a |
|Substrand: Narrative Analysis of |fictional story. |
|Grade-Level-Appropriate Text |Kindergarten Example: TE Unit 1, p. 202. Informational Text. Use Photographs. |
|R K.3.1 Distinguish fantasy from |Kindergarten Example: ES.3.b. Students know changes in weather occur from day to day and across |
|realistic text. |seasons, affecting Earth and its inhabitants. California Treasures also contains specific content |
|R K.3.2 Identify types of every day print|lessons using informational text. For example, in Unit 1, the Content Big Book Extension is Wonders |
|materials (e.g., story books, poems, |Vol. 1: “A Favorite Season.” The lesson includes deciduous trees, weather changes that affect |
|newspaper, signs, labels). |plants, seasonal weather changes, and a discussion of dormancy. |
|R K.3.3 Identify characters, settings, |Kindergarten Example: TE Unit 1, p. 135. Comprehension skill: Identify Setting. Create a chart to |
|and important events. |compare the settings in The Picnic at Apple Park and “The Squeaky Old Bed.” |
| |First-Grade Example: In Unit 3, Weeks 4 and 5, the comprehension strategy is Generate Questions, as |
|English-Language Arts |well as in Unit 5, Weeks 3–5. Unit 6, Week 2, emphasizes the text feature: Question/Answer format. |
|California Content Standards |Second-Grade Example: In Unit 2, Weeks 4 and 5; and Unit 4, Weeks 1–3 the comprehension strategy is |
|Kindergarten Reading |Generate Questions. |
|2.0 Comprehension |Third-Grade Example: In Unit 2, Weeks 1, 2, and 4, the comprehension strategy is Generate Questions.|
|2.5 Ask and answer questions about |Fourth-Grade Example: In Unit 2, Weeks 2, 4, and 5, the comprehension strategy is Generate |
|essential elements of a text. |Questions. This is also the case in Unit 4, Weeks 1 and 2. |
|First Grade: Students generate and |The Treasures curriculum uses the QAR (Question Answer Relationship) questioning model. QAR |
|respond to essential questions. |basically defines itself. It is the relationship between questions and their answers. There are four|
|2.2 Respond to who, what, when, where, |basic types of question/answer relationships: |
|and how questions. |Right There -- In this type of QAR, the answer is found in the text. Also, the words in the question|
|Second Grade |and the words in the answer are usually in the same sentence. The reader can point to the answer. |
|2.4 Ask clarifying questions. |Think and Search -- In this type of QAR, the answer is found in the text. However, the words in the |
|Third Grade |question and the words in the answer are not found in the same sentence. The reader must put |
|2.2 Ask questions and support answers. |together different parts of the text to get the answer. |
| |Author and Me (or Author and You) -- The answer is not found in the text. The reader has to put |
| |together the information the author provides with information the reader already knows to come up |
| |with the answer. |
| |On My Own (or On Your Own) -- The reader does not use the text at all to answer the question. The |
| |answer is based on the reader's opinions and experiences. |
| |This method is used daily in “conversational reading” as a way of increasing comprehension. |
| |Upper Grades Example: Develop Comprehension Skill: Students develop questions about the characters |
| |in a selection and cite specific examples from the text. |
| | |
|Students generate questions during |Answering questions is a consistent part of the lessons in all grades. Answering questions is a |
|reading. |strategy used with Shared Reading of Big Books, the Student Book selection, trade books, and Leveled|
| |Readers. “Preview and Predict” is used in the “Prepare to Read” part of the lesson, in the |
| |introduction of each main selection, and at the end of the main selection with “Return to |
| |Predictions and Purposes.” |
| | |
| |Example: Students preview the title of the main selection and make predictions about it. They write |
| |about their predictions and list questions that they want to have answered through their reading. |
| |They question each other in small group discussions and in pairs. Students learn specific strategies|
| |(steps) for answering questions: 1. Analyze Text |
| |Structure/Draw Conclusions; 2. Evaluate; 3. Text-to-Self; 4. Text-to-World; and 5. Text-to-Text. |
| | |
|Students use graphic organizers to show |In California Treasures, Teaching Charts and/or Graphic Organizer Transparencies are available for |
|story content and structure. |students to use to reinforce reading comprehension by displaying the sequence of a story. They are |
| |also used to evaluate the author’s purpose and to analyze characters and setting. Students make |
| |character maps, Venn diagrams, story maps, and charts. By the beginning of fourth grade, as students|
| |read they fill in problems and resulting actions that lead to their solutions in a Problem and |
| |Solution Chart. They also fill in Main Idea Webs and Description Webs that show details that the |
| |author uses in the main selection. |
| | |
|Students use procedures such as Think |As a strategy to develop comprehension, teachers using California Treasures are encouraged to model |
|Aloud to monitor their own understanding |the Think-Aloud Strategy for students to encourage them to use this strategy on their own. Students|
|of texts. |set a purpose for reading by concentrating on a focus question. |
| | |
| | |
|Peers use reading strategies to interact |Example: Students read story selections together as a class or in pairs. During partner-reading, one|
|with each other. |child practices taking turns reading the story to another. They give feedback to each other. |
| |Students are also encouraged to role-play their favorite scenes from a selection with each other to |
| |further improve comprehension development. In the upper grades, students give informal reading |
| |inventories to each other and check the Words Comprehended per Minute (WCPM) of peers. |
| | |
|Students use multiple strategies to |Students are taught strategies through California Treasures to improve reading and listening |
|improve comprehension. |comprehension. Such strategies include setting a purpose for reading and identifying questions that|
| |they want to have answered as they read; analyzing and identifying text structure, generating |
| |questions while reading, summarizing, using graphic organizers, and visualizing. In addition, |
| |students are also taught to “Think Aloud” while reading, role play with a peer, talk and write about|
| |what has been read, and use illustrations to preview and predict story structure. |
| | |
| |Typical Middle School Example: Unit 5, Grade 8, p. 630, California Treasures Glencoe Literature. In |
| |the Time Magazine article, “A Father’s Daring Trek,” a Tibetan man takes his 6-year-old daughter on |
| |a dangerous journey. Students first set a purpose for reading; next, they preview the article; |
| |finally, they analyze the cultural context paying close attention to the details that reveal the |
| |setting, values, and behaviors characteristic of the Tibetan culture. As they read, students note |
| |details that they learn about life in the towns of Lhasa and Dharmsala. |
| | |
| | |
|Teachers use a multiple-step |Example: Teachers demonstrate, explain, model, and implement interaction with students in teaching |
|instructional model. |them how to comprehend a text. A typical second-grade comprehension lesson flows as follows: The |
| |teacher |
|English-Language Arts |begins by ascertaining student prior knowledge. Next, a comprehension strategy is presented such as |
|California Content Standards |Analyzing Text Structure. This is followed by the introduction of a specific comprehension skill |
|Kindergarten |such as Draw Conclusions. Students are then asked to Preview and Predict using the title and |
|1.0 Listening and Speaking Substrand: |illustrations. The genre is introduced and the definition of the genre type is read from the Student|
|Comprehension |Book. Next, students discuss the “Read to Find Out” question in the Student Book. Students are |
|LAS K.1.1 Understand and follow one- and |reminded to use the Conclusion Chart in the Practice Book to record facts and conclusions that they |
|two-step directions. |draw about the selection. Finally, students set their own purpose for reading. Throughout reading, |
| |comprehension is developed through Teacher Think Alouds and questioning. Students retell the story |
| |and complete a summative assessment, Comprehension Check. |
| | |
| |Kindergarten Example: TE Unit 1, p. 182. Children follow simple directions for sitting in different |
| |places in the room; e.g., Sit on the chair; Sit on the floor. |
| | |
|Conceptual knowledge and comprehension |Comprehension is assessed both formally and informally, and the curriculum uses both formative and |
|strategies are regularly assessed in the |summative forms of assessment. Comprehension assessment begins when reading begins. Quick Check |
|classroom. |Observations are used throughout the passage as an informal means of student comprehension |
| |assessment. By the end of the week, Weekly Tests are administered to assess conceptual knowledge and|
|English-Language Arts |comprehension strategies. In addition, Unit Tests and Benchmark Tests are regularly administered to|
|California Content Standards |monitor student progress. |
|LAS 1.2.1 | |
| |Kindergarten Example: By using the TE End-of-Unit Assessment for Unit 1, the teacher is able to |
| |clearly diagnose the following elements: Reading Comprehension; Vocabulary/High-Frequency Words; |
| |Phonemic Awareness/Phonics; Text Features; and Grammar, Mechanics, and Usage. If the child gets less|
| |than 75% correct on the assessment of any of these components, the teacher can follow the |
| |“Prescribe” suggestions and use the Intervention Kit to help students correct errors. |
| |First-Grade Example: TE Unit 1, p. 62L. Build Background: Access Prior Knowledge. Discuss how |
| |children are growing up and how everybody changes as they grow. Make a chart of children’s thoughts.|
| |Typical EL Universal Access for Primary Students: During discussions of the main selections, the |
