KENNESAW STATE UNIVERSITY
GRADUATE COURSE PROPOSAL OR REVISION,
Cover Sheet (10/02/2002)
Course Number/Program Name EDRD 8310 Literacy-based Instruction for Students with
Disabilities
Department Special Education
Degree Title (if applicable) Ed.D.
Proposed Effective Date Fall 2006
Check one or more of the following and complete the appropriate sections:
Sections to be Completed
II, III, IV, V, VII
I, II, III
I, II, III
I, II, III
I, II, III
I, II, III
X New Course Proposal
Course Title Change
Course Number Change
Course Credit Change
Course Prerequisite Change
Course Description Change
Notes:
If proposed changes to an existing course are substantial (credit hours, title, and
description), a new course with a new number should be proposed.
A new Course Proposal (Sections II, III, IV, V, VII) is required for each new course
proposed as part of a new program. Current catalog information (Section I) is
required for each existing course incorporated into the program.
Minor changes to a course can use the simplified E-Z Course Change Form.
Submitted by:
Faculty Member
Approved
_____
Date
Not Approved
Department Curriculum Committee Date
Approved
Approved
Approved
Approved
Approved
Approved
Not Approved
Department Chair
Date
School Curriculum Committee
Date
School Dean
Date
GPCC Chair
Date
Dean, Graduate Studies
Date
Not Approved
Not Approved
Not Approved
Not Approved
Not Approved
Vice President for Academic Affairs Date
Approved
Not Approved
President
1
Date
2
KENNESAW STATE UNIVERSITY
GRADUATE COURSE/CONCENTRATION/PROGRAM
CHANGE
I.
Current Information (Fill in for changes)
Page Number in Current Catalog
Course Prefix and Number
Course Title
Credit Hours
Prerequisites
Description (or Current Degree Requirements)
II.
Proposed Information (Fill in for changes and new courses)
Course Prefix and Number EDRD 8310___
Course Title _ Literacy-based Instruction for Students with Disabilities
Credit Hours _3_credit hrs._____________________________________
Prerequisites Admission into the Special Education/ESOL Ed.D. program
Description (or Proposed Degree Requirements)
This course focuses upon dyslexia and other forms of reading disorders,
emphasizing issues related to early acquisition of reading skills and
comprehension. Specific issues include (but are not restricted to) principles of
language learning, phonemic awareness, phonics instruction, fluency,
comprehension, and instructional strategies for comprehension and vocabulary for
practical applications. Distributed school leadership (DSL) will be embedded in
the course to give candidates an opportunity to recognize their potential for
leadership.
III.
Justification
No Child Left Behind mandates that 99% of all students with disabilities must be
educated and assessed within the state-approved standards. Therefore, regardless
of the severity of the reading disability, of all students must be taught and
assessed in complex content. For teachers to be successful in educating these
students, they must have a firm grounding in the principles and practices related
to the acquisition of reading. Thus, the purpose of this course is to prepare
teacher educators and administrators to become effective facilitators of P-12
teachers by developing a knowledge base in the principles in best practices (NRP,
2000). The leadership (DSL) component of the course will give candidates the
preparation to work in schools for improvement of conditions of practice and
teaching in leadership roles.
IV.
Additional Information (for New Courses only)
Instructor: Dr. Barry Bogan________________________________
Texts:
Adams, M. J. (1990). Beginning to read: Thinking and learning about
print. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
3
Brown, H.D. (2000). Principles of language learning and teaching. White
Plains, NY: Addison Wesley Longman.
Mercer, C. D. & Mercer, A. R. (2005). Teaching students with learning
problems. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson.
Snow, C. E., Burns, M.S., & Griffin, P. (1998). Preventing reading
difficulties in young children. Washington, DC: National Academy
Press.
Prerequisites: Admission into the Special Education/ESOL graduate program or
permission from advisor
Course Standards, Outcomes, Performance Indicators & Objectives
Literacy Performance Standards
Demonstrate knowledge of reading
research and histories of reading
for students with disabilities.
Demonstrate knowledge of
language development and reading
acquisition and the variations
related to cultural and linguistic
diversity and learning disabilities.
Synthesize 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 for
students with disabilities and
varying exceptionalities.
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.
NCATE
Doctoral KSDs
DSL
IRA
Reading
Stds.
