KENNESAW STATE UNIVERSITY
BAGWELL COLLEGE OF EDUCATION
READING ENDORSEMENT
Fall 2009
I. COURSE:
Number/section: EDRD 7715/01
Course Title: Theory and Pedagogy in the Study of Literacy
II. INSTRUCTORS:
Name:
Office:
Office Phone:
E-mail:
Office Hours:
III. CLASS MEETING:
Campus:
IV. TEXT & MATERIALS:
Tracey, D. & Marrow, L. (2006). Lenses on reading: An introduction to theories and models. New York: The Guilford Press.
Other reads as assigned by your instructors.
V. CATALOG DESCRIPTION:
An advanced study of the socio-psycholinguistic foundations of literacy. This course examines theories of language
development and acquisition of reading and writing as well as the theoretical foundations for a range of instructional
practices related to the five dimensions of reading. Candidates will also explore historical perspectives of literacy as
well as prominent researchers and theorists. This course serves as the prerequisite for other courses in the Reading
Endorsement.
VI. PURPOSE/RATIONALE:
Mastery of reading skills is basic to successful learning in every school subject. Teachers can further their training by adding an
endorsement in reading to their teaching certificates. Additionally, a reading endorsement will faciliate teacher acquisition of skills
and competencies needed to help students read and understand content material; it will also aid teachers in identifying reading
problems, providing required interventions, and assisting all students in improving reading skills. A reading endorsement will provide
the incentive, as well as the opportunity, for teachers to become effective reading teachers and will help them meet state mandates
for highly qualified teachers of reading.
In this course teachers will acquire a background in reading theory/research and terminology used in discussing language/reading
development. They will develop an understanding of the sociological, psychological, and linguistical factors that underpin reading
acquisition and begin exploring a wide array of curricula and instructional practices and materials that meet the needs of a diverse
population of learners at all age levels. After taking this course, teachers
will have a stronger understanding of the reading process including the five dimensions of reading (i.e., phonics, phonemic
awareness, fluency, vocabulary, & comprehension).
Conceptual Framework
Collaborative Development of Expertise in Teaching and Learning
EDRD 7715 • Fall 2008 • Dr. Toni Strieker
The Professional Teacher Education Unit (PTEU) at Kennesaw State University is committed to developing expertise among
candidates in initial and advanced programs as teachers and leaders who possess the capability, intent and expertise to facilitate
high levels of learning in all of their students through effective, research-based practices in classroom instruction, and who enhance
the structures that support all learning. To that end, the PTEU fosters the development of candidates as they progress through stages
of growth from novice to proficient to expert and leader. Within the PTEU conceptual framework, expertise is viewed as a process of
continued development, not an end-state. To be effective, teachers and educational leaders must embrace the notion that teaching
and learning are entwined and that only through the implementation of validated practices can all students construct meaning and
reach high levels of learning. In that way, candidates are facilitators of the teaching and learning process. Finally, the PTEU
recognizes, values and demonstrates collaborative practices across the college and university and extends collaboration to the
community-at-large. Through this collaboration with professionals in the university, the public and private schools, parents and other
professional partners, the PTEU meets the ultimate goal of assisting Georgia schools in bringing all students to high levels of
learning.
The graduates of advanced programs at Kennesaw State University, in addition to being effective classroom teachers, also develop
expertise as effective teacher leaders who are self-directed, value a spirit of inquiry, and facilitate learning in all students; they:
Are committed to students and their learning.
Know the subjects they teach and how to teach those subjects to students.
Are responsible for managing and monitoring student learning.
Think systematically about their practice and learn from experience.
Are members of learning communities.
Knowledge Base. Teacher development is generally recognized as a continuum that includes four phases: preservice, induction, inservice, renewal (Odell, Huling, and Sweeny, 2000). Just as Sternberg (1996) believes that the concept of expertise is central to
analyzing the teaching-learning process, the teacher education faculty at KSU believes that the concept of expertise is central to
preparing effective classroom teachers and teacher leaders. Researchers describe how during the continuum phases teachers
progress from being Novices learning to survive in classrooms toward becoming Experts who have achieved elegance in their
teaching. We, like Sternberg (1998), believe that expertise is not an end-state but a process of continued development.