| |teacher builds on students’ responses to help them move to the next level of language acquisition. |
| |For example, if a child answers “bigger” to the question say, “Yes, we are growing bigger and |
| |changing in many ways.” Have the students repeat the sentence. |
| | |
| | |
|English-Language Arts |Sixth-Grade Example: |
|California Content Standards |Week 1, Unit 5, the specific comprehension skill is Author’s Purpose; the fluency emphasis is |
|Grade Six |Phrase-Cued Text: Pauses, stops, and intonation; the |
|2.0 Reading Comprehension |paired selection strategy is Text Feature; and the highlighted skill is Schedules. |
|(Focus on Informational Materials). | |
|2.1 Identify the structural features of |California Treasures Glencoe Literature |
|popular media. |Eighth-Grade Example: Media Workshop, p. 208. Students discuss media elements in the story of “Huge,|
|R 3.5 Identify the speaker and recognize |Freed Pet Pythons Invade Florida Everglades.” They identify and give examples of text and content, |
|the difference between first- and |visuals, and audio elements. |
|third-person narration. | |
| |In Unit 5, Week 2 of sixth grade, the specific comprehension skill is Compare and Contrast; the |
|ELA/ELD Standards Reading Grades 6–8 |fluency emphasis is Echo-Reading: Punctuation and characters' voices; the paired selection strategy |
|Vocabulary and Concept Development. |is Literary Elements; and the highlighted skill is Moral and Personification. |
|1.1 Analyze idioms, analogies, metaphors,| |
|and similes to infer the literal and |Sixth-Grade EL Example: The paired selection skill for "Caged Bird" and "I Dream a World" is Rhyme, |
|figurative meanings of phrases. |Simile, and Repetition in Unit 5, Week 5 of Sixth Grade California Treasures. Also in each unit, |
| |there are “Strategies for Extra Support,” such as Figurative Language: Simile, “What’s got your face|
| |all colored up like a stormy day?” |
| | |
| |Middle Grades: Genre: Autobiography—Students explore elements of an autobiography in the main |
| |selection and discuss what makes an autobiography different from a biography. They also explore |
| |narrator and point of view (e.g., “What does the narrator’s reaction reveal about him?”). |
| | |
| |California Treasures Glencoe Literature |
| |Eighth Grade Example: Literary Elements—Similes and metaphors in Elegy on the Death of César Chávez.|
| | |
| |Examples of Genre in California Treasures Scope and Sequence |
| | |
| |Genre: Fiction (Grades 3–8) |
| |Drama/play, fantasy, historical fiction, humorous fiction, mystery, realistic fiction, short story, |
| |and traditional stories (e.g., fairy tale, fable, folktale, tall tale, myth, and legend). |
| |Grades 4–8: Science fiction. |
| | |
| |Genre: Poetry (Grades 3-8) |
| |Forms (e.g., refrain, cinquain, free verse, haiku, limerick, lyric, narrative, and simple). |
| |Middle Grades: Tone |
| | |
| | |
| |Genre: Nonfiction (Grades K–8) |
| |Expository text, how-to, informational text, narrative, letter, newspaper, science article, personal|
| |essay, persuasive essay, and photo essay. |
| |Upper and Middle Grades: Biography and autobiography, diary/journal, encyclopedia, and |
| |practical/functional text. |
| | |
| |Examples of Literary Devices and Elements in California Treasures Scope and Sequence |
| |Grades K-8: Character, plot development, setting, onomatopoeia. |
| |Grades K-6: Alliteration, repetition, rhyme/rhyme schemes. |
| |Grades 1-8: Descriptive and figurative language (e..g., metaphors, similes, personification, and |
| |hyperbole), imagery, sensory words and details, theme, and rhythm. |
| |Upper Grades (3-6): Consonance and assonance. |
| |Grades 3-8: Dialect, foreshadowing, flashback, meter. |
| |Grades 4-8: Symbolism. |
Concluding Remarks
Learning to read and teaching reading are both work that requires the most effective materials, because reading is foundational for all other learnings. If fact, The National Institute for Literacy’s Partnership for Reading (2000) states that “success in school starts with reading.” This report identifies highly regarded research related to effective reading instruction that suggests how to give each student a good start toward success in literacy. Macmillan/McGraw-Hill and Glencoe have met the challenge of research-verified instructional strategies, methods, and approaches and have incorporated them in K–6 California Treasures and in the middle school Glencoe Literature curricula. Literature is the basis for all of the program components—it overlaps and becomes more challenging and complex as the school year progresses. The curriculum presents a model for an integrated whole with an increasingly complex spiral.
What can be learned from this comprehensive alignment? California Treasures and Glencoe Literature present a synergy of strategies and skills that are grounded in a foundation of what works. The curricula are designed to build literacy for life by meeting the needs of California’s teachers, students, and families. The program content is aligned with national literacy guidelines and English Language Arts California Content Standards. The curriculum is planned specifically for California and is grounded in science-based research as well as in the wisdom and expertise of those recognized as most knowledgeable in teaching reading, writing, and communicating. California Treasures is intended for the inclusion of all students in grades K–9, and lessons are informed by ongoing assessment of students’ strengths and needs. The program is permeated with culturally sensitive literature selections and reading and writing strategies that engage and motivate. It is hoped that California policymakers and educators will find this research alignment valuable when facing the urgency of reform and the challenges of curriculum implementation.
References
Essential Elements of Literacy
-A-
Adams, A., Carnine, D., & Gersten, R. (1982). Instructional strategies for studying content area texts in the intermediate grades. Reading Research Quarterly, 18(1), 27–55.
Allinder, R. M., Dunse, L., Brunken, C. D., & Obermiller-Krolikowski, H. (2001). Improving
fluency in at-risk readers and students with learning disabilities. Remedial and Special
Education, 22, 48–54.
Allington, R. L. (2006). What really matters for struggling readers: Designing research-based programs (2nd ed.). New York: Pearson Education.
Allington, R. L. (1986). Policy constraints and effective compensatory reading instruction: A review. In J. V. Hoffman (Ed.), Effective teaching of reading: Research and practice (pp. 261–289). Newark, DE: International Reading Association.
Allington, R. L. (1983). The reading instruction provided readers of differing reading ability. Elementary School Journal, 83, 549–559.
Almasi, J. F. (1995). The nature of fourth graders’ sociocognitive conflicts in peer-led and teacher-led discussions of literature. Reading Research Quarterly, 30, 314–351.
Alvermann, D. E. (2001). Effective literacy instruction for adolescents. Chicago: National
Reading Conference. Retrieved February 13, 2007, from
Anderson, R., & Biddle, W. (1975). On asking people questions about what they are reading. In G. H. Bower (Ed.), The psychology of learning and motivation (Vol. 9, pp. 90–132). New York: Academic Press.
Anderson, R. C., Wilkinson, I. A. G., & Mason, J. M. (1991). A microanalysis of the small-group, guided reading lesson: Effects of an emphasis on global story meaning. Reading Research Quarterly, 26, 417–441.
Anderson, R. C., Wilson, P. T., & Fielding, L. G. (1988). Growth in reading and how children spend their time outside of school. Reading Research Quarterly, 23, 285-303.
Anderson, V., & Roit, M. (1993). Planning and implementing collaborative strategy instruction for delayed readers in grades 6–20. Special issue: Strategies instruction. Elementary School Journal, 94(2), 121–137.
Armbruster, C. C., Lehr, F., & Osborn, J. (2003). Put reading first: The research building blocks for teaching children to read(2nd ed.). Washington, DC: Partnership for Reading, a collaborative effort of the National Institute for Literacy, the National Institute of Child Health and Human Development, and the U.S. Department of Education. Retrieved March 7, 2005, from
Askov, E. N., & Kamm, K. (1976). Context clues: Should we teach children to use
a classification system in reading? Journal of Educational Research, 69, 341–344.
August, D., & Shanahan, T. (Eds.). (2006). Developing literacy in second-language
learners:Report of the National Literacy Panel on language minority children and youth.
Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
-B-
Babbs, P. J. (1984). Monitoring cards help improve comprehension. Reading Teacher, 38(2), 200–204.
Baker, L., & Zimlin, L. (1989). Instructional effects on children’s use of two levels of standards for evaluating their comprehension. Journal of Educational Psychology, 81(3), 340–346.
Baker, S. K., Simmons, D. C., & Kame’enui, E. J. (1998a). Vocabulary acquisition: Instructional
and curricular basics and implications. In D. C. Simmons & E. J. Kame’enui (Eds.), What
reading research tells us about children with diverse learning needs (pp. 219–238). Mahwah,
NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Barger, J. (2003). Comparing the DIBELS oral reading fluency indicator and the North Carolina end of grade reading assessment. (Technical Report). Asheville: North Carolina Teacher Academy. Retrieved September 2005 from the DIBELS Technical Reports webpage:
Baumann, J. F., Kame’enui, E. J., & Ash, G. E. (2003). Research on vocabulary instruction:
Voltaire redux. In J. Flood, D. Lapp, J. R. Squire, & J. M. Jensen (Eds.), Handbook of research
on teaching the English language arts (2nd ed., pp. 752–785). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Baumann, J. F., & Bergeron, B. S. (1993). Story map instruction using children’s literature: Effects on first graders’ comprehension of central narrative elements. Journal of Reading Behavior, 25(4), 407–437.
Baumann, J. F., Seifert-Kessell, N., & Jones, L. A. (1992). Effect of think-aloud instruction on elementary students’ comprehension monitoring abilities. Journal of Reading Behavior, 24(2), 143–172.
