EDRD 4411
KENNESAW STATE UNIVERSITY
DEPARTMENT OF SECONDARY AND MIDDLE GRADES
EDUCATION
Spring 2006
I. COURSE NUMBER/SECTION: EDRD 4411
COURSE TITLE: Reading Diagnostics for Teachers of Adolescents
II. INSTRUCTOR:
Name:
Dr. Faith H. Wallace
Office:
Kennesaw Hall 1008
Office Phone:
678 797-2125
E-mail:
fwallac1@kennesaw.edu
Office Hours:
TBD
III. CLASS MEETING:
MW XXAM-XXPM, KH XXXX
IV. TEXT(S):
Gillet, J. W. & Temple, C. (2000). Understanding reading problems: Assessment and instruction.
(5th ed). New York: Longman
Johns. J. (2001). Basic reading inventory: Pre-primer through grade twelve and early literacy
assessments. (30th ed). Iowa: Kendall/Hunt Publishing Company.
The following websites will get you started with some class research:
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
V. CATALOG DESCRIPTION:
An introduction to a wide range of reading assessment instruments used for understanding the individual
and diverse needs of adolescents including reading inventories, miscue analysis, and pausing indices.
Students in this course will examine both informal and formal assessments including technology-based
assessment. Students will use assessment data to plan, evaluate, and revise effective reading
instruction that meets the diverse needs of students. A field component is included.
VI. PURPOSE/RATIONALE:
Mastery of reading skills is basic to successful learning in every school subject. Teacher candidates can
further their training by adding an endorsement in reading to their teaching certificates. Additionally, an
endorsement program in reading will faciliate teacher acquisition of skills and competencies needed to
help students read and understand content material; it will also aid teachers in indentifying 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 teacher candidates to
become effective teachers of reading and will help them meet state mandates for highly qualified
teachers of reading.
The purpose of this course is to provide middle grades teacher candidates with the knowledge and skills
to assess the diverse reading needs of adolescents. This includes choosing appropriate assessment
instruments, implementing assessment and interpreting the results. Further, this course will help teacher
candidates plan instruction based on assessment data to meet the diverse needs of their students. After
taking this course, teacher candidates will have a stronger understanding of the reading process
Wallace • Diagnostic Syllabus
including the five dimensions of reading (e.g. phonics, phonemic awareness, fluency, vocabulary,
comprehension) and factors that affect reading (e.g. text, context).
Conceptional Framework
Collaborative Development of Expertise in Teaching and Learning
The Kennesaw State University teacher education faculty is committed to preparing teachers
who demonstrate expertise in facilitating learning in all students. Toward that end, the KSU
teacher education community strongly upholds the concept of collaborative preparation requiring
guidance from professionals inside and outside the university. In tandem with this belief is the
understanding that teacher expertise develops along a continuum which includes the stages of
preservice, induction, in-service, and renewal; further, as candidates develop a strong researchbased knowledge of content and pedagogy, they develop their professional expertise in
recognizing, facilitating, assessing, and evaluating student learning.
Knowledge Base:
Teacher development is generally recognized as a continuum that includes four phases:
preservice, induction, in-service, 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.
Use of Technology:
Technology Standards for Educators are required by the Professional Standards Commission.
Telecommunication and information technologies will be integrated throughout the teacher
preparation program, and all candidates must be able to use technology to improve student
learning and meet Georgia Technology Standards for Educators. During the courses, candidates
will be provided with opportunities to explore and use instructional media, especially
microcomputers, to assist teaching. They will master use of productivity tools, such as multimedia
facilities, local-net and Internet, and feel confident to design multimedia instructional materials,
create WWW resources, and use presentation software.
Diversity Statement:
A variety of material and instructional strategies will be employed to meet the needs of different
learning styles of diverse learners in class. Students will gain knowledge, skills, and
understanding to provide effective instruction in multicultural classrooms. 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 help disabled students with their academic work. In
order to make arrangements for special services, students must visit the Office of Disabled
Student Support Services (ext. 6443) and arrange an individual assistance plan. In some cases,
certification of disability is required.