This course is designed for graduate candidates who are completing a program of study leading to a reading endorsement. The
knowledge base for this course is reflected in the textual readings, references, objectives, assignments and in-class activities.
Program candidates will have an opportunity to demonstrate pedagogical knowledge and skills related to student needs and
motivation, various family and community literacies and the process of active learning.
The Professional Learning Facilitator:
Demonstrates the knowledge of thinking, teaching and learning processes.
Demonstrates the knowledge of content required to facilitate learning.
Demonstrates the knowledge of students needed to facilitate learning.
Demonstrates the knowledge of standards and best pedagogical practices to facilitate learning.
Demonstrates skill in creating a facilitative learning environment.
Demonstrates skill in creating facilitative learning experiences.
Demonstrates professionalism.
Has students who are successful learners.
Use of Technology, Technology Standards for Educators are required by the Professional Standards Commission.
Telecommunication and information technologies will be integrated throughout the Reading Endorsement preparation program, and
all candidates must be able to use technology to improve student learning and meet IRA Reading Standards. Candidates in this
course will explore and use instructional media to assist teaching. They will master productivity tools, such as multimedia facilities,
local-net and Internet, and feel confident to design multimedia instructional materials, and use diagnostic software.
Diversity Statement. A variety of materials and instructional strategies will be employed to meet the needs of the different learning
styles of diverse learners in class. Candidates will gain knowledge as well as an understanding of differentiated strategies and
curricula for providing effective instruction and assessment within multicultural classrooms. One element of course work is raising
candidate awareness of critical multicultural issues. A second element is to cause candidates to explore how multiple attributes of
multicultural populations influence decisions in employing specific methods and materials for every student. Among these attributes
are age, disability, ethnicity, family structure, gender, geographic region, giftedness, language, race, religion, sexual orientation, and
socioeconomic status. An emphasis on cognitive style differences provides a background for the consideration of cultural context.
Kennesaw State University provides program accessibility and accommodations for persons defined as disabled under Section 504
of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 or the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990. A number of services are available to support
students with disabilities within their academic program. In order to make arrangements for special services, students must visit the
Office of Disabled Student Support Services (ext. 6443) and develop an individual assistance plan. In some cases, certification of
disability is required.
Please be aware there are other support/mentor groups on the campus of Kennesaw State University that address each of the
multicultural variables outlined above.
2
EDRD 7715
VII. COURSE GOALS/OBJECTIVES:
The Professional Teacher Education Unit (PTEU) prepares learning facilitators who understand their disciplines and principles of
pedagogy, who reflect on their practice, and who apply these understandings to making instructional decisions that foster the
success of all learners.
Course Objectives:
Possesses broad, current and specialized knowledge of reading (e.g., foundations of the reading/writing process, major
components of reading, reading research and histories of reading and demonstrates this knowledge to colleagues, parents and
students.
Possesses an understanding of the role reading plays in the content areas and accurately represents understanding through use of
multiple explanations, methods, technologies and/or strategies. (Dispositions)
Possesses strong pedagogical content knowledge and uses that knowledge to create approaches to instructional challenges.
Possesses an understanding of language development and reading acquisition and cultural and linguistic factors influencing literacy
development.
The following grid aligns course objectives with NCATE and IRA Professional Reading Standards:
Course Objectives
(From above)
1.1
1.1, 1.3
1.4
1.1
1.2, 1.3
IRA Standards
NCATE
Evidence
1.1 Demonstrate knowledge
of psychological, sociological,
and linguistic foundations of
reading and writing
processes and instruction.
1.2 Demonstrate knowledge
of reading research and
histories of reading.
1.3 Demonstrate knowledge
of language development and
reading acquisition and the
variations related to cultural
and linguistic diversity.
1.4 Demonstrate knowledge
of the major components of
reading (phonemic
awareness, word
identification and phonics,
vocabulary and background
knowledge, fluency,
comprehension strategies,
and motivation) and how they
are integrated in fluent
reading.