Beck, I. L., Perfetti, C. A., & McKeown, M. G. (1982). Effects of long-term vocabulary instruction on lexical access and reading comprehension. Journal of Educational Psychology, 74(4), 506–521.
Beck, I. L., & McKeown, M. G. (1991). Conditions of vocabulary acquisition. In R. Barr, M. Kamil, P. Mosenthal, & P. D. Pearson (Eds.), Handbook of reading research, (Vol. 2, pp. 789–814). New York: Longman.
Beck, I. L., & McKeown, M. G. (2001). Text talk: Capturing the benefits of read aloud experiences for young children. The Reading Teacher, 55, 10-20.
Beck, I. L., McKeown, M. G., & Kucan, L. (2002). Bringing words to life: Robust vocabulary instruction. New York: Guilford.
Beck, I. L., McKeown, M. G., & McCaslin, E. S. (1983). All contexts are not created equal. Elementary School Journal, 83, 177-181.
Bereiter, C., & Bird, M. (1985). Use of thinking aloud in identification and teaching of reading comprehension strategies. Cognition and Instruction, 2, 131–156.
Biancarosa, C., & Snow, C. E. (2006). Reading next: A vision for action and research in middle
and high school literacy: A report to Carnegie Corporation of New York (2nd ed.). Washington,
DC: Alliance for Excellent Education. Retrieved January 8, 2007, from
.
Blachowicz, C. L. Z., & Fisher, P. (2000). Vocabulary instruction. In Kamil et al. (Eds.),
handbook of reading research (Vol. 3, pp. 503–523). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Black, P., & Wiliam, D. (1998a). Assessment and classroom learning. Assessment in Education,
5(1), 7–71.
Black, P., & Wiliam, D. (1998b). Inside the black box: Raising standards through classroom
assessment. Phi Delta Kappan, 80(2), 139–148.
Blaha, B. A. (1979). The effects of answering self-generated questions on reading. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Boston University.
Blanchard, J. S. (1980). Preliminary investigation of transfer between single-word decoding ability and contextual reading comprehension by poor readers in grade six. Perceptual and Motor Skills, 51(3), p2.t2.
BockBlock, C. C. (1993). Strategy instruction in a literature-based reading program. Special issue: Strategies instruction. Elementary School Journal, 94(2), 139–151.
Brady, P. I. (1990). Improving the reading comprehension of middle school students through reciprocal teaching and semantic mapping strategies. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Alaska.
Bramlett, R. K. (1994). Implementing cooperative learning: A field study evaluating issues for school-based consultants. Journal of School Psychology, 32(1), 67–84.
Brett, A., Rothlein, L., & Hurley, M. (1996). Vocabulary acquisition from listening to stories and explanations of target words. Elementary School Journal, 96(4), 415–422.
Browder, D. M., & Xin, Y. P. (1998). A meta-analysis and review of sight word research and its implications for teaching functional reading to individuals with moderate and severe disabilities. Journal of Special Education, 32, 130–153.
Brown, R., Pressley, M., Van Meter, P., & Schuder, T. (1996). A quasi-experimental validation of transactional strategies instruction with low-achieving second-grade readers. Journal of Educational Psychology, 88(1), 18–37.
Buck, J., & Torgesen, J. (2003). The relationship between performance on a measure of oral reading fluency and performance on the Florida Comprehensive Assessment Test. (FCRR Technical Report No. 1). Tallahassee: Florida Center for Reading Research. Retrieved September 2005 from the DIBELS Technical Reports webpage:
Buikema, J. L., & Graves, M. F. (1993). Teaching students to use context cues to infer word meanings. Journal of Reading, 36(6), 450–457.
Burley, J. E. (1980). Short-term, high intensity reading practice methods for Upward Bound Students: An appraisal. Negro Educational Review, 31, 156–161.
Buss, R. R., Ratliff, J. L., & Irion, J. C. (1985). Effects of instruction on the use of story structure in comprehension of narrative discourse. National Reading Conference Yearbook, 34, 55–58.
-C-
Campbell, J. R., Hombo, C. M., & Mazzeo, J. (2000). NAEP 1999 trends in academic progress: Three decades of student performance. Education Statistics Quarterly, 21, 31–36.
Carney, J. J., Anderson, D., Blackburn, C., & Blessing, D. (1984). Preteaching vocabulary and the comprehension of social studies materials by elementary school children. Social Education, 48(3), 195–196.
Carnine, D., & Kinder, D. (1985). Teaching low-performing students to apply generative and schema strategies to narrative and expository material. Remedial and Special Education, 6, 20–30.
Carr, E., Bigler, M., & Morningstar, C. (1991). The effects of the CVS strategy on children’s learning: Fortieth yearbook of the National Reading Conference. Chicago, IL: National Reading Conference.
Carr, E. M., Dewitz, P., & Patberg, J. P. (1983). The effect of inference training on children’s comprehension of expository text. Journal of Reading Behavior, 15(3), 1–18.
Carver, R. P., & Liebert, R. E. (1995). The effect of reading library books in different levels of difficulty on gain in reading ability. Reading Research Quarterly, 30, 26–48.
Chall, J. S., & Dale, E. (1995). Readability revisited: The new Dale-Chall readability formula.
Cambridge, MA: Brookline Books.
Chan, L. D. S., & Cole, P. G. (1986). Effects of inference training on children’s comprehension of expository text. Remedial and Special Education, 7, 33–40.
Chasen, S. P., & Gambrell, L. B. (1992). A comparison of teacher read aloud practices and attitudes: 1980-1990. In S. Clewell, J. G. Almasi, & S. A. Wagoner (Eds.), Literacy: Issues and Practices, 9, 29–32.
Clay, M. M. (1972). The early detection of reading difficulties. Auckland, NZ: Heinemann.
Cline, R. K. J., & Kretke, G. L. (1980). An evaluation of long-term SSR in the junior high school. Journal of Reading, 23, 503–506.
Cohen, R. (1983). Students generate questions as an aid to reading comprehension. Reading Teacher, 36, 770–775.
Collins, C. (1980). Sustained silent reading periods: Effects on teachers’ behaviors and students’ achievement. Elementary School Journal, 81, 108–114.
Cross, D. R., & Paris, S. G. (1988). Developmental and instructional analyses of children’s metacognition and reading comprehension. Journal of Educational Psychology, 80(2), 131–142.
Cunningham, A., & Stanovich, K. E. (1998, Spring/Summer). What reading does for the mind. American Educator, 8–15.
Curtis, M. E. (2004). Adolescents who struggle with word identification: Research and practice. In T. L. Jetton & J. A. Dole (Eds.), Adolescent literacy research and practice (pp. 119–134). New York: The Guilford Press.
Curtis, M. E., & Longo, A. M. (1999). When adolescents can’t read: Methods and materials that work. Cambridge, MA: Brookline Books.
Curtis, M. E. & Chmelka. M. B. (1994). Modifying the Laubach Way to Reading Program for
use with adolescents with LDs. Learning Disabilities Research and Practice, 9, 38–43.
Curtis, M. E., & McCart, L. (1992). Fun ways to promote poor readers’ word recognition.
Journal of Reading, 35, 398–399.
-D-
Davey, B., & McBride, M. (1986). Effects of question-generation on reading comprehension. Journal of Educational Psychology, 22, 2–7.
Davis, Z. T. (1988). A comparison of the effectiveness of sustained silent reading and directed reading activity on students’ reading achievement. The High School Journal, 72(1), 46–48.
Dermody, M. (1988). Metacognitive strategies for development of reading comprehension for younger children. Paper presented at the American Association of Colleges for Teacher Education, New Orleans, LA.
Doiron, R. (1994). Using nonfiction in a read-aloud program: Letting the facts speak for themselves. Reading Teacher, 47, 616–624.
Dole, J. A., Sloan, C., & Trathen, W. (1995). Teaching vocabulary within the context of literature. Journal of Reading, 38(6), 452–460.
Dreher, M. J., & Gambrell, L. B. (1985). Teaching children to use a self-questioning strategy for studying expository text. Reading Improvement, 22, 2–7.
Dunn, L. M., Whetton, C., & Burley, J. (1997). British Picture Vocabulary Scale II. Windsor, England: NFER-Nelson.
-E-
Elbro, C., & Petersen, D. K. (2004). Long-term effects of phoneme awareness and letter sound training: An intervention study with children at risk for dyslexia. Journal of Educational Psychology, 96(4), 660–670.
Eldredge, J. L. (1990). Increasing the performance of poor readers in the third grade with a group-assisted strategy. Journal of Educational Research, 84(2), 69–77.
Eller, R. G., Pappas, C. C., & Brown, E. (1988). The lexical development of kindergartners: Learning from written context. Journal of Reading Behavior, 10, 5–23.
Elley, W. B. (1989). Vocabulary acquisition from listening to stories. Reading Research Quarterly, 24, 174–187.
Elliot-Faust, D. J., & Pressley, M. (1986). How to teach comparison processing to increase children’s short- and long-term listening comprehension monitoring. Journal of Educational Psychology, 78, 27–33.
Evans, H. M., & Towner, J. C. (1975). Sustained silent reading: Does it increase skills? Reading Teacher, 29, 155–156.