Standard 1: Candidate
Knowledge, Skills &
Dispositions
KSDs-1A4F,5A,5D
DSL- CL, CIAL, &
PIL
Standard 1: Candidate
Knowledge, Skills &
Dispositions
Standard 4: Diversity
KSDs-1A,3A,3B,4A
DSL-CL, CIAL, &
PIL
Standard
1.2
Standard 1: Candidate
Knowledge, Skills &
Dispositions
KSDs-4C,4D,4E,5F
DSL-CL, CIAL, LDL,
& PIL
Standard
1.4
Standard 1: Candidate
Knowledge, Skills &
Dispositions
KSDs-4A,6B,6C
DSL- CL, CIAL, LDL,
& PIL
Standard
2.3
NCTE
Standards for
the ELA
Standard 3.7
Standard
1.3
Evidence of Mastery
Portfolio
Reflective Log
Theoretical Model of Reading
Paper
Reading Process Project
Proficiency Exam**
Case Study Review
Reflective Log
Individual Project (Diff.
Instruction)
Literacy Profile
Group Activities for
Collaboration
Individual Project
Reading Log
Portfolio
Major Area Paper- Research Be
Practices**
Group Activities for
Collaboration
Standard 3.3.2
3.6.3
Action Research Project
Case Study Review
Group Activities for
Collaboration
4
*Distributed School Leadership(DSL) CODES:
Change Leader (CL)
Curriculum, Instruction & Assessment Leader (CIAL)
Data Analysis Leader (DAL)
Learning & Development Leader (LDL)
Operations Leader (OL)
Performance Leader (PL)
Process Improvement Leader (PIL)
Relationship Development Leader (RDL)
**Targeted for Unit Assessment
Instructional Method
The following instructional strategies will be used to collaboratively and interactively
present course material and engage students in critical thinking and discourse at the
doctoral level:

Lecture

Discussion

Collaborative Group Work

Case Study Analysis

Simulation Activities

Role Play
Method of Evaluation
Assessment of student learning in this course will be done through the following
assignments and performance-based projects meeting specific course objectives
and relating to identified knowledge, skills, and dispositions.
Course Requirements & Assignments
Assignments
Case Study- 2
Class Participation/Professionalism
Final Project
Individual & Group Project
Major Area Paper/Research
Proficiency Exam
Reflective Log-2
V.
Resources and Funding Required (New Courses only)
Resource
Amount
Faculty
Other Personnel
Equipment
Existing Faculty
0____________
0____________
5
Supplies
Travel
New Books
New Journals
Other (Specify)
0________
0________
0________
0________
0________
TOTAL
0________
Funding Required Beyond
Normal Departmental Growth
0_
VI. COURSE MASTER FORM
This form will be completed by the requesting department and will be sent to the Office
of the Registrar once the course has been approved by the Office of the President.
The form is required for all new courses.
DISCIPLINE
Education_____________
COURSE NUMBER
COURSE TITLE FOR LABEL
(Note: Limit 16 spaces)
CLASS-LAB-CREDIT HOURS
Approval, Effective Term
Grades Allowed (Regular or S/U)
If course used to satisfy CPC, what areas?
Learning Support Programs courses which are
required as prerequisites
Education/Special
EDRD 8310
Literacy Diverse
3 Credit Hours
Fall 2006
Regular
NA
NA
APPROVED:
__________________________________________
______
Vice President for Academic Affairs or Designee
6
I.
II.
EDUC 8310 Literacy-based Instruction for Students with Disabilities
Department of Special Education and TESOL
Kennesaw State University
Fall, 2006
II.
INSTRUCTOR :
III.
Class Sessions:
IV.
Name
Location: Kennesaw State University
Office:
Phone:
e-mail:
Texts (required):
Adams, M. J. (1990). Beginning to read: Thinking and learning about print.
Cambridge, MA:MIT Press.
Brown, H. D. (2000). Principles of language learning and teaching. White
Plains, NY: Addison Wesley Longman, Incorporated.
Mercer, C. D. & Mercer, A. R. (2005). Teaching students with learning
problems. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson.
Snow, C. E., Burns, M. S., & Griffin, P. (1998). Preventing reading difficulties
in young children. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.
Recommend:
National Reading Panel. (2000). Teaching children to read: An evidence-based
assessment of the scientific research literature on reading and its
implication for reading instruction. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of
Health and Human Services, National Institute of Child Health and
Human Development, NIH Pub. No. 00-4753.
7
V.
Description: This course focuses upon dyslexia and other forms of reading
disorders, emphasizing issues related to early acquisition of reading skills and
comprehension. Specific issues include (but are not restricted to) principles of
language learning, phonemic awareness, phonics instruction, fluency,
comprehension, and instructional strategies for comprehension and vocabulary for
practical applications. Distributed school leadership (DSL) will be embedded in
the course to give candidates an opportunity to recognize their potential for
leadership.