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. The following
grid aligns course objectives with the PTEU Proficiency (documented in the Candidate Performance
Instrument--CPI), NCATE, IRA Professional Reading Standards and NCTE Professional Standards for
the English Language Arts:
2
Wallace • Diagnostic Syllabus
Course Objectives
Candidate
Performance
Instrument
(CPI)
NCATE
IRA
Reading
Standards
Demonstrate knowledge of
psychological, sociological,
and linguistic foundations
of reading and writing
processes and instruction.
Proficiency 1:
Subject Matter
Experts
Standard 1:
Candidate
Knowledge,
Skills &
Dispositions
Standard 1.1
Demonstrate knowledge of
reading research and
histories of reading.
Proficiency 1:
Subject Matter
Experts
Standard 1:
Candidate
Knowledge,
Skills &
Dispositions
Standard 1.2
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
Use a wide range of
instructional practices,
approaches, and methods,
including technology-based
practices, for learners at
different stages of
development and from
differing cultural and
linguistic backgrounds.
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.
Use a wide range of
assessment tools and
practices that range from
individual and group
standardized tests to
individual and group
informal classroom
assessment strategies,
including technology-based
assessment tools.
Place students along a
developmental continuum
and identify students’
proficiencies and difficulties
Proficiency 1:
Subject Matter
Experts
Standard 1:
Candidate
Knowledge,
Skills &
Dispositions
Standards
1.4
Proficiency 2:
Facilitators of
Learning
Standard 1:
Candidate
Knowledge,
Skills &
Dispositions
Standard 2.2
Standard 3.3.2
Online Case Study,
Assessment Case
Study,
Classroom Reading,
Assessment
Notebook,
Portfolio
Proficiency 2:
Facilitators of
Learning
Standard 1:
Candidate
Knowledge,
Skills &
Dispositions
Standard 2.3
Standards
3.3.2, 3.6.3
Online Case Study,
Assessment Case
Study,
Classroom Reading,
Assessment
Notebook,
Portfolio
Proficiency 2:
Facilitators of
Learning
Standard 1:
Candidate
Knowledge,
Skills, &
Dispositions
Standard 3.1
Standard
Online Case Study,
Assessment Case
Study,
Elementary IRI,
Classroom Reading,
Assessment
Notebook,
Portfolio
Proficiency 2:
Facilitators of
Learning
Standard 1:
Candidate
Knowledge,
Skills, &
Dispositions
Standard 3.2
3
NCTE
Professional
Standards
for the ELA
Evidence
Online Case Study,
Assessment Case
Study,
Classroom Reading,
Assessment
Notebook,
Portfolio,
WebCT
Standards 3.7
Online Case Study,
Assessment Case
Study,
Classroom Reading,
Assessment
Notebook,
Portfolio,
WebCT
Online Case Study,
Assessment Case
Study,
Elementary IRI,
Classroom Reading,
Assessment
Notebook,
Portfolio,
WebCT
Online Case Study,
Assessment Case
Study,
Portfolio
Wallace • Diagnostic Syllabus
Use assessment
information to plan,
evaluate, and revise
effective instruction that
meets the needs of all
students, including those at
different developmental
stages and those from
differing cultural and
linguistic backgrounds
Effectively communicate
results of assessments to
specific individuals
(students, parents,
caregivers, colleagues,
administrators,
policymakers, policy
officials, community, etc.)
Use students’ interests,
reading abilities and
backgrounds as
foundations for the reading
and writing program
Proficiency 2:
Facilitators of
Learning
Standard 1:
Candidate
Knowledge,
Skills, &
Dispositions
Standard 3.3
Online Case Study,
Assessment Case
Study,
Classroom Reading,
Assessment
Notebook,
Portfolio
Proficiency 3:
Collaborative
Professionals
Standard 1:
Candidate
Knowledge,
Skills, &
Dispositions
Standard 3.4
Online Case Study,
Assessment Case
Study,
Elementary IRI,
Portfolio
Proficiency 2:
Facilitators of
Learning
Standard 1:
Candidate
Knowledge,
Skills, &
Dispositions
Standard 4.1
Online Case Study,
Assessment Case
Study,
Classroom Reading,
Assessment
Notebook,
Portfolio
WebCT
Use a large supply of
books, technology-based
information, and nonprint
materials representing
multiple levels, broad
interests, and cultural and
linguistic backgrounds.