Ewers, C. A., & Brownson, S. M. (1999). Kindergartners’ vocabulary acquisition as a function of active vs. passive storybook reading, prior vocabulary, and working memory. Journal of Reading Psychology, 20, 11–20.
Ezell, H. K., et al. (1992). Use of peer-assisted procedures to teach QAR reading comprehension strategies to third-grade children. Education and Treatment of Children, 15(3), 205–227.
-F-
Faulkner, H. J., & Levy, B. A. (1999). Fluent and nonfluent forms of transfer in reading: Words and their message. Psychonomic Bulletin and Review, 6, 111–116.
Fischer Galbert, J. L. (1989). An experimental study of reciprocal teaching of expository test with third, fourth, and fifth grade students enrolled in chapter 1 reading. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Ball State University, Muncie, IN.
Fischer, J. A. (1973). Effects of cue synthesis procedure and post questions on the retention of prose material. Dissertation Abstracts International, 34, 615.
Fischer Galbert, J. L. (1989). An experimental study of reciprocal teaching of expository text with third, fourth, and fifth grade students enrolled in chapter 1 reading. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Ball State University, Muncie, IN.
Fitzgerald, J., & Spiegel, D. L. (1983). Enhancing children’s reading comprehension through instruction in narrative structure. Journal of Reading Behavior, 15(2), 1–17.
Fleischer, L. S., Jenkins, J., & Pany, D. (1979). Effects on poor readers’ comprehension of training in rapid decoding. Reading Research Quarterly, 14, 30–48.
Foorman, B. R., Francis, D. J., Fletcher, J. M., Schatschneider, C., & Mehta, P. (1998). The role of instruction in learning to read: Preventing reading failure in at-risk children. Journal of Educational Psychology, 90, 37–55.
Ford, M. E. (1992). Motivating humans. New York: Sage.
Frey, N., and Fisher, D. (2006). Language arts workshop: Purposeful reading and writing instruction. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Merrill Education.
Freyd, P., & Baron, J. (1982). Individual differences in acquisition of derivational morphology.
Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 21, 282–295.
Fry, E. B. (2004). Phonics: A large phoneme-grapheme frequency count revised. Journal of
Literary Research, 36(1), 85–98.
Fuchs, L. S., Fuchs, D., Eaton, S., & Hamlett, C. L. (2000). [Relation between reading fluency and reading comprehension as a function of silent versus oral reading mode]. Unpublished data.
Fuchs, L. S., Fuchs, D., Hosp, M. K., & Jenkins, J. R. (2001). Oral reading fluency as an indicator of reading competence: A theoretical, empirical, and historical analysis. Scientific Studies of Reading, 5(3), 239–256.
Fuchs, L. S., Fuchs, D., & Maxwell, L. (1988). The validity of informal measures of reading comprehension. Remedial and Special Education, 9(2), 20–28.
-G-
Gambrell, L. B. (2004). Literacy motivation implications for urban classrooms. In D. Lapp,
C. C. Block, E. J. Cooper, J. Flood, N. Roser, & J. V. Tinajero (Eds.), Teaching all the children:
Strategies for developing literacy in an urban setting (pp. 193–199). New York: The Guilford
Press.
Gambrell, L. B. (1995). Motivation matters. In W. M. Linek & E.G. Sturtevant (Eds.),
Generations of literacy: Seventeenth yearbook of the College Reading Association (pp. 2–24).
Harrisonburg, VA: College Reading Association.
García, G. E., & Godina, H. (2004). Addressing the literacy needs of adolescent English
language learners. In T. L. Jetton & J. A. Dole (Eds.), Adolescent literacy and research and
practice (pp. 304–320). New York: The Guilford Press.
Garner, R., Hare, V. C., Alexander, P. A., Haynes, J., & Winograd, P. (1984). Inducing use of a text lookback strategy among unsuccessful readers. American Educational Research Journal, 21, 789–798.
Garner, R., Macready, G. B., & Wagoner, S. (1984). Readers’ acquisition of the components of the text-lookback strategy. Journal of Educational Psychology, 76, 300–309.
Gaskins, I. W., Downer, M. A., Anderson, R. C., Cunningham, P. M., Gaskins, R. W., Schommer, M., et al. (1998). A metacognitive approach to phonics: Using what you know to decode what you don’t know. Remedial and Special Education, 9, 36–41.
Gathercole, S. E., Willis, C. S., Baddeley, A. D., & Emslie, H. (1994). The Children’s Test of Nonword Repetition: A test of phonological working memory. Memory, 2, 103–127.
Gilroy, A., & Moore, D. W. (1988). Reciprocal teaching of comprehension-fostering and comprehension-monitoring activities with ten primary school girls. Special issue: Changing academic behavior. Educational Psychology, 8(1–2), 41–49.
Gipe, J. P., & Arnold, R. D. (1979). Teaching vocabulary through familiar associations and contexts. Journal of Reading Behavior, 11(3), 281–285.
Good, R. H., Simmons, D. C., & Kame’enui, E. J. (2001). The importance and decision-making utility of a continuum of fluency-based indicators of foundational reading skills for third-grade high-stakes outcomes. Scientific Studies of Reading, 5(3), 257–288.
Good, R. H., Simmons, D. S., Kame’enui, E. J., Kaminski, R. A., & Wallin, J. (2002). Summary of decision rules for intensive, strategic, and benchmark instructional recommendations in kindergarten through third grade. (Technical Report No. 11). Eugene: University of Oregon.
Goodman, Y. M., & Burke, C. L. (1972). Reading miscue inventory: Procedure for diagnosis and correction. New York: Macmillan.
Gordon, C. J., & Rennie, B. J. (1987). Restructuring content schemata: An intervention study. Reading Research and Instruction, 26(3), 162–188.
Gordon, J., Schumm, J. S., Coffland, C., & Doucette, M. (1992). Effects of inconsiderate vs. considerate text on elementary students’ vocabulary learning. Reading Psychology, 13(2), 157–169.
Graham, S., Harris, K. R., & Loynachan, C., (1993). The basic spelling vocabulary list. Journal of Educational Research, 86, 363–368.
Graham, S., & Perin, D. (2007). Writing next: Effective strategies to improve writing of adolescents in middle and high schools: A report to Carnegie Corporation of New York. Washington, DC: Alliance for Excellent Education. Retrieved February 12, 2007, from Next.pdf
Grant, J., Elias, G., & Broerse, J. (1989). An application of Palinscar and Brown’s comprehension instruction paradigm to listening. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 14(2), 164–172.
Graves, M. (2006). The vocabulary book: Learning and instruction. New York: Teachers College, Columbia University.
Graves, M. & Hammond, H. K. (1980). A validated procedure for teaching prefixes and its effect on students’ ability to assign meaning to novel words. In M L. Kamil & A. J. Moe (Eds.), Perceptives on reading research and instruction: Twenty-ninth yearbook of the National Reading Conference (Vol. 29, pp. 184–188). Washington, DC: National Reading Association.
Greenewald, M. J., & Rossing, R. L. (1986). Short-term and long-term effects of story grammar and self-monitoring training on children’s story comprehension. National Reading Conference Yearbook, 35, 210–213.
Griffey, Q. L., Jr., et al. (1988). The effects of self-questioning and story structure training on the reading comprehension of poor readers. Learning Disabilities Research, 4(1), 45–51.
Guthrie, J. T. (2004, Spring). Teaching for literacy engagement. Journal of Literacy Research,
36(1), 1–30.
Guthrie, J. T., & Wigfield, A. (2000). Engagement and motivation in reading. In M. Kamil, R.
Barr, P. Mosenthal, & P. D. Pearson (Eds.), Handbook of reading research (Vol. 3, pp. 403–422).
New York: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Guthrie, J. T., et al. (1996). Growth of literacy engagement: Changes in motivations and strategies during concept-oriented reading instruction. Reading Research Quarterly, 31(3), 306–332.
Guthrie, J. T., Schafer, W., Wang, Y., & Afflerbach, P. (1995). Relationships of instruction to amount of reading: An exploration of a social, cognitive, and instructional connection. Reading Research Quarterly, 30, 8-25.
-H-
Hafner, L. E. (1965). A one-month experiment in teaching context aids in fifth grade. Journal of Educational Research, 58, 471–474.
Hansen, J., & Pearson, P. D. (1983). An instructional study: Improving the inferential comprehension of good and poor fourth-grade readers. Journal of Educational Psychology, 75(6), 821–829.
Harmon, J. M., Keehn, S., & Kenney, M. S. (2004, Winter). Tutoring struggling adolescent
readers: A program investigation. Reading Research and Instruction, 44(2), 46–74.
Harris, R. E., Marchand-Martella, N., & Martella, R. C. (2000). Effects of a peer-delivered corrective reading program. Journal of Behavioral Education, 10, 21–36.
Hasbrouck, J., & Tindal, G. A. Oral reading fluency norms: A valuable tool for reading teachers. The Reading Teacher, 59 (7). (April 2006).
Hasbrouck, J. E., & Tindal, G. (1992). Curriculum-based oral reading fluency norms for students in grades 2 through 5. Teaching Exceptional Children, 24(3), 41–44.