VI.
Purpose: No Child Left Behind mandates that 99% of all students with
disabilities must be educated and assessed within the state-approved standards.
Therefore, regardless of the severity of the reading disability, of all students must
be taught and assessed in complex content. For teachers to be successful in
educating these students, they must have a firm grounding in the principles and
practices related to the acquisition of reading. Thus, the purpose of this course is
to prepare teacher educators and administrators to become effective facilitators of
P-12 teachers by developing a knowledge base in the principles in best practices
(NRP, 2000). The leadership (DSL) component of the course will give candidates
the preparation to work in schools for improvement of conditions of practice and
teaching in leadership roles.
VII.
Conceptual Framework Summary: Though certain historical discoveries and
events in special education / TESOL do not change, each passing day alters the
knowledge base in the areas of research, legislation, societal change, and
litigation, requiring teachers and leaders to be informed consumers of
instructional research.
COLLABORATIVE DEVELOPMENT OF EXPERTISE IN TEACHING AND
LEARNING
The Professional Teacher Education Unit (PETU) 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, public and private schools,
8
parents and other professional partners, the PTEU meets the ultimate goal of
assisting Georgia schools in bringing all students to high levels of learning.
VIII. KNOWLEDGE BASE: Teacher development is generally recognized as a
continuum that includes four phases: pre-service, 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.
IX.
USE OF TECHNOLOGY: Technology Standards for Educators are required by
the Professional Standards Commission and all candidates must be able to use
technology to improve student learning as outlined in the Georgia Technology
Standards for Educators and the National Educational Technology standards.
Candidates in this course will be expected to apply the use of educational
technology in their classrooms. Specifically, candidates will use spreadsheet
software to develop graphs and tables to record and track student performance,
word processing to write papers, web based data bases to conduct Action
Research, and e-mail to communicate with instructors and peers.
Candidates in the special education / TESOL concentration will utilize technology
to advance 21st century literacy skills such as digital age literacy, inventive
thinking, effective communication, and high productivity. Candidates will be
provided with opportunities to explore and use presentation technologies,
technologies to enhance learning, individualize instruction, and promote critical
thinking for 21st century students. Candidates in this course will be expected to
apply best practices related to using technology for learning and creating
curriculum materials using principles of universal design for learning.
Web Resources:
Council for Exceptional Children
National Dissemination Center for Children
with Disabilities
Children and Adults with Attention Deficit
Disorder
Learning Disabilities Association of America
The Autism Society of America
The Arc
The Global Entrepreneurship Institute
Georgia Department of Education
Brain Injury Association of America
www.cec.sped.org
www.nichcy.org
www.chadd.org
www.ldanatl.org
www.autism-society.org
www.thearc.org
www.gcase.org
www.doe.k12.ga.us
www.biausa.org
9
Juvenile Diabetes Research Foundation
The Epilepsy Foundation
The National Association for Gifted Children
Georgia Department of Human Resources
National Association of State Boards of
Education
X.
www.jdfcure.org
www.epilepsyfoundation.org/
www.nagc.org
www.aamr.org
www.dhr.state.ga.us
www.nasbe.org
DIVERSITY: One of the most critical issues in special Education / TESOL
today is the effect of personal culture on the efficacy of instruction, pre-referral
procedures, assessment, placement for students with disabilities, and parenting
and communication styles. Candidates will be provided with opportunities
through direct instruction and class discussion to gain knowledge, skills, and
understanding to provide effective instruction in culturally and linguistically
diverse classrooms. A variety of materials and instructional strategies will also be
used to meet the needs of the diverse learning styles of members of this class.
Kennesaw State University provides program accessibility and reasonable
accommodations for persons defined as disabled under Section 504 of the
Rehabilitation Act of 1973 and/or the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990. A
number of services are available to help disabled candidates with their academic
work. In order to make arrangements for special services, candidates must visit
the Office of Disabled Student Services (770/423-6443) and arrange an individual
assistance plan. In some cases, certification of disability is required.
XI.
Graduate Field Experience Requirements: While completing your graduate
program at Kennesaw State University, you are required to be involved in a
variety of leadership and school-based activities directed at the improvement of
teaching and learning. Appropriate activities may include, but are not limited to,
attending and presenting at professional conferences, actively serving on or
chairing school-based committees, attending PTA/school board meetings, leading
or presenting professional development activities at the school or district level,
and participating in education-related community events. As you continue your
educational experiences, you are encouraged to explore every opportunity to learn
by doing.