Standard 1: Candidate
Knowledge, Skills &
Dispositions
Theory to Practice
Project
2.3 Use a wide range of
curriculum materials in
effective reading instruction
for learners at different
stages of reading and writing
development and from
differing cultural and linguistic
backgrounds.
3
Standard 1: Candidate
Knowledge, Skills &
Dispositions
Standard 1: Candidate
Knowledge, Skills &
Dispositions
Theory to Practice
Project
In-class
assignments
Standard 4: Diversity
Standard 1: Candidate
Knowledge, Skills &
Dispositions
Theory to Practice
Project
Standard 1: Candidate
Knowledge, Skills &
Dispositions
Theory to Practice
Project
EDRD 7715
1.2, 1.3
4.2 Use a large supply of
books, technology-based
information, and nonprint
materials representing
multiple levels, broad
interests, and cultural and
linguistic backgrounds.
Standard 1:
Candidate Knowledge,
Skills & Dispositions
Theory to Practice
Project
VIII. Course Requirements/Assignments:
1.
Theory to Practice Project. The purpose of this research is for each candidate to examine (with considerable
depth) a topic in reading education . Early in the term each candidate will identify a theory of interest and begin reading
deeply in research journals and the professional literature. This assignment is divided into four separate, but interlocking
parts, including: (a) Theory Paper; (b) Point-Counter Point Presentation; (c) Paper on Prominent Theorist or Researcher;
and (d) Reading Log. (The total project is worth 250 points.)
Theory Paper. In this assignment, we will analyze the intersections between the five dimensions of reading and the major
models of reading theory as they relate to teaching and learning. For these purposes, each candidate will select one of the
five dimensions of reading (e.g., alphabetic understanding, phonemic awareness, phonics, vocabulary or comprehension)
and determine the most efficacious practices for teaching that dimension based upon models of reading theory (e.g.,
conditioned learning, natural models, information processing, socio-cultural, engaged learning, affective/motivation,
transactional model, etc.) as well as the research stemming from that model.
Research for this paper must be based upon the following: (a) Reading theories described by Tracey & Marrow (2006); (b)
Findings of the National Reading Panel; and (c) Relevant research stemming from the two primary sources. Candidates must
synthesize findings and discuss the implications of the increasing the reading abilities of all students, including those
learning English and those with disabilites. Inherent is this assignment is the assessment of the candidate’s ability to think
critically about reading theory and pedagogy; therefore, the rubric for this assignment will use the elements of critical thinking
as one criteria of mastery of the content. The research log must be submitted along with the final paper.The main body of the
research paper must be 5-7 pages, formatted in concert with the established guidelines of APA (5th edition), and minimally
include a list of 7-10 references. (90 Points; Due Date: 9-28-09 )
Point-Counterpoint Presentation. Once the Research Papers are graded and returned by the instructor, candidates work
in teams to compare views/theoretical models. For example, one team may argue for a whole language approach to teaching
reading to young children, while the other team argues for a systematic phonics approach. Every attempt will be made to
keep the size of the teams small. Each person will have ten minutes to present their case. At the time of your presentation,
prepare an outline of the presentation for your instructor. Candidates are encouraged to use their creativity in presenting the
theoretical viewpoints in the form of debates, role-plays, etc. (75 Points; Due Date: TBA 9-21-09 ).
Paper on Prominent Theorist or Researcher. Based upon the candidate’s review of the research, he/she will select on a
prominent theorist or researcher in the same area of education. Each paper should begin with an introduction, follow with a
review and critique of related literature, and end with a summary of how the work of this individual influences current practice.
Inherent is this assignment is the assessment of the candidate’s ability to think critically about reading theory and pedagogy;
therefore, the rubric for this assignment will use the elements of critical thinking as one criteria of mastery of the content. The
main body of the research paper must be 3-5 pages, formatted in concert with the established guidelines of APA (5th
edition), and minimally include a reference list of 7-10 citations. (65 Points; Due Date: 11-30-09)
Reading Logs I and II. This project is a review of the literature in reading education. The purpose of this research is for you
to examine with considerable depth a topic in reading education. Early in the term you should define a topic (have it
approved by your instructors) and begin reading deeply—logging notes/writing brief reflections—in a research journal. You
should plan to read more than you will actually “cite” in your paper. Your log must provide sufficient citations and include a
reference list of 11-15 sources, per paper. Use a three column format, including: (a) Title, year and author; (b) brief
description; (c) your notes and reflections. (Each log is worth 10 points and is due with the submission of the paper.)