Hasbrouck, J. E., Woldbeck, T., Ihnot, C., & Parker, R. I. (1999). One teacher’s use of curriculum-based measurement: A changed opinion. Learning Disabilities: Research & Practice, 14(2), 118–126.
Hasselhorn, M., & Koerkel, J. (1986). Metacognitive versus traditional reading instructions: The mediating role of domain-specific knowledge on children’s text-processing. Human Learning: Journal of Practical Research and Applications, 5(2), 75–90.
Heise, B. L., Papalewis, R., & Tanner, D. E. (1991). Building base vocabulary with computer-assisted instruction. Teacher Education Quarterly, 18(1), 55–63.
Helfeldt, J. P., & Lalik, R. (1976). Reciprocal student-teacher questioning. Reading Teacher, 33, 283–287.
Hidi, S. (1990). Interest and its contribution as a mental resource for learning. Review of Educational Research, 60(4), 549–571.
Holt, S. B., & O’Tuel, F. S. (1989). The effect of sustained silent reading and writing on achievement and attitudes of seventh and eighth grade students reading two years below grade level. Reading Improvement, 26, 290–297.
Hosp, M. K., & Fuchs, L. S. (2000). The relation between word reading measures and reading comprehension: A review of the literature. Manuscript submitted for publication.
-I-
Idol, L. (1987). Group story mapping: A comprehension strategy for both skilled and unskilled readers. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 20, 196–205.
Idol, L., & Croll, V. J. (1987). Story-mapping training as a means of improving reading comprehension. Learning Disability Quarterly, 10, 214–229.
-J-
Jacobs, J. E., & Paris, S. G. (1987). Children’s metacognition about reading: Issues in definition, measurement, and instruction. Educational Psychologist, 22, 255–278.
Jenkins, J. R., Fuchs, L. S., van den Broek, P., Espin, C., & Deno, S. L. (2003). Sources of individual differences in reading comprehension and reading fluency. Journal of Educational Psychology, 95(4), 719–729.
Jetton, T. L., & Dole, J. A. (2004). Introduction. In T. L. Jetton & J. A. Dole (Eds.), Adolescent
literacy research and practice (pp. 1–11). New York: The Guilford Press.
Johnson, M. S., Kress, R. A., & Pikulski, J. J. (1987). Informal reading inventories (2nd ed.). Newark, IL: International Reading Association.
Jones, M. P. (1987). Effects of reciprocal teaching method on third graders’ decoding and comprehension abilities. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Texas A&M University.
Judy, J. E., Alexander, P. A., Kulikowich, J. M., & Wilson, V. L. (1988). Effects of two instructional approaches and peer tutoring on gifted and non-gifted sixth-grade students’ analogy performance. Reading Research Quarterly, 23(2), 236–256.
-K-
Kameenui, E., Carnine, D., & Freschi, R. (1982). Effects of text construction and instructional procedures for teaching word meanings on comprehension and recall. Reading Research Quarterly, 17(3), 367–388.
Kamil, M. L. (2003). Adolescents and literacy: Reading for the 21st century. Washington, DC: Alliance for Excellent Education. Retrieved February 17, 2007, from
Kelly, M., Moore, D. W., & Tuck, B. F. (1994). Reciprocal teaching in a regular primary school classroom. Journal of Educational Research, 88(1), 53–61.
Kim, H. S., & Kamil, M. L. (2004). Adolescents, computer technology, and literacy. In T. L.
Jetton & J. A. Dole (Eds.), Adolescent literacy research and practice (pp. 351–368). New York:
The Guilford Press.
King, A. (1989). Effects of self-questioning training on college students’ comprehension of lectures. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 14, 366–381.
King, A. (1990). Improving lecture comprehension: Effects of a metacognitive strategy. Applied Educational Psychology, 29, 331–346.
King, A. (1992). Comparison of self-questioning, summarizing, and note taking-review as strategies for learning from lectures. American Educational Research Journal, 29, 303–325.
Kirk, S. A., McCarthy, J. J., & Kirk, W. D. (1968). Illinois Test of Psycholinguistic Abilities. Urbana: University of Illinois Press.
Klingner, J. K., Vaughn, S., & Schumm, J. S. (1998). Collaborative strategic reading during social studies in heterogeneous fourth-grade classrooms. Elementary School Journal, 99(1), 3–22.
Kolich, E. M. (1991). Effects of computer-assisted vocabulary training on word knowledge. Journal of Educational Research, 84(3), 177–182.
-L-
Labercane, G., & Battle, J. (1987). Cognitive processing strategies, self-esteem, and reading comprehension of learning disabled students. Journal of Special Education, 11, 167–185.
LaBerge, D., & Samuels, S.A. (1974). Toward a theory of automatic information processing in
reading. Cognitive Psychology, 6, 293–323.
Langford, J. C., & Allen, E. G. (1983). The effects of U.S.S.R. on students’ attitudes and achievement. Reading Horizons, 23, 194–200.
Lapp, D., Flood, J., & Block, C. D. (2004). What types of assessment really inform instruction in
an urban school? In D. Lapp, C. C. Block, E. J. Cooper, J. Flood, N. Roser, & J. V. Tinajero
(Eds.), Teaching all the children: Strategies for developing literacy in an urban setting (pp. 193–
199). New York: The Guilford Press.
Leung, C. B., & Pikulski, J. J. (1990). Incidental learning of word meanings by kindergarten and first grade children through repeated read aloud events. In J. Zutell & S. McCormick (Eds.), Literacy theory and research: Analyses from multiple paradigms (pp. 231–241). Chicago: National Reading Conference. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. 324646).
Levin, J., Johnson, D., Pittelman, S., Levin, K., Shriberg, L., Toms-Bronowski, S., & Hayes, B. (1984). A comparison of semantic- and mnemonic-based vocabulary-learning strategies. Reading Psychology, 5(1–2), 1–15.
Levin, J., McCormick, C., Miller, G., & Berry, J. (1982). Mnemonic versus nonmnemonic vocabulary-learning strategies for children. American Educational Research Journal, 19(1), 121–136.
Levy, B. A., Nicholls, A., & Kohen, D. (1993). Repeated readings: Process benefits for good and poor readers. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 56, 303–327.
Lonberger, R. (1988). The effects of training in a self-generated learning strategy on the prose processing abilities of fourth- and sixth-graders. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, State University of New York at Buffalo.
Loomis, S. C., & Bourque, M. L. (Eds.). (2001). National assessment of educational progress
achievement levels 1992–1998 for reading.
Washington, DC: National Assessment Governing Board. Retrieved from
Loranger, A. L. (1997). Comprehension strategies instruction: Does it make a difference? Reading Psychology, 18(1), 31–68.
Lovett, M. W., Lacarenza, L., & Borden, S. L., (2000). Putting struggling readers on the PHAST track: A program to integrate phonological and strategy-based remedial reading instruction and maximize outcomes. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 33, 458–476.
Lovett, M. W., & Steinbach, K. A., (1997). The effectiveness of remedial programs for reading disabled children of different ages: Does the benefit decrease for older children? Learning Disability Quarterly, 20, 189–210.
Lysynchuk, L. M., Pressley, M., & Vye, N. J. (1990). Reciprocal teaching improves standardized reading-comprehension performance in poor comprehenders. Elementary School Journal, 90(5), 469–484.
-M-
MacGregor, S. K. (1988). Use of self-questioning with a computer-mediated text system and measures of reading performance. Journal of Reading Behavior, 20(2), 131–148.
Malone, R. A., & McLaughlin, T. F. (1997). The effects of reciprocal peer tutoring with a group contingency on quiz performance in vocabulary with seventh- and eighth-grade students. Behavioral Interventions, 12(1), 27–40.
Manning, G. L., & Manning, M. (1984). What models of recreational reading make a difference. Reading World, 23, 375–380.
Manzo, A. V. (1969). Improving reading comprehension through reciprocal teaching. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Syracuse University.
Markman, E. M. (1977). Realizing that you don’t understand: A preliminary investigation. Child Development, 46, 986–992.
Marston, D. (1989). A curriculum-based measurement approach to assessing academic performance: What is it and why do it? In M. R. Shinn (Ed.), Curriculum-based measurement: Assessing special children (pp. 18–78). New York: Guilford.
Mathes, P. G., et al. (1994). Increasing strategic reading practice with Peabody classwide peer tutoring. Learning Disabilities Research and Practice, 9(1), 44–48.
McKeown, M. G., Beck, I. L., Omanson, R. C., & Pople, M. T. (1985). Some effects of the nature and frequency of vocabulary instruction on the knowledge and use of words. Reading Research Quarterly, 20(5), 522–535.
McKeown, M. G., Beck, I. L., Omanson, R. C., & Perfetti, C. A. (1983). The effects of long-term vocabulary instruction on reading comprehension: A replication. Journal of Reading Behavior, 15(1), 3–18.
McQuillan, J. (1998). The literacy crisis: False claims, real solutions. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.
Medo, M. A., & Ryder, R. J. (1993). The effects of vocabulary instruction on readers’ ability to make causal connections. Reading Research and Instruction, 33(2), 119–134.