VIII. Goals and Objectives
The knowledge, skills, and dispositions (KSDs) of the graduates of the Kennesaw
State University Doctorate of Education program of the Bagwell College of
Education reflect the unique aspects of this degree. Collaboratively developed by
faculty from across the university and in consultation with community/school
partners, these outcomes and proficiencies delineate the high expectations we
have for graduates who will be Leaders for Learning. Clearly, the proficiencies
reflect the complex nature of student learning in advanced degree programs
leading to a terminal degree. Consequently, many of the proficiencies listed below
incorporate aspects of knowledge, skills, and dispositions within a single
10
proficiency. These proficiencies are clearly linked to our conceptual framework,
The Collaborative Development of Expertise in Teaching, Learning, and
Leadership.
Course Standards, Outcomes, Performance Indicators & Objectives
Literacy
NCATE
IRA
NCTE
Evidence of Mastery
Performance
Doctoral KSDs Reading
Professional
Standards
DSL
Standard Standards
s
for the ELA
Demonstrate
Standard 1:
Standard
Standard 3.7
Portfolio
knowledge of
Candidate
1.2
Reflective Log
reading research
Knowledge,
Theoretical Model of Reading
and histories of
Skills &
Paper
reading for students Dispositions
Reading Process Project
with disabilities.
KSDsProficiency Exam**
1A4F,5A,5D
DSL- CL,
CIAL, & PIL
Demonstrate
Standard 1:
Standard
Case Study Review
knowledge of
Candidate
1.3
Reflective Log
language
Knowledge,
Individual Project (Diff.
development and
Skills &
Instruction)
reading acquisition Dispositions
Literacy Profile
and the variations
Standard 4:
Group Activities for
related to cultural
Diversity
Collaboration
and linguistic
KSDsdiversity and
1A,3A,3B,4A
learning
DSL-CL, CIAL,
disabilities.
& PIL
Synthesize
Standard 1:
Standard
Individual Project
knowledge of the
Candidate
1.4
Reading Log
major components Knowledge,
Portfolio
of reading
Skills &
Major Area Paper- Research
(phonemic
Dispositions
Best Practices*
awareness, word
KSDsGroup Activities for
identification and
4C,4D,4E,5F
Collaboration
phonics,
DSL-CL, CIAL,
vocabulary and
LDL, & PIL
background
knowledge,
fluency,
comprehension
strategies, and
motivation) and
how they are
integrated in fluent
11
reading for students
with disabilities
and varying
exceptionalities.
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.
Standard 1:
Candidate
Knowledge,
Skills &
Dispositions
KSDs4A,6B,6C
DSL- CL,
CIAL, LDL, &
PIL
Standard
2.3
Standard
3.3.2
3.6.3
*Distributed School Leadership(DSL) CODES:
Change Leader (CL)
Curriculum, Instruction & Assessment Leader (CIAL)
Data Analysis Leader (DAL)
Learning & Development Leader (LDL)
Operations Leader (OL)
Performance Leader (PL)
Process Improvement Leader (PIL)
Relationship Development Leader (RDL)
**Targeted for Unit Assessment
COURSE REQUIREMENTS/ASSIGNMENTS:
Assignments
Case Study- 2
Class Participation/Professionalism
Final Project
Individual & Group Project
Major Area Paper/Research
Proficiency Exam
Reflective Log-2
EVALUATION AND GRADING
A = 90% or better
(Level 4)
Action Research Project
Case Study Review
Group Activities for
Collaboration
12
B = 80-89%
C = 70-79%
D = 60-69%
F = 59% or below
XII.
(Level 3)
(Level 2)
(Level 1)
Academic Integrity
Every KSU candidate 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 candidate to the Code of Conduct's minimum
one semester suspension requirement.
The candidate is reminded to consult pp 142-143 of the 2001-2002 KSU Graduate
Catalog for the University's policy. Any strategy, which has the appearance of improving
grades without increasing knowledge, will be dealt with in accordance with the
University's policy on academic honesty. In addition, candidates in the graduate program
in special education are held accountable by the Georgia Professional Code of Ethics for
Educator.
(http://www.doe.k12.ga.us/informationresources/ethics.html) and the Council for
Exceptional Children's (CEC) Code of Ethics for Educators of Persons with
Exceptionalities (http://www.cec.sped.org/ps/code.htm#1).