2.
Development of Personal Model of Reading Theory. Early in the semester, each candidate will write his/her personal
model of reading theory based upon his/her background of experience and previous preparation. At the end of the course,
each person will write a two-page reflection upon how that model has developed over the course of the semester. This
paper is due the last day of class. (10/10 points; Due 8-31-09/12-7-09)
3.
Class Participation. EDRD 7715 is a collaborative course through which we will become a learning community
that continuously engages in cooperative learning and other forms of active intellectual work. We will do a number of in-class
activities based upon your readings and homework assignments. You will be expected to participate through collaboration,
questioning, listening, evaluating, analyzing, verbalizing, and demonstrating. Many in-class activities will be awarded points
based on your participation and the group’s written, oral or visual response to the activity. If you’re not able to participate in
4
EDRD 7715
the activity due to not having read an assignment, not having created a lesson/activity or not being in class, etc., you cannot
receive the points. Points will minimally be assigned to the following in-class activities: (a) demonstration of critical thinking;
(b) document inquiry; (c) oral summaries of chapters; and (d) participation in cooperative learning structures.
Throughout this course, you will be asked to reflect on the readings and post your reflections on the class WebCT discussion
board as well as participate in threaded discussions. This activity provides us with the opportunity to share thoughts and
ideas with each other, to learn from and about other’s perspectives, and to allow time for personal reflection. The focuses of
the prompts are designed to ensure that your attention is drawn to key elements in the readings and to encourage reflection
on aspects that I consider important to your understanding of the content. Full credit is given to responses that incorporate
reflection, address all components of the prompt(s), and are posted by the assigned date and time. (50 Points; On-going
Due Dates.)
IX. Evaluation and Grading:
A = 90 – 100%
B = 80 – 89%
C = 70 – 79%
D = 60 – 69%
Late Work: I will accept late work, but it is your repsonsibility to discuss late work with me prior to the due date. Points will be
deducted from late work.
Standards for Submission of Assignments
Make certain that your name is on everything submitted, particularly those on WebCT.
Along with your name, please include the date and course number
For paper submissions, secure single sheets of paper—Do not dogear or turn in loose sheets
Report covers may be used for major assignments---No plastic sleeves for individual sheets of paper
Type/word process all assignments (crisp, clear printout)
Edit your work, and when asked, show evidence of peer review.
Make certain that you self assess on the rubrics provided and submit those with the assignment.
X. ACADEMIC INTEGRITY:
Every KSU student is responsible for upholding the provisions of the Student Code of Conduct, as published in the Undergraduate
and Graduate Catalogs. Section II of the Student Code of Conduct addresses the University's policy on academic honesty,
including provisions regarding plagiarism and cheating, unauthorized access to University materials, misrepresentation/falsification
of University records or academic work,malicious removal, retention, or destruction of library materials, malicious/intentional misuse
of computer facilities and/or services, and misuse of student identification cards. Incidents of alleged academic misconduct will be
handled through the established procedures of the University Judiciary Program, which includes either an "informal" resolution by a
faculty member, resulting in a grade adjustment, or a formal hearing procedure, which may subject a student to the Code of
Conduct's minimum one semester suspension requirement.
XI. ATTENDANCE POLICY:
The expectations for attending class are in accordance with the Graduate Catalogue. All students are expected to attend classes in
accordance with the scheduled time of the course. Should you be absent, you are responsible for making up the work missed. Inclass activities may not be made up.
5
EDRD 7715
XII. COURSE OUTLINE:
What follows is a tentative schedule (subject to change with notice). This class is a modified seminar and is therefore, coconstructed by the candidates and instructor. Course requirements and homework assignments are indicated on the chart below,
but the weekly agendas will provide the specific due dates. We have not indicated the dates that readings from your text are due
because we do not know how long it will take for us to learn this content deeply. Specific assignments will be posted on weekly
agendas.
Topic
Activities
Essential Question 1: Who are we and what is our story?