Meltzer, J., & Hamann, E. T. (2004). Meeting the literacy development needs of adolescent
English language learners through content area learning: Part one: Focus on motivation and
engagement. Providence, RI: The Education Alliance at Brown University. Retrieved February
13, 2007, from
Meltzer, J., & Hamann, E. T. (2005). Meeting the literacy development needs of adolescent
English language learners through content-area learning: Part two: Focus on classroom
teaching and learning strategies. Providence, RI: The Education Alliance at Brown University.
Retrieved February 13, 2007, from
Miller, G. E. (1985). The effects of general and specific self-instruction training on children’s comprehension monitoring performances during reading. Reading Research Quarterly, 20(5), 616–628.
Miller, G. E. (1987). The influence of self-instruction on the comprehension monitoring performance of average and above average readers. Journal of Reading Behavior, 19(3), 303–317.
Miller, G. E., Giovenco, A., & Rentiers, K. A. (1987). Fostering comprehension monitoring in below average readers through self-instruction training. Journal of Reading Behavior, 19(4), 379–394.
Moore, D. W., Bean, T. W., Birdyshaw, D., and Rycik, J. A. (1999). Adolescent literacy: A position statement. Retrieved January 29, 2007, from
. Journal of Adolescent and Adult Literacy, 43, 97–112.
Morris, D., Bloodgood, J. W., Lomax, R. G., & Perney, J. (2003). Developmental steps in learning to read: A longitudinal study in kindergarten and first grade. Reading Research Quarterly, 38(3), 302–328.
Morrow, L. M., & Weinstein, C. S. (1986). Encouraging voluntary reading: The impact of a literature program on children’s use of library centers. Reading Research Quarterly, 21, 330–346.
Muter, V., Hulme, C., Snowling, M. J., & Stevenson, J. (2004). Phonemes, rimes, vocabulary, and grammatical skills as foundations of early reading development: Evidence from a longitudinal study. Developmental Psychology, 40(5), 665–681.
-N-
Nagy, W. E., Anderson, R. C. (1984). How many words are there in printed school English? Reading Research Quarterly, 19, 304–330.
Nagy, W. E., Anderson, R. C., & Herman, P. A. (1987). Learning word meanings from context during normal reading. American Educational Research Journal, 24(2), 237–270.
Nagy, W. E., Herman, P. A., & Anderson, R. C. (1985). Learning words from context. Reading Research Quarterly, 20(2), 233–253.
NASBE Study Group on Middle and High School Literacy. (2006). Reading at risk: The state response to the crisis in adolescent literacy (Rev. ed.). Alexandria, VA: National Association of State Boards of Education. Retrieved February 17, 2007, from
Nathan, R. G., & Stanovich, K. E. (1991). The causes and consequences of differences in reading fluency. Theory into Practice, 30(3), 176–184.
National Association of State Boards of Education (NASBE). (2006). Study Group on Reading
and High School Literacy. Reading at risk: The state response to the crisis in adolescent literacy
(Rev. ed.). Alexandria, VA: National Association of State Boards of Education. Retrieved
February 17, 2007, from
National Center for Education Statistics (NCES). (1999). Nation’s report card: Reading 1998.
Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office.
Retrieved from
National Center for Education Statistics (NCES). (2006). Nation’s report card: Reading 2005.
Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office.
Retrieved from
National Institute of Child Health and Human Development. (2000). Report of the National Reading Panel. Teaching children to read: An evidence-based assessment of the scientific research literature on reading and its implications for reading instruction: Reports of the subgroups (NIH Publication No. 00-4754). Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office.
Neale, M. (1997). Neale Analysis of Reading Ability II. Window, England: NFER-Nelson.
Neill, K. (1979). Turn kids on with repeated reading. Teaching Exceptional Children, 12, 63–64.
Nelson, C. S., et al. (1996). The effect of teacher scaffolding and student comprehension monitoring on a multimedia/interactive videodisc science lesson for second graders. Journal of Educational Multimedia and Hypermedia, 5(3–4), 317–348.
Nokes, J. D., & Dole, J. A. (2004). Helping adolescent readers through explicit strategy instruction. In T. L. Jetton & J. A. Dole (Eds.), Adolescent literacy research and practice (pp. 162–182). New York: The Guilford Press.
Nolte, R. Y., & Singer, H. (1985). Active comprehension: Teaching a process of reading comprehension and its effects on reading achievement. Reading Teacher, 39(1), 24–31.
-O-
Olson, L. (2006). A decade of effort. Quality Counts, 25, 8–10, 12, 14, 16, 18–21.
Omanson, R. C., Beck, I. L., Voss, J. F., McKeown, M. G., et al. (1984). The effects of reading lessons on comprehension: A processing description. Cognition and Instruction, 1(1), 45–67.
O’Shea, L. J., Sindelar, P. T., & O’Shea, D. J. (1985). The effects of repeated readings and attentional cues on reading fluency and comprehension. Journal of Reading Behavior, 17, 129–142.
Otterman, L. M. (1955). The value of reading prefixes and word roots. Journal of Educational Research, 48, 611–616.
-P-
Padron, Y. N. (1985). Utilizing cognitive reading strategies to improve English reading comprehension of Spanish-speaking bilingual students. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Houston.
Palinscar, A. S. (1987). Collaborating for collaborative learning of text comprehension. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the American Educational Research Association, Washington, DC.
Palinscar, A. S., & Brown, A. L. (1984). Reciprocal teaching of comprehension-fostering and comprehension-monitoring activities. Cognition and Instruction, 2, 117–175.
Palinscar, A. S., David, Y. M., Winn, J. A., & Stevens, D. D. (1991). Examining the context of strategy instruction. Special issue: Cognitive instruction and problem learners. RASE: Remedial and Special Education, 12(3), 43–53.
Paris, S. C., & Oka, E. R. (1986). Self-regulated learning among exceptional children. Exceptional Children, 53, 103–108.
Partnership for Reading. (2001, September). Put reading first: The research building blocks for teaching children to read. Washington, DC.: National Institute for Literacy; National Institute of Child Health and Human Development; and U.S. Department of Education.
Patberg, J. P., Graves, M. F., & Stibbe, M. A. (1984). Effects of active reaching and practice in facilitating students’ use of context clues. Changing perspectives on research in reading language processing and instruction. Thirty-third yearbook of the National Reading Conference (Vol. 33, pp. 146–151). Rochester, NY: National Reading Conference.
Payne, B. D., & Manning, B. H. (1992). Basal reader instruction: Effects of comprehension monitoring training on reading comprehension, strategy use and attitude. Reading Research and Instruction, 32(1), 29–38.
Peak, J., & Dewalt, M. W. (1994). Reading achievement: Effects of computerized reading management and enrichment. ERS Spectrum, 12(1), 31–34.
Pelow, R. A., & Colvin, H. M. (1983). PQ4R as it affects comprehension of social studies reading material. Social Studies Journal, 12, 14–22 (Spring).
Peterson, C. L., Caverly, D. C., Nicholson, S. A., O’Neal, S., & Cusenbary, S. (2000). Building
reading proficiency at the secondary level: A guide to resources. Austin, TX: Southwest
Educational Development Laboratory. Retrieved April 3, 2007, from
Pickens, J., & McNaughton, S. (1988). Peer tutoring of comprehension strategies. Educational Psychology: An International Journal of Experimental Educational Psychology, 8(1–2), 67–80.
Pinnell, G. S., Pikulski, J. J., Wixson, K. K., Campbell, J. R., Gough, P. B., & Beatty, A. S. (1995). Listening to children read aloud. Washington, DC: Office of Educational Research and Improvement, U. S. Department of Education.
Pressley, M. (2002). Comprehension strategies instruction: A turn-of-the-century status report. In
C. C. Block & M. Pressley (Eds.), Comprehension instruction: Research-based best practices
(pp. 11–27). New York: The Guilford Press.
Pressley, M. (2000).What should comprehension instruction be the instruction of? In M. Kamil,
P. B. Mosenthal, P. D. Pearson, & R. Barr (Eds.), Handbook of reading research (Vol. 3, pp.
545–561). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Pressley, M., & Forrest-Pressley, D. (1985). Questions and children’s cognitive processing. In A. C. G. B. Black (Ed.), The psychology of questions (pp. 277–-296). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
-R-
Raphael, T. E., & McKinney, J. (1983). An examination of fifth- and eighth-grade children’s question-answering behavior: An instructional study in metacognition. Journal of Reading Behavior, 15(3), 67–86.
Raphael, T. E., & Pearson, P. D. (1985). Increasing students’ awareness of sources of information for answering questions. American Educational Research Journal, 22, 217–235.
Raphael, T. E., & Wonnacott, C. A. (1985). Heightening fourth-grade students’ sensitivity to sources of information for answering comprehension questions. Reading Research Quarterly, 20(3), 282–296.
Rasinski, T. V., Padak, N. D., McKeon, C. A., Wilfong, L. G., Friedauer, J. A., & Heim, P.
(2005). Is reading fluency a key for successful high school reading? Journal of Adolescent &
Adult Literacy, 49(1), 22–27.
Rasinski, T. V. (1990). Effects of repeated reading and listening-while-reading on reading fluency. Journal of Educational Research, 83, 147–150.
Readence, J. E., Bean, T. W., & Baldwin, R. S. (2004). Content area literacy: An integrated approach (8th ed.). Dubuque, IA: Kendall/Hunt.