Proficiency 2:
Facilitators of
Learning
Standard 1:
Candidate
Knowledge,
Skills &
Dispositions
Standard 4.2
Online Case Study,
Assessment Case
Study,
Classroom Reading,
Assessment
Notebook,
Portfolio
WebCT
Model reading and writing
enthusiastically as valued
lifelong activities.
Proficiency 2:
Facilitators of
Learning
Standard 4.3
Portfolio
WebCT
Motivate learners to be
lifelong readers.
Proficiency 2:
Facilitators of
Learning
Standard 1:
Candidate
Knowledge,
Skills &
Dispositions
Standard 1:
Candidate
Knowledge,
Skills &
Dispositions
Standard 4.4
Standard
Online Case Study,
Assessment Case
Study,
Classroom Reading,
Assessment
Notebook,
Portfolio
WebCT
VIII. COURSE REQUIREMENTS/ASSIGNMENTS:
A) Oneline Case Study. You will be given a hypothetical student via www.iteachilearn.com. At
the webiste, you will find a complete battery of assessment data for your student. You will
review all assessment data and make a determination about reading level/stage, including
areas of strength and areas for improvement. In addition, you will develop an instructional
plan to meet the needs of your student. More details will be provided thoughout the course.
(50 pts.)
B) Assessment Case Study. You will work with a middle grades student to develop an in-depth
literacy profile. You will interact with your student and gather information regarding their
language and literacy development. During your meetings, you will assess reading level
Wallace • Diagnostic Syllabus
4
including the five dimensions of reading. Use that information to design an instructional plan
to meet the individual needs of your student. You will compile your profile using the following
sections. Section one should include a background of your student profile including interests,
attitudes, and reading instruction experiences. Section two should use assessment data to
illustrate your student’s reading level, including areas of strength and areas for improvement
(highlighting the five dimensions of reading). Section three should detail your instructional plan
and should directly link to your findings in section two. Section four should include all
assessment data. Section five should be a list of references used throughout the profile. More
details will be provided throughout the course. (75 pts.)
C) Elementary IRI. You will conduct a full Informal Reading Inventory (including sight word
recognition, miscue analysis, retelling, and comperehension check) of an elementary school
student. Your IRI should be filled in using the technology pack of the Jerry Johns textbook.
You will also be responsible for determining reading level based on the assessment data. (25
pts.)
D) Classroom Reading Assessment Resource Notebook. This notebook is meant to serve as
a classroom resource that will hold sample assessment instruments, plans for instruction,
technology ideas, and references. These resources will help you assess the diverse reading
needs of your students throughout your career as you can continue to refine the contents of
the notebook. You will include five sections: 1) Attitudes and Interests, 2) Reading Level, 3)
Phonics, Phonemic Awareness, and Fluency, 4) Vocabulary and Spelling, and 5)
Comprehension. Each section will include a bulleted list of key elements to assess, sample
classroom assessments for individual and whole class use, sample instructional ideas,
appropriate technology, and a reference list. More information will be provided throughout the
course. (100 pts.)
C) WebCT Discussions. Throughout this course, you will be asked to reflect on the readings
and to post your reflections on the class WebCT discussion board. 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. (25 pts.)
D) Portfolio. In this class, you will continue to develop your online portfolio in which you illustrate
your growth and expertise as a reading teacher. The portfolio will be a “tab” in your student
teaching portfolio. Within this tab, you will compile evidence that illustrates you have met the
goals and objectives of the reading endorsement program (See attached objectives, IRA
Standards and CPI). At the end of the reading endorsement, you will write a narrative as a
final reflection of your experience. I will provide further details throughout the course. (25 pts.)
IX. Evaluation and Grading:
Online Case Study (50 pts.)
Assessment Case Study (75 pts.)
Elementary IRI (25 pts.)
Classroom Reading Assessment Notebook (100 pts.)
WebCT Discussions (25 pts.)
Portfolio (25 pts.)