Essential Question 2: What are we going to learn in EDRD 7715 and how are we going to learn it?
Introduction to Content
Essential Questions
Review of Syllabus
My Job in Teaching & Your Job in Learning
Critical Thinking, Speaking, Listening
- Critical Reading, Writing & Assessing
Ice Breaker : “Did You Know”
Personal Learning Goals
Critical Literacy
The Arts of Close Reading & Substantive
In-Class Activithy: What are the elements of critical thinking and how can we use
Writing
them to think about theory and pedagogy?
Critical Analysis of Texts
Essential Question 3: What is scientifically based reading research and how can it be used to increase literacy in dependent
readers?
Scienctifically Based Reading Research
(SBRR) for Five Dimensions of Reading
Alphabetics/Phonemic Awareness
In-class Activity: Jigsaw on 5 Dimensions
Phonics
Vocabulary
Comprehension
Fluency
Essential Question 4: Who are our students and how do they develop language and process information as they become literate?
Discussion:
New Kids in School
Types of Independent and Dependent Readers
Discussion on class reading
Essential Question 5: According to the text, what are the prevailing models of reading theory and how do they relate to my own
personal model?
Historical Development of Reading Theory
Policy
Research & Practice
Essential Question 6: What are the prevailing theories of reading and how can they be applied to increase literacy in dependent
readers?
Discussion: Language and Literacy
Natural Model
Emergent Literacy
In-Class Activity: Presentation of Personal Theories
Document Inquiry on Shinn-Strieker, House & Klink.
Select topic for Point Counter Point.
Discussion: Foundations for Literacy
Development
Jigsaw on Chapter Summaries
Discussion: Conditioned Learning Theory
In-class Activity on Theory to Practice
In-class Activity Peer Review on P CP Papers
Discussion: Information Processing Theory
Document Inquiry on Shinn-Strieker
6
EDRD 7715
Discussion: Socio-Cultural Theory
Point Counter Point Presentation on Conditioned Learning vs. Natural Learning
Discussion on Engaged Learning Theory
Point Counter Point Presentation on
Information Processing vs. Engaged
Learning
Discussion on Transactional Reading Theory
Point Counter Point Presentation on Socio-cultural vs. Transactional Learning
Jigsaw on Chapter Summaries
Essential Question 7: Who are the leading theorists in teaching, learning and reading?
Conditioned Learning & Emergent Literacy
Oral Summaries of Theoriest Papers
Information Processing & Schema Theories
Oral Summaries of Theoriest Papers
Socio-Cultural & Transactional Theories
Oral Summaries of Theoriest Papers
Engaged Learning & Motivational Theories
Oral Summaries of Theoriest Papers
Essential Question 8: What are the final theory to practice issues?
Discussion on Teacher Effects
Discussion on Strategies to Assist LowAchieving Students
Jigsaw on Chapter Summaries
Essential Question 9: What is the emerging agenda for Reading Research & Practice?
Role of Assessment
New Technologies
XIII.
Jigsaw on Chapter Summaries
REFERENCES AND BIBLIOGRAPHY
Angelillo, J. (2003). Writing about reading. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.
Brozo, W., & Simpson, M. (1995). Readers, teachers, learners (2nd ed.). Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.
Burke, J. (2002). Reading reminders: Tools, tips, and techniques. Portsmouth, NH: Boynton/Cook.
Burkhardt, R. (2003). Writing for real. Westerville, OH: NMSA.
Calkins, L. (2001). The art of teaching reading. Boston: Allyn & Bacon.
Campbell, R. (2004). Phonics naturally, reading and writing for real purposes. Portsmouth, NH:
Heinemann.
Cole, A. D. (2004). When reading begins: The teacher's role in decoding, comprehension, and fluency. Portsmouth, NH:
Heinemann.
Cullinan, B. (1992). Read to me: Raising kids who love to read. New York: Scholastic.
Cullinan, B., & Galda, L. (1994). Literature and the child. San Diego: Harcourt Brace.
Dahl, K., Scharer, P., Lawson, L., & Grogan, P. (2001). Rethinking phonics: Making the best teaching decisions. Portsmouth,
NH: Heinemann.