Reitsma, P. (1998). Reading practice for beginners: Effects of guided reading, reading-while-listening, and independent reading with computer-based speech feedback. Reading Research Quarterly, 23, 219–235.
Reutzel, D. R. (1984). Story mapping: An alternative approach to communication. Reading World, 24(2), 16–25.
Reutzel, D. R. (1985). Story maps improve comprehension. Reading Teacher, 38(4), 400–404.
Reutzel, D. R. (1986). Clozing in on comprehension: The Cloze story map. Reading Teacher, 39(6), 524–528.
Reutzel, D. R., & Hollingsworth, P. M. (1991a). Reading comprehension skills: Testing the distinctiveness hypothesis. Reading Research and Instruction, 30, 32–46.
Reutzel, D. R., & Hollingsworth, P. M. (1991b). Reading time in school: Effect on fourth graders’ performance on a criterion-referenced comprehension test. Journal of Educational Research, 84(3), 170–176.
Rich, R. Z. (1989). The effects of training adult poor readers to use text comprehension strategies. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Columbia University, New York.
Richmond, M. G. (1976). The relationship of the uniqueness of prose passages to the effect of question placement and question relevance on the acquisition and retention of information. In G. H. McNinch (Ed.). Reflections and investigations on reading. Twenty-fifth yearbook of the National Reading Conference (pp. 268–278). Clemson, SC: National Reading Conference.
Rinaldi, L., Sells, D., & McLaughlin, T. F. (1997). The effects of reading racetracks on the sight word acquisition and fluency of elementary students. Journal of Behavioral Education, 7(2), 219–233.
Ritchie, P. (1985). Graduate research: Reviews and commentary: The effects of instruction in main idea and question generation. Reading-Canada-Lecture, 3(2),139–146.
Robbins, C., & Ehri, L. C. (1994). Reading storybooks to kindergartners helps them learn new vocabulary words. Journal of Educational Psychology, 86(1), 54–64.
Rosenshine, B., & Meister, C. (1994). Reciprocal teaching: A review of the research. Review of Educational Research, 64(4), 479–530.
Rosenshine, B., Meister, C., & Chapman, S. (1996). Teaching students to generate questions: A review of the intervention studies. Review of Educational Research, 66(2), 181–221.
Rowls, M. D. (1976). The facilitative and interactive effects of adjunct questions on retention of eighth-graders across three prose passages: Dissertation in prose learning. Journal of Educational Psychology, 68, 205–209.
Ruiz-de-Velasco, J., & Fix, M. (with Clewell, B. C.). (2000). Overlooked and underserved: Immigrant students in U.S. secondary schools. Washington, DC: The Urban Institute. Retrieved February 13, 2007, from
Rush, R. T., & Milburn, J. L. (1988). The effects of reciprocal teaching on self-regulation of reading comprehension in a post-secondary technical school program. Paper presented at the National Reading Conference, Tucson, AZ.
Ryder, R. J., & Graves, M. F. (1994). Vocabulary instruction presented prior to reading in two basal readers. Elementary School Journal, 95(2), 139–153.
-S-
Samuels, S. J. (1994). Toward a theory of automatic information processing in reading, revisited. In R. B. Ruddell, M. R. Ruddell, & h. Singer (Eds.). Theoretical models and processes of reading (4th ed., pp. 816–837). Newark, NJ: International Reading Association.
Schmitt, M. C. (1988). The effects of an elaborated directed reading activity on the metacomprehension skills of third graders. National Reading Conference Yearbook, 37, 167–181.
Schunk, D. H., & Rice, J. M. (1984). Strategy self-verbalization during remedial listening comprehension instruction. Journal of Experimental Education, 53(1), 49–54.
Schunk, D. H., & Rice, J. M. (1985). Verbalization of comprehension strategies: Effects on children’s achievement outcomes. Human Learning: Journal of Practical Research and Applications, 4(1), 1–10.
Schwartz, R. M., & Raphael, T. E. (1985). Instruction in the concept of definition as a basis for vocabulary acquisition. In J. A. Niles & R. V. Lalik (Eds.), Issues in literacy: A research perspective: Thirty-fourth yearbook of the National Reading Conference (pp. 116–124).
Scott, J. A., Butler, C. E., Asselin, M. M., & Henry, S. K. (1996, December). The effect of mediated assistance in word learning. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the National Reading Conference, Charleston, SC.
Scott, J., & Nagy, W. (1997). Understanding the definitions of unfamiliar verbs. Reading Research Quarterly, 32, 184–200.
Senechal, M. (1997). The differential effect of storybook reading on preschoolers’ acquisition of expressive and receptive vocabulary. Journal of Child Language, 24(1), 123–138.
Senechal, M., & Cornell, E. H. (1993). Vocabulary acquisition through shared reading experiences. Reading Research Quarterly, 28, 360–374.
Serenty, M. L., & Dean, R. S. (1986). Interspersed post-passage questions and reading comprehension achievement. Journal of Educational Psychology, 78(3), 228–229.
Shaw, R., & Shaw, D. (2002). DIBELS oral reading fluency-based indicators of third grade reading skills for Colorado State Assessment Program (CSAP). (Technical Report). Eugene: University of Oregon. Retrieved September 2005 from the DIBELS Technical Reports webpage:
Sheldon, S. A. (1984). Comparison of two teaching methods for reading comprehension. Journal of Research in Reading, 7(1), 41–52.
Shinn, M. R. (1998). Identifying and defining academic problems: CBM Screening and eligibility procedures. In M. R. Shinn (Ed.), Curriculum-based measurement: Assessing special children (pp. 90–129). New York: Guilford.
Short, D., & Fitzsimmons, S. (2007). Double the work: Challenges and solutions to acquiring language and academic literacy for adolescent English language learners: A report to Carnegie Corporation of New York. Washington, DC: Alliance for Excellent Education. Retrieved February 27, 2007, from
Short, E. J., & Ryan, E. B. (1984). Metacognitive differences between skilled and less skilled readers: Remediating deficits through story grammar and attribution training. Journal of Educational Psychology, 76(2), 225–235.
Shortland-Jones, B. (1986). The development and testing of an instructional strategy for improving reading comprehension based on schema and metacognitive theories. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Oregon.
Silven, M. (1992). The role of metacognition in reading instruction. Scandinavian Journal of Educational Research, 36(3), 211–221.
Simpson, P. S. (1989). The effects of direct training in active comprehension on reading achievement, self-concepts, and reading attitudes of at-risk sixth grade students. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Texas Technological University.
Sindelar, P. T. (1982). The effects of cross-aged tutoring on the comprehension skills of remedial reading students. Journal of Special Education, 16(2), 199–206.
Sindelar, P. T., Monda, L. E., & O’Shea, L. J. (1990). Effects of repeated readings on instructional- and mastery-level readers. Journal of Educational Research, 83, 220–226.
Singer, H., & Donlan, D. (1982). Active comprehension: Problem-solving schema with question generation for comprehension of complex short stories. Reading Research Quarterly, 17(2), 166–186.
Smith, D. D. (1979). The improvement of children’s oral reading through the use of teacher modeling. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 12(3), 39–42.
Smith, K., Johnson, D. W., & Johnson, R. T. (1981). Can conflict be constructive? Controversy versus concurrence seeking in learning groups. Journal of Educational Psychology, 73(5), 651–663.
Smith, N. J. (1977). The effects of training teachers to teach students at different reading ability levels to formulate three types of questions on reading comprehension and question generation ability. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Georgia.
Snow, C. E., Burns, M. S., & Griffin, P. (Eds.). (1998). Preventing reading difficulties in young children. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.
Soriano, M., Vidal-Abarca, E., & Miranda, A. (1996). Comparación de dos procedimentos de instrucción en comprensión y aprendizaje de textos: Instrucción directa y enseñanza recíproca. [Comparison of two procedures for instruction in comprehension and text learning: Direct instruction and reciprocal teaching]. Infancia y Aprendizaje, 74, 57–65.
Spiegel, D. L., & Fitzgerald, J. (1986). Improving reading comprehension through instruction about story parts. Reading Teacher, 39(7), 676–682.
Stahl, S. (1983). Differential word knowledge and reading comprehension. Journal of Reading Behavior, 15(4), 33–50.
Stahl, S. A., & Kuhn, M. R. (2002). Making it sound like language: Developing fluency. Reading
Teacher, 55, 582–584.
Stahl, S. A., & Fairbanks, M. M. (1986). The effects of vocabulary instruction: A model-based meta-analysis. Review of Educational Research, 56(1), 72–110.
Stallman, A. C., Commeyras, M., Kerr, B., Reimer, K., Himenez, R., Hartman, D. K., & Pearson,
P. D. (1990). Are “new” words really new? Reading Research and Instruction, 30(4), 31–41.
Stanovich, K. E. (1986). Matthew effects in reading: Some consequences of individual
differences in the acquisition of literacy. Reading Research Quarterly, 21, 360–407.
Sternberg, R. B. (1987). Most vocabulary is learned from context. In M. G. McKeown & M. E. Curtis (Eds.), The nature of vocabulary acquisition (pp. 89–105). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Stevens, R. J. (1988). Effects of strategy training on the identification of the main idea of expository passages. Journal of Educational Psychology, 80(1), 21–26.