Late Work
I will accept late work (with the exception of any class presentations.). However, I do deduct points from
all late work. No exceptions. I consider work late if it is not handed in during the assigned class time.
Each day an assignment is late, the activity will receive a 25% grade reduction per day. (If an
assignment is due on Tuesday and you turn it in on Thursday, the assignment is two days late.) I do
count Saturday and Sunday. Should you turn in work on the day of class but AFTER the class is over,
the work is one day late.
5
Wallace • Diagnostic Syllabus
I cannot be responsible for work placed under my door, in my mailbox, or via email, etc., unless we have
a mutual arrangement. I will consider incompletes for extenuating circumstances. I expect all work to be
turned in on time; being absent from class will not serve as an adequate reason for failing to submit work
in a timely manner or for being prepared for class.
Standards:
When submitting work, please remember the following:
secure single sheets of paper—DO NOT dogear or turn in loose sheets
type/word process all assignments (crisp, clear printout)
no report covers or plastic sleeves
along with your name, please include the date and course # on work
All work should be edited well. Points will be deducted from all work that does not meet professioinal
standards. In some cases, I may return the work without a grade.
Grading Scale:
275 pts. - 300 pts. =A
250 pts. - 274 pts. =B
225 pts. - 249 pts. =C
215 pts. - 224 pts. =D
Below 215 pts.
=F
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 Undergraduate 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. In-class activities may not be made up.
XII. COURSE OUTLINE:
What follows is a tentative schedule (subject to change with notice). I have indicated the dates
that readings from your text are due. I may also assign other readings which are are NOT
indicated in the reading schedule. I prefer to leave a bit of reading open until we see your needs
and interests. I will announce them as need arises.
Week 1
Introduction/Syllabus
What is assessment? Why assess reading?
Informal and formal assessment
GT Chapter 1 & 5
Week 2
Stages of Reading; Review of 5 Dimensions of Reading
Assessing Factors that Affect Reading: Reader, Text, and Context
Begin Online Case Study
Begin Classroom Reading Assessment Notebook
GT Chapter 1 & 5
6
Wallace • Diagnostic Syllabus
Week 3
Assessment Instruments: Interviews, Inventories, Observational Checklists
Assessing Interest, Attitude, and Reading Habits
Planning Instruction Based on Assesment Data
Week 4
Assessment Instruments: Running Records, Miscue Analysis, Informal Reading Inventory
Assessing the Five Dimensions of Reading
JJ Chapter 1 & 2
Week 5
Assessment Instruments: Running Records, Miscue Analysis, Informal Reading Inventory
Assessing the Five Dimensions of Reading
Assignment: Classroom Reading Assessment Notebook Part I
JJ Chapter 3 & 4
Week 6
Work with Assessment Case Study & Online Case Study
Assessment Instruments: Informal Reading Inventory, Retelings, Comprehension Assessment
Assessing the Five Dimensions of Reading
JJ Chapter 5 & 6
Assignment: Online Case Study
Week 7
Work with Assessment Case Study
Assessment Instruments: Informal Reading Inventory, Retelings, Comprehension Assessment
Assessing the Five Dimensions of Reading
Planning Instruction based on Assessment Data
Assignment: Elemnentary IRI
GT Chapter 3
Week 8
Assessment Instruments: Cloze Passages, Word Analysis, Pausing Index
GT Chapter 2 & 7
Week 9
Assessment Instruments: Cloze Passages, Word Analysis, Pausing Index
Assignment: Classroom Reading Assessment Notebook Part II
GT Chapter 2 & 7
Week 10
Work with Assessment Case Study
Assessment Instruments: Think Alouds, Reading/Writing Checklists
Planning Instruction based on Assessment Data
Week 11
Assessing Metacognition
Assignment: Assessment Case Study
Week 12
Assessing Texts and Texbooks – What does this mean for instruction?
Technology and Assessment
GT Chapter 9
Week 13
Assessing English Language Learners
GT Chapter 10
Week 14
7
Wallace • Diagnostic Syllabus
Assignment: Classroom Reading Assessment Notebook Part III
Week 15
Portfolios: Yours and Theirs
GT Chapter 4
Assignment: Portfolio
XIII.