Davenport, M. R. (2002). Miscues not mistakes: Reading assessment in the classroom. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.
Dornan, R., Rosen, L., & Wilson, M. (1997). Multiple voices, multiple texts: Reading in the secondary content areas.
Portsmouth, NH: Boynton/Cook.
Dudley-Marling, C., & Paugh, P. (2004). A classroom teacher's guide to struggling readers. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.
Eldredge, J. L. (2005). Teaching decoding: Why and how. Newark, DE: IRA.
Ellery, V. (2005). Creating strategic readers. Newark, DE: IRA.
Farris, P., Fuhler, C., & Walther, M. (2004). Teaching reading: A balanced approach for today’s
classrooms. Boston:
McGraw-Hill.
Flippo, R. F. (2003). Assessing readers qualitative diagnosis and instruction. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.
Flood, J. (2005). Literacy development of students in urban schools: Newark, DE: IRA.
Fox, B. (2004). Word identification strategies: Phonics from a new perspective. Newark, DE: IRA.
Freedman, D. E., & Freedman, Y. S. (2004). Essential linguistics: What you need to know to teach
reading, ESL, spelling, phonics, grammar. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.
Gallis, K. (1994). How children talk, write, draw, dance, and sing their understanding of the world. New York: Teachers
College Press.
Goodman, K. (1996). On reading: A common-sense look at the nature of language and the science of reading. Portsmouth,
NH: Heinemann.
7
EDRD 7715
Goodman, Y. M. , & Owocki, G. (2002). Kidwatching: Documenting children's literacy development. Portsmouth, NH:
Heinemann.
Graves, M. (2001). Teaching reading in the 21st century. Needham Heights, MA: Allyn & Bacon.
Gunning, T. G. (1996). Creating reading instruction for all children (2nd ed.). Boston: Allyn & Bacon.
Gunning, T. G. (2000). Phonological awareness and primary phonics. Boston: Allyn & Bacon.
Hammond, B. (2005). Teaching African American learners to read: Newark, DE: IRA.
Harp, B., & Brewer, J. (2004).The informed reading teacher. Columbus, OH: Prentice Hall.
Heilman, A. (1998). Phonics in proper perspective. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Merrill.
Heilman, A., Blair, T., & Rupley, W. (1998).Principles and practices of teaching reading (9th ed.).
Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.
Johnson, D. (2001). Vocabulary in the elementary and middle school. Needham Heights, MA: Allyn & Bacon.
Kamil, M. L., Mosenthal, P. B., Pearson, P. D., & Barr, R. (Eds.). (2000). Handbook of reading
research. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Krashen, S. D. (2003). Explorations in language acquisition and use. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.
Lenski, S. D., & Nierstheimer, S. L. (2004). Becoming a teacher of reading: A developmental approach. Upper Saddler
River, NJ: Merrill Prentice Hall.
Lyons, C. A. (2003). Teaching struggling readers how to use brain-based research to maximize learning. Portsmouth, NH:
Heinemann.
Macrorie, K. (1988). The I-search paper. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.
Mandel, L., Morrow, L., Gambrell, L. B., & Pressley, M. (Eds.). (2003). Best practices in literacy
instruction. Newark, DE: IRA.
May, F. (2001). Unraveling the seven myths of reading. Needham Heights, MA: Allyn & Bacon.
McCormick, R., & Paratore, J. (Eds.). (2003). After early intervention, then what? Teaching struggling readers in grades 3
and beyond. Newark, DE: IRA.
McLaughlin, M., & Allen, M. B. (2002). Guided comprehension: A teaching model for grades 3-8. Newark, DE: IRA.
Moore, R., & Gilles, R. (2005). Reading conversations: Retrospective miscue analysis with struggling readers, grades 4-12.
Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.
Mueller, P. N. (2001). Lifers: Learning from at-risk adolescent readers. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.
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.
Nosich, G. (2005). Learning to Think Things Through: A Guide to Critical Thinking Across the
Curriculum 2nd Ed. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson Prentice Hall.
Opitz, M. F., & Rasinski, T. (1998). Good-bye round robin: 25 effective oral reading strategies. Portsmouth, NH:
Heinemann.