XIII. Course Outline
This is a tentative outline. The syllabus schedule reflects a proposed general sequence of
topics. Any topic may be covered in greater or lesser detail depending on the needs of the
class. Topics may overlap in dates. Additional topics may be added as requested by the
candidates. However, any changes in due dates or written products that are part of a
“grade” will be changed only after class discussion and written notification by the
professor. Candidates will be expected to initial that they have read the written
notification by the instructor. The assigned readings are to be completed before coming to
class on the assigned day (except for the first day and those marked “during class”).
Schedule:
First Class
Second Class
Topics:
Course Introduction
Principles of Lang. Learn.
Beginning to Read
Assignments Due:
Chapters 1 & 2
Chapters 1 & 2
13
Third Class
Principles of Lang. Learn.
Beginning to Read
Chapters 4 & 5
Chapter 3 & 4
Fourth Class
Teaching Students w/LD
Lecture/Discussion
Principles of Lang. Learn.
Beginning to Read
Reading: Group Activity
Preventing Reading Diff.
Reflective Log
Chapters 7 & 8
Chapter 5
Case Study Review
Chapters 1-3/Lecture
Sixth Class
Teaching Students w/LD
Lecture/Discussion
Chapters 9 & 10
Seventh Class
Principles of Lang. Learn.
E-Portfolio
Teaching Students w/LD
Eighth Class
Reading: Group Activity
Preventing Reading Diff.
Reflective Log
Chapters 4-6
Ninth Class
Beginning to Read
Diff. Instructions
Chapter 6 & 7
Tenth Class
Beginning to Read
Chapter 8
Case Study Review
Lecture/Discussion
Fifth Class
Best Practices
Eleventh Class
Reading: Group Activity
Twelfth Class
Thirteenth Class
Best Practices
Teaching Students w/LD
Fourteenth Class
Teaching Students w/LD
Lecture/Discussion
Major Area Paper/Action
Research
E-Portfolio
Group Project
Lecture/Discussion
Lecture/Discussion
Individual Project
Lecture/Discussion
Culminating Activity
(final project)
14
Fifteenth Class
XII.
Proficiency Exam
References/Bibliography
Adams, M. J. (1990). Beginning to read: Thinking and learning about print. Cambridge,
MA: Academic Press.
Blum, I. H., & Koskinen, P. S. (1991). Repeated reading: A strategy for enhancing
fluency and fostering expertise. Theory Into Practice, 30(3), 195-200.
Cowie, R., Cowie-Douglas, E., & Wichman, A. (2002). Language and Speech, 45, 47-83.
Chall, J. (1996). Learning to read: The great debate (3rd ed.). New York: McGraw-Hill.
Chard, D. J., & Osborn, J. (1999a). Phonics and word recognition in early reading
programs: Guidelines for accessibility. Learning Disabilities Research &
Practice, 14(2), 107-118.
Chard, D. J., & Osborn, J. (1999b). Word recognition instruction: Paving the road to
successful reading. Intervention in School and Clinic, 34(5), 271-277.
Chard, D. J., Vaughn, S, & Tyler, B. (2002). A synthesis of research on effective
interventions for building reading fluency with elementary students with learning
disabilities. Journal of Leaning Disabilities, 35(5), 386-406.
Dahl, P. R. (1979). An experimental program for teaching high speed word recognition
and comprehension skills. In J.E. Button, T. Lovitt, & T. Rowland (Eds.),
Communications research in learning disabilities and mental retardation (pp. 3365). Baltimore, MD: University Park Press.
Dooley, D. (2001). Social research methods (4th ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice
Hall.
Dowhower. S. L. (1987). Effects of repeated reading on second-grade transitional
readers’ fluency and comprehension. Reading Research Quarterly, 22(4), 389406.
Dowhower, S. L. (1991). Speaking of prosody: Fluency’s unattended bedfellow. Theory
Into Practice, 30, 166-175.
15
Dowhower, S. L. (1994). Repeated reading revisited: Research into practice. Reading &
Writing Quarterly: Overcoming Learning Difficulties, 10, 343-358.
Ehri, L. C. (1991). Development of the ability to read words. In P. B. Mosenthal (Eds.),
Handbook of reading research (pp. 383-417), White Plains, NY: Longman
Publishing.
Ehri, L. C. (1995). Phases of development in learning to read words by sight. Journal of
Research in Reading, 18(2), 116-125.