REFERENCES AND BIBLIOGRAPHY:
Alvermann, D. E. (2001a). Effective literacy instruction for adolescents. Paper presented at the National
Reading Conference, Chicago.
Alvermann, D. E. (2001b). Reading adolescents reading identities: Looking back to see ahead. Journal
of Adolescent & Adult Literacy, 44(8), 676 - 690.
Alvermann, D. E., & Moore, D. W. (1991). Secondary school reading. In R. Barr, M. L. Kamil, P. B.
Mosenthal & P. D. Pearson (Eds.), The handbook of reading research (Vol. II, pp. 951 - 983).
New York: Longman.
Anders, P. L., Hoffman, J. V., & Duffy, G. G. (2000). Teaching teachers to teach reading: Paradigm
shifts, persistent problems, and challenges. In M. L. Kamil, P. B. Mosenthal, P. D. Pearson & R.
Barr (Eds.), Handbook of reading research, volume iii (pp. 719-742). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence
Erlbaum Associates, Publishers.
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(3), 285 - 303.
Ash, G. E. (2002). Teaching readers who struggle: A pragmatic middle school framework. Reading
Online, 5(7).
Atwell, N. (1998). In the middle: New understandings about writing, reading, and learning. Portsmouth:
Boynton/Cook Publishers, Inc.
Barrentine, S. J. (Ed.). (1999). Reading assessment: Principles and practices for elementary teachers.
Newark: International Reading Association.
Baumann, J. F., Edwards, E. C., Font, G., Tereshinki, C. A., Kame'enui, E. J., & Olejnik, S. (2002).
Teaching morphemic and contextual analysis to fifth-grade students. Reading Research
Quarterly, 37, 150 - 170.
Bean, T. (2000). Reading in the content areas: Social constructivist dimensions. In P. L. Anders, J. V.
Hoffman & G. G. Duffy (Eds.), Handbook of reading research (Vol. III, pp. 629-644). New
Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Publishers.
Braunger, J., & Lewis, J. (1998). Building a knowledge base in reading (2nd ed.). Newark, NJ:
International Reading Association.
Campbell, J. R. (2001). A focus on naep data: What it means, what it does not mean, and the findings
from the expert study. In R. F. Flippo (Ed.), Reading researchers in search of common ground
(pp. 147-158). Newark: International Reading Association.
Cunningham, P. M. (2000). Phonics they use: Words for reading and writing (third ed.). New York:
Addison Wesley Longman, Inc.
Curtis, M. E., & Longo, A. M. (2001, November). Teaching vocabulary to adolescents to improve
comprehension. Reading Online, 5(4).
Dahl, K. L., Barto, A., Bonfils, A., Carasellow, M., Christopher, J., Davis, R., et al. (2003). Connecting
developmental word study with classroom writing: Children's descriptions of spelling strategies.
The Reading Teacher, 57, 310-319.
Fielding, L. G., & Pearson, P. D. (1994). Reading comprehension: What works. Educational Leadership,
51(5), 62-68.
Flippo, R. F. (2001a). The "real" common ground: Pulling the threads together. In R. F. Flippo (Ed.),
Reading researchers in search of common ground (pp. 178-184). Newark: International Reading
Association.
Flippo, R. F. (Ed.). (2001b). Reading researchers in search of common ground. Newark: International
Reading Association.
Fountas, I. C., & Pinnell, G. S. (2001). Guiding readers and writers grades 3-6: Teaching
comprehension, genre, and content literacy. Portsmouth: Heinemann.
8
Wallace • Diagnostic Syllabus
Gee, J. P. (2001). What is literacy? In P. Shannon (Ed.), Becoming political, too: New readings and
writings on the politics of literacy education (pp. 1-9). Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.
Goodman, K. (1996). On reading: A common-sense look at the nature of language and the science of
reading. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.
Graves, M. F., Juel, C., & Graves, B. B. (1998). Teaching reading in the 21st century. Needham Heights:
Allyn and Bacon.
Harp, B. (2000). The handbook of literacy assessment and evaluation. Norwood, MA: ChristopherGordon Publishers, Inc.