Paul, R., & Elder, L. (2008). Critical thinking: Tools for taking charge of your learning and your life.
2nd Ed. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson Prentice Hall.
Pinnell, G. S., & Fountas, I. C. (1998). Word matters: Teaching phonics and spelling in the reading/writing classroom.
Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.
Power, B., & Hubbard, R. (2001). Language development: A reader for teachers (2nd ed.). Columbus, OH: Prentice Hall.
Prescott-Griffin, M. L. (2005). Reader to reader: Building independence through peer partnerships. Portsmouth, NH:
Heinemann.
Prescott-Griffin, M. L., & Witherell, N. L. (2004). Fluency in focus: Comprehension strategies for all young readers.
Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.
Putnam, L. (Ed.). (1996). How to become a better reading teacher. Columbus, OH: Prentice Hall.
Rasinski, T. (2003). The fluent reader: Oral reading strategies for building word recognition, fluency,
and comprehension. New York: Scholastic.
Rasinski, T., & Padak, N. (2000). Effective reading strategies: Teaching children who find reading difficult (2nd ed.). Upper
Saddle River, NJ: Merrill Prentice Hall.
Rasinski, T., & Padak, N. (2001). From phonics to fluency: Effective teaching of decoding and reading
fluency in the elementary school. Newark, DE: IRA.
Reynolds, M. (2004). I won't read and you can't make me. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.
Rhodes, L. K. (Ed.). (1992). Literacy assessment: A handbook of instruments. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.
Robinson, R. (2000). Historical sources in U.S. reading education. 1900-1970: An annotated
bibliography. Newark, DE: IRA.
Robinson, R. (2003). Readings in reading instruction: Its history, theory, and development. Boston,
Allyn & Bacon.
Robinson, R. D., McKenna, M. C., Wedman, J. M., & et.al. (2000). Issues and trends in literacy
education. Needham Heights, MA: Allyn & Bacon.
Routman, R. (2002). Reading essentials: The specifics you need to teach reading well. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.
Ruddell, R., Ruddell, M., & Singer, R. (1994). Theoretical models and processes of reading: Newark, DE: IRA.
Ruddell, R. B., & Unrau, N. (eds.). Theoretical models and processes of reading (5th ed.).
Newark, DE: IRA.
Santman, D. (2005). Shades of meaning: Comprehension and intrepretation in middle school. Portsmouth, NH.
Schoenbach, R., & Greenleaf, C. (1999). Reading for understanding. New York: Jossey-Bass.
8
EDRD 7715
Shinn-Strieker, T., House, G. & Klink, B. (Sept./Oct., 1989) Role of cognitive processing & language development in
emergent literacy. Remedial and Special Education. 10 (5), pp. 43-50.
Shinn-Strieker, T. (Nov. 1986). Patterns of cognitive style in normal and handicapped children. Journal of Learning
Disabilities, 19 (9), pp. 572-576.
Smith, F. (1996). Reading without nonsense (3rd ed.). New York: Teachers College Press.
Smith, F. (2003). Unspeakable acts, unnatural practices: Flaws and falacies in scientific reading
instruction. Portsmouth, NH.
Smith, N. B. (2002). American reading instruction. Newark, DE: IRA.
Smith, R. (2005). Teaching reading in today's middle school. Boston: Houghton Mifflin.
Steineke, N. (2003). Reading and writing together: Collaborative literacy in action. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.
Strickland, K. (2005). What's after assessment? Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.
Tompkins, G. E. (2003). Literature for the 21st century (3rd ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Merrill.
Tyner, B. (2004). Small-group reading instruction: A differentiated teaching model for beginning and
struggling readers. Newark, DE: IRA.
Weaver, C. (2002). Reading process and practice (3rd ed.). Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.
Wilde, S. (2000). Miscue analysis made easy. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.
WEBSITES
I Teach; I Learn www.iteachilearn.com
Bilingual Books for Kids: www.bilingualbooks.com
NCTE: http://www.ncte.org
IRA: www.readingonline.org & www.reading.org
NRP 2000: www.nationalreadingpanel.org/Publications/publications.htm
9
EDRD 7715