Ehri, L. C. (1998). Grapheme-phoneme knowledge is essential for learning to read words
in English. In J. L. Metsala & L. C. Ehri (Eds.), Word recognition in beginning
literacy (pp. 3-40), Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
Ehri, L. C., & McCormick, S. (1998). Phases of word learning: Implications for
instruction with delayed and disabled readers. Reading & Writing Quarterly, 14,
135-163.
Ehri, L. C., & Robbins, C. (1992). Beginners need some decoding skill to read words by
analogy. Reading Research Quarterly, 27, 12-26.
Ehri, L. C., & Wilce, L. S. (1987a). Cipher versus cue reading: An experiment in
decoding acquisition. Journal of Educational Psychology, 79, 3-13.
Ehri, L. C., & Wilce, L. S. (1987b). Does learning to spell help beginners learn to read
words? Reading Research Quarterly, 22, 47-65.
Ehri, L. C., & Wilce, L. S. (1983). Development of word identification speed in skilled
and less skilled beginning readers. Journal of Education Psychology, 75(1), 3-18.
Fawcett, S. B. (1991). Social validity: A not on methodology. Journal of Applied
Behavior Analysis, 24, 235-239.
Flowers, L., Meyer, M. S., & Lovato, J. (2001). Does third grade discrepancy status
predict the course of reading development? Annals of Dyslexia, 51, 49-71.
16
Foorman, B. R., & Torgesen, J. (2001). Critical elements of classroom and small-group
instruction promote reading success in all children. Learning Disabilities
Research and Practice, 16(4), 203-212.
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.
Foorman, B. R., Francis, D. J., Novy, D. M., & Liberman, D. (1991). How letter-sound
instruction mediates progress in first-grade reading and spelling. Journal of
Education Psychology, 83(4), 456-468.
Fuchs, L. S., Fuchs, D., Hosp, M. K., & Jenkins, J. R. (2001). Oral reading fluency as
Indicator of reading competence: A theoretical, empirical, and historical analysis.
Scientific Studies of Reading, 5(3), 239-256.
Gaskins, I. W., & Ehri, L. C. (1997). Procedures for word learning: Making discoveries
about words. Reading Teacher, 50(4), 1-16.
Good, R. H., Kaminski, R. A., & Dill, S. (2002). DIBELS Oral reading fluency. In R. H.
Good & R. A. Kaminski (Eds.), Dynamic indicators of basic early literacy skills
(6th ed.). Eugene, OR: Institute for the Development of Educational Achievement.
Goswami, U. (2000). Phonological and lexical processes. In R. Barr, M. L. Kamil, P. B.
Mosenthal, & P. D. Pearson (Eds.), Handbook of reading research (Vol. 3, pp.
251-267). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
Hasbrouck, J. E., & Tindal, G. (1992). Curriculum-based oral reading fluency norms for
students in grades 2 through 5. Teaching Exceptional Children, 41-44.
Herman, P. A. (1985). The effect of repeated readings on reading rate, speech pauses, and
word recognition accuracy. Reading Research Quarterly, 20, 553-565.
Homan, S. P., Klesius, J. P., & Hite, C. (1993). Effects of repeated readings and nonrepetitive strategies on students’ fluency and comprehension. Journal of
Educational Research, 87(2), 94-99.
Hook, P. E., & Jones, S. D. (2002). The importance of automaticity and fluency for
efficient reading comprehension. International Dyslexia Association, 28(1), 9-1.
17
Hudson, R., Mercer, C. D., & Lane, H. (2000). Exploring reading fluency: A
paradigmatic overview. Unpublished manuscript, University of Florida,
Gainesville, FL.
Kuhn, M., & Stahl, S. A. (2000). Fluency: A review of developmental and remedial
practices (pp. 1-47). Washington, DC: Center for the Improvement of Early
Reading Achievement (CIERA), Office of Educational Research and
Improvement (ED).
LaBerge, D., & Samuels, S. J. (1974). Toward a theory of automatic information
processing in reading. Cognitive Psychology, 6, 293-323.
Lane, H. B., Pullen, P. C., & Hudson, R. F. (2003). Identifying essential instructional
components of literacy tutoring. Unpublished Manuscript. University of Florida.
Levy, B. A., Abello, B., & Lysynchuk, L. (1997). Transfer from word training to read in
context: Gains in reading fluency and comprehension. Learning Disability
Quarterly, 20, 173-188.
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.
Lyon, R. G. (1998). Why reading is not a natural process. Educational Leadership,55 (6),
1-7.
Lyon, R. G., & Moats. L. C. (1997). Critical conceptual and methodological
considerations in reading intervention research. Journal of Learning Disabilities,
30(6), 578.