Harris, T. L., & Hodges, R. E. (1995). The literacy dictionary: The vocabulary of reading and writing.
Neward: International Reading Association.
Harvey, S. (1998). Nonfiction matters: Reading, writing, and research in grades 3-8. Portland: Stenhouse
Publishers.
Kibby, M. W. (1995). Practical steps for informing literacy instruction: A diagnostic decision-making
model. Newark, DE: International Reading Association.
Laflamme, J. G. (1997). The effect of the multiple exposure vocabulary method and the target
reading/writing strategy on test scores. Journal of Adolescent & Adult Literacy, 40, 372.
Leu, D. J. (2000). Literacy and technology: Deictic consequences for literacy education in an information
age. In M. L. Kamil, P. B. Mosenthal, P. D. Pearson & R. Barr (Eds.), Handbook of reading
resesarch (Vol. III, pp. 743-788). Mahwah: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Publishers.
Luke, A., & Freebody, P. (1997). The social practices of reading. In S. Muspratt, A. Luke & P. Freebody
(Eds.), Constructing critical literacies: Teaching and learning textual practice (pp. 185-226).
Cresskill, NJ: Hampton Press, Inc.
Moore, D. W., Bean, T. W., Birdyshaw, D., & Rycik, J. A. (1999). Adolescent literacy: A position
statement for the commission on adolescent literacy of the international reading association.
Nagy, W. E., & Scott, J. A. (2000). Vocabulary processes. In M. L. Kamil, P. B. Mosenthal, P. D. Pearson
& R. Barr (Eds.), Handbook of reading research (Vol. III, pp. 269 - 284). Mahwah: Lawrence
Erlbaum Associates, Publisher.
Pressley, M. (1998). Reading instruction that works: The case for balanced teaching. New York: The
Guilford Press.
Rhodes, L. K., & Shanklin, N. L. (1993). Windows into literacy: Assessing learners k-8. Portsmuth:
Henemann.
Ruddell, R. B., & Unrau, N. J. (Eds.). (2004). Theoretical models and processes of reading. Newark, DE:
International Reading Association.
Rupley, W. H., Logan, J. W., & Nichols, W. D. (1999). Vocabulary instruction in a balanced reading
program. The Reading Teacher, 52, 336 - 347.
Smith, F. (1994). Understanding reading: A psycholinguistic analysis of reading and learning to read (5th
ed.). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc., Publishers.
Smith, F. (Ed.). (1973). Psycholinguistics and reading. New York: Holt, Rinehart, and Winston, Inc.
Stahl, S. A., Richek, M. A., & Vandevier, R. J. (1991). Learning meaning vocabulary through listening: A
sixth-grade reflection. In J. Zutell & S. McCormick (Eds.), Learner factors/teacher factors: Issues
in literacy research and instruction, fortieth yearbook of the national reading conference (pp. 185
- 192). Chicago: The National Reading Conference, Inc.
Stanovich, K. (1986). Matthew effects in reading: Some consequences of individual difference in the
acquisition of literacy. Reading Research Quarterly, 21(4), 360-407.
Templeton, S., & Morris, D. (1999). Questions teachers ask about spelling. Reading Research Quarterly,
34, 102 - 112.
Turbill, J. (2002). The four ages of reading philosophy and pedagogy: A framework for examining theory
and practice. Reading Online, 5(6).
Wade, S. E., & Moje, E. B. (2000). The role of text in classroom learning, volume iii. In M. L. Kamil, P. B.
Mosenthal, P. D. Pearson & R. Barr (Eds.), Handbook of reading research (Vol. III, pp. 609 627). New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Publishers.
White, T. G., Power, M. A., & White, S. (1989). Morphological analysis: Implications for teaching and
understanding vocabulary growth. Reading Research Quarterly, 24, 283-304.
Wiseman, D. L., Many, J. E., & Altieri, J. (1997). When the literary response is: "i like the book - it is
funny." where do we go from here? Georgia Journal of Reading, 17-25.
Wood, K. D., & Dickinson, T. S. (2000). Promoting literacy in grades 4 - 9. Needham Heights: Allyn &
Bacon.
9
Wallace • Diagnostic Syllabus