Stevens, R. J., Madden, N. A., Slavin, R. E., & Farnish, A. M. (1987). Cooperative integrated reading and composition: Two field experiments. Reading Research Quarterly, 22(4), 433–454.
Stevens, R. J., Slavin, R. E., & Farnish, A. M. (1991). The effects of cooperative learning and instruction in reading comprehension strategies on main idea identification. Journal of Educational Psychology, 83(1), 8–16.
Stoddard, K., Valcante, G., Sindelar, P., O’Shea, L., & Algozzine, B. (1993). Increasing reading rate and comprehension: The effects of repeated readings, sentence segmentation, and intonation training. Reading Research and Instruction, 32, 53–65.
Summers, E. G., & McClelland, J. V. (1982). A field-based evaluation of sustained silent reading (SSR) in intermediate grades. Alberta Journal of Educational Research, 28, 100–112.
Swanborn, M. S. L., & de Glopper, K. (1999). Incidental word learning while reading: A meta-analysis. Review of Educational Research, 69(3), 261–285.
-T-
Tan, A., & Nicholson, T. (1997). Flashcards revisited: Training poor readers to read words faster improves their comprehension of text. Journal of Educational Psychology, 89, 276–288.
Taylor, B. M., & Frye, B. J. (1992). Comprehension strategy instruction in the intermediate grades. Reading Research and Instruction, 32(1), 39–48.
Taylor, N. E., Wade, M. R., & Yekovich, F. R. (1985). The effects of text manipulation and multiple reading strategies on the reading performance of good and poor readers. Reading Research Quarterly, 20, 566–574.
Tierney, R. J., & Shanahan, T. (1991). Research on the reading-writing relationship: Interactions,
transactions, and outcomes. In R. Barr, M. L. Kamil, P. B. Mosenthal, & P. D. Pearson (Eds.),
Handbook of Reading Research (Vol. 2, 246–280). New York: Longman Publishing.
Tindal, G., & Marston, D. (1990). Classroom-based assessment: Testing for teachers. Columbus, OH: Merrill Publishing.
Tobias, S. (1994). Interest, prior knowledge, and learning. Review of Educational Research, 64(1), 37–54.
Tomesen, M., & Aarnoutse, C. (1998). Effects of an instructional programme for deriving word meanings. Educational Studies, 24(1), 107–128.
Tomlinson, C. A. (2004). Differentiating instruction: A synthesis of key research and guidelines.
In T. L. Jetton & J. A. Dole (Eds.), Adolescent literacy research and practice (pp. 228–248).
New York: The Guilford Press.
Tomlinson, C., Brighton, C., Hertberg, H., Callahan, C., Moon, T., Brimijoin, K., Conover, L., & Reynolds, T. (2003). Differentiating instruction in response to student readiness, interest, and learning profile in academically diverse classrooms: A review of literature. Journal for the Education of the Gifted, 27(2/3), 119–145.
Tregaskes, M. R., & Daines, D. (1989). Effects of metacognitive strategies on reading comprehension. Reading Research and Instruction, 29(1), 52–60.
Tunmer, W. E. (1989). The role of language-related factors in reading disability. In D Shankweiler & I. Y. Liberman (Eds.), Phonology and reading disability: Solving the puzzle (pp. 91–131). Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.
Turpie, J. J., & Paratore, J. R. (1995). Using repeated reading to promote success in a heterogeneously grouped first grade. In K. A. Hinchman, D. J. Leu, & C. K. Kinzer (Eds.), Perspectives on literacy research and practice: Forty-fourth yearbook of the National Reading Conference (pp. 255–263). Chicago: The National Reading Conference.
-U-
Underwood, T., & Pearson, P. D. (2004). Teaching struggling adolescent readers to comprehend
what they read. In T. L. Jetton & J. A. Dole (Eds.), Adolescent literacy research and practice
(pp. 135–161). New York: The Guilford Press.
Uttero, D. A. (1988). Activating comprehension through cooperative learning. Reading Teacher, 41(4), 390–395.
-V-
van Bon, W. H. J., Boksebeld, L. M., Font Freide, T. A. M., & van den Hurk, A. J. M. (1991). A comparison of three methods of reading-while-listening. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 24, 471–476.
van Bon, W. H. J., & van Leeuwe, J. F. J. (2003). Assessing phonemic awareness in kindergarten: The case for the phoneme recognition task. Applied Psycholinguistics, 24, 195–219.
VanWagenen, M. A., Williams, R. L., & McLaughlin, T. F. (1994). Use of assisted reading to improve reading rate, word accuracy, and comprehension with ESL Spanish-speaking students. Perceptual and Motor Skills, 79, 227–230.
Varnhagen, C. K., & Goldman, S. R. (1986). Improving comprehension: Causal relations instruction for learning handicapped learners. Reading Teacher, 39(9), 896–904.
Vollands, S. R., Topping, K. J., & Evans, R. M. (1999). Computerized self-assessment of reading comprehension with the Accelerated Reader: Action Research. Reading and Writing Quarterly, 15, 197–211.
-W-
Watts, G. H. (1973). The “arousal” effect of adjunct questions on recall from prose materials. Australian Journal of Psychology, 25, 81–87.
White, T. G., Graves, M. F., & Slater, W. H. (1990). Growth of reading vocabulary in diverse elementary schools: Decoding and word meaning. Journal of Educational Psychology, 82(2), 281–290.
Whitehurst, G. J. (2002, October). Evidence-based education (EBE) [electronic presentation].
Retrieved May 31, 2007, from
slide001.html
Williamson, R. A. (1989). The effect of reciprocal teaching on student performance gains in third grade basal reading instruction. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Texas A&M University.
Wilson, J. (2005). The relationship of Dynamic Indicators of Basic Early Literacy Skills (DIBELS) oral reading fluency to performance on Arizona Instrument to Measure Standards (AIMS). (Research Brief). Assessment and Evaluation Department, Tempe School District No. 3. Retrieved September 2005 from the DIBELS Technical Reports webpage:
Wixson, K. K. (1983). Questions about a text: What you ask about is what children learn. Reading Teacher, 37(3), 287–293.
Wixson, K. K. (1986). Vocabulary instruction and children’s comprehension of basal stories. Reading Research Quarterly, 21(3), 317–329.
Wong, Y. L., & Jones, W. (1982). Increasing metacomprehension in learning disabled and normally achieving students through self-questioning training. Learning Disability Quarterly, 5, 228–239.
Wu, H.-M., & Solman, R. T. (1993). Effective use of pictures as extra stimulus prompts. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 63(1), 144–160.
Wysocki, K., & Jenkins, J. R. (1987). Deriving word meanings through morphological generalization. Reading Research Quarterly, 22, 66–81.
Z
Zau, A. C., & Betts, J. R. (2008). Predicting success, preventing failure: An investigation of the California High School Exit Exam. San Francisco, CA: Public Policy Institute of California.
-----------------------
[1] Peterson et al. (2000) is laid out in a paginated PDF format, but the format does not include page numbers. Page references for quotes from Peterson et al. (2000) that are given in this paper have therefore been calculated on the basis of page numbers shown in the document table of contents.
[2] A second edition of the report was published in 2006.
[3] “Sheltered instruction . . . refer[s] to an instructional approach for content-area teachers to teach academic subjects using English as the language of instruction. The teachers highlight key language features and incorporate ESL techniques that make the content comprehensible to students while at the same time promoting their English language development” (Short & Fitzsimmons, 2007, p. 28).
[4] In Tan & Nicholson (1997), below-average readers, ages 7–10, were trained to recognize target words quickly and accurately, using flashcards. These students answered more comprehension questions than students in a control group who had orally discussed the meanings of the target words with the researcher but had not seen the words, “despite the fact, that if anything, the control condition developed understanding of the target words better than did the training condition” (Pressley, 2000, p. 547).
[5] According to the ERIC abstract of this study, “A review of 48 studies on the use of sight-word methodology to teach functional reading to individuals with moderate and severe disabilities found that sight-word instruction has been highly effective with this population. New strategies have included feedback procedures and applying constant time delay. A persistent limitation of the research is failure to measure functional use” (accessed June 28, 2007).
[6] Tomesen & Aarnoutse, 1998; White, Graves & Slater, 1990; Dole, Sloan & Trathen, 1995; Rinaldi, Sells & McLaughlin, 1997.
[7] Brett, Rothlein & Hurley, 1996; Wixson, 1986; Carney, Anderson, Blackburn & Blessing, 1984.
................
................
In order to avoid copyright disputes, this page is only a partial summary.
To fulfill the demand for quickly locating and searching documents.
It is intelligent file search solution for home and business.
Related download
- the five components of reading discussed
- an evidenced based approach to picus odden associates
- 2014 mathematics primary adoption instructional
- university of north carolina wilmington
- in search of understanding
- gifted education resource booklet
- hey i m yousif channa here
- uncw faculty and staff web pages
- lesson plans to teach decoding
Related searches
- five components of information systems
- the four components of information systems
- five components of information system
- the four components of an information system
- the five components of culture
- the five rights of the first amendment
- five components of financial system
- what are the major components of culture
- what are the major components of blood
- five components of information literacy
- 5 components of reading pdf
- 5 components of reading instruction