Manis, F. R., Doi, L. M., & Bhaktawahr, B. (2000). Naming speed, phonological
awareness, and orthographic knowledge in second graders. Journal of Leaning
Disabilities, 33(4), 325-347.
Manzo, K. K., & Sack, J. L. (1997). Effectiveness of Clinton reading plan question.
Education Week, 1, 28-30.
18
Mastropieri, M. A., Leinart, A., & Scruggs, T. E. (1999). Strategies to increase reading
fluency. Intervention in School and Clinic, 34(5), 278-283, 292.
Mathes, P. G., Howard, J. K., Allen, S. H., & Fuchs, D. (1998). Peer-assisted learning
strategies for first-grade readers: Responding to the needs of diverse learners.
Reading Research Quarterly, 33(1), 62-90.
Mercer, C. D., Campbell, K. U., Miller, M. D., Mercer, K. D., & Lane, H. B. (2000).
Effects of a reading fluency intervention for middle schoolers with specific
learning disabilities. Learning Disabilities Research and Practice, 15(4), 179-189.
Mercer, C. D., & Mercer, A. R. (2001). Teaching students with learning problems (6th
ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Merrill Prentice Hall.
Metsala, J. L., & Ehri, L. C. (1998). Word recognition in beginning literacy. Mahwah,
NJ: Earlbaum.
Meyer, M. S., & Felton, R. H. (1999). Repeated reading to enhance fluency: Old
approaches and new directions. Annals of Dyslexia, 49, 283-306.
National Reading Panel. (2000). Teaching children to read: An evidence-based assessment of
the scientific research literature on reading and its implications for reading
instructions. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Health and human Services,
National Institute of Child Health and Human Development, NIH Pub. No. 00-4753.
Orton Dyslexia Society. (1997). Informed instruction for reading success: Foundations for
teacher preparation (a position paper of the Orton Dyslexia Society). Baltimore:
Author.
Orton, S. T. (1937). Reading, writing, and speech problems in children. New York: W. W.
Norton.
O’Shea, L. J., & O’Shea, D. J. (1988). Using repeated reading. Teaching Exceptional
Children, 26-29.
Perfetti, C. A. (1992). The representation problem in reading acquisition. In P. B. Gough, L.
C. Ehri, & R. Treiman (Eds.), Reading acquisition (pp. 145-147). Hillsdale, NJ:
Erlbaum.
19
Pinnell, G. S., & Fountas, I. C. (1998). Word matters: Teaching phonics and spelling in
the reading/writing classroom. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.
Pullen, P. (2000). The effects of alphabetic word work with manipulative letters on the
reading acquisition of struggling first-grade students (Doctoral dissertation,
University of Florida, 1990). Dissertation Abstracts International, 61(8), 3108A.
Pullen, P., Lane, H., Lloyd, J., Nowak, R., & Ryals, J. (2003). Explicit decoding
instructions. Unpublished manuscript.
Rashotte, C. A., & Torgesen, J. K. (1985). Repeated reading and reading fluency in
learning disabled children. Reading Research Quarterly, 20, 180-188.
Rasinski, T. V. (2000). Speed does matter in reading. The Reading Teacher, 54(2), 146151.
Rasinski, T. V., Padak, N., Linek, W., & Sturtevant, E. (1994). Effects of development on
urban second-grade readers. Journal of Education Research, 87(3), 158-165.
Reutzel, D. R., & Hollingsworth, P. M. (1993). Effects of fluency training on second
graders’ reading comprehension. Journal of Education Research, 86(64), 325331.
Richards, M. (2000). Be a good detective: Solve the case of oral reading fluency. Reading
Teacher, 53(7), 534-539.
Samuels, J. (2000). Building reading fluency: Theory and application. Unpublished
manuscript, University of Minnesota.
Samuels, S. J. (1979). The method of repeated readings. The Reading Teacher, 32(4), 403408.
Samuels, S. J. (1997). The method of repeated readings. Reading Teacher, 50(5), 376-382.
Schreiber, P. A. (1991). Understanding prosody’s role in reading acquisition. Theory Into
Practice, 30(3), 160-164.
20
Schatschneider, C., Torgesen, J. K., Buck, J., & Powell-Smith, K. (2004). A
multivariate study of factors that contribute to individual differences in
performance on the Florida Comprehensive Reading Assessment Test. Technical
Report #5, Florida Center for Reading Research, Tallahassee, FL.
Schwartz, I. S., & Baer, D. M. (1991). Social validity assessments: Is current practice
state of the art? Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 24, 189-204.
Shinn, M. R., & Good, R. H. (1992). Curriculum-based measurement of oral reading
fluency: A confirmatory analysis of its relation to reading. School Psychology
Review, 21(3), 459.
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(4), 220-226.
Snow, C. E., Burns, M. S., & Griffin, P. (1998). Preventing reading difficulties in young
children. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.
Speece, D. L., Mills, C., Ritchey, K. D., & Hillman, E. (2003). Initial evidence that letter
fluency tasks are valid indicators of early reading skill. The Journal of Special
Education, 36(4), 223-233.
Stanovich, K. E., Cunningham, A., & Feeman, D. J. (1984). Relation between early
reading acquisition and word decoding with and without context: A longitudinal
study of first –grade children. Journal of Educational Psychology, 76(4), 668-677.
Stein, M., Johnson, B., & Gutlohn, L. (1999). Analyzing beginning reading programs:
The relationship between decoding instruction and text. Remedial and Special
Education, 20(5), 275-287.
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, 4, 5365.
Stokes, T. F., & Baer, D. M. (1977). An implicit technology of generalization. Journal
of Applied Behavior Analysis, 10, 349-367.
21
Storch, S. A., & Grover, J. W. (2002). Oral language and code-related precursors to
reading evidence from a longitudinal structural model. Developmental
Psychology, 38(6), 934-947.
Torgesen, J. K., Rashotte, C. A., & Alexander, A. W. (2001). Dyslexia, fluency, and the
brain. Parkton, MD: New York Press.
Torgesen, J. K., Wagner, R. K., & Rashotte, C. A. (1997a). Prevention and remediation
of severe reading disabilities: Keeping the end in mind. Scientific Studies of
Reading, 1(3), 217-234.
Torgesen, J. K., Wagner, R. K., & Rashotte, C. A. (1999). Test of word reading
efficiency. Austin: TX, Pro-ed.
Torgesen, J. K., Wagner, R. K., Rashotte, C. A., Burgess, S., & Hecht, S. (1997b).
Contributions of phonological awareness and rapid automatic naming ability to
the growth of word-reading skills in second-to fifth-grade. Scientific Studies of
Reading, 1(2), 161-185.
Torgesen, J. K., Wagner, R. K., Rashotte, C. A., Rose, E., Lindamood, P., Conway, T., &
Garvan, C. (1999). Preventing reading failure in young children with
phonological processing disabilities group and individual responses to instruction.
Journal of Education Psychology, 91(4), 579-593.
Vadasy, P. F., Jenkins, J. R., & Pool, K. (2000). Effects of tutoring in phonological and
early reading skills on students at risk for reading disabilities. Journal of Learning
Disabilities, 33, 6.
Van der Leij, A., & Van Daal, V. H. (1999). Automatization aspects of dyslexia: Speed
limitations in word identification, sensitivity to increasing task demands, and
orthorgraphic compensation. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 32(5), 417.
Vaughn, S., Chard, D. J., Bryant, D. P., Coleman, M., Tyler, B., Linan-Thompson, S., &
Kouzekanani, K. (2000). Fluency and comprehension interventions for thirdgrade students. Remedial and Special Education, 21(6), 325.
Wagner, R. K., Torgesen, J. K., & Rashotte, C. A. (1999). Comprehensive test of
phonological processing. Austin: TX, Pro-ed.
22
Wolf, M. M. (1978). Social validity: The case for subjective measurement or how
Applied behavior analysis is finding its heart. Journal of Applied Behavior, 11,
203-214.
Wolf, M., Bowers, P. G., & Biddle, K. (2000). Naming-speed processes, timing, and
reading: A conceptual review. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 33(4), 387-431.
Wolf, M., & Katzir-Cohen, T. (2001). Reading fluency and its intervention. Scientific
Studies of Reading, 5(3), 211-239.
Woodcock, R. W. (1997). Woodcock diagnostic reading battery. Itasca: IL, Riverside
Publishing .
Young, A., & Bowers, P. (1995). Individual difference and text difficulty determinants of
reading fluency and expressiveness. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology,
60, 428-454.
Young, A. R., Bowers, P. G., & MacKinnon, G. E. (1996). Effects of prosodic modeling
and repeated reading on poor readers’ fluency and comprehension. Applied
Pscholinguistics,17, 59-84.
Zutell, J., & Rasinski, T. V. (1991). Training teachers to attend to their students’ oral
reading fluency. Theory Into Practice, 30, 211-217.
23