1
KENNESAW STATE UNIVERSITY
GRADUATE COURSE PROPOSAL OR REVISION,
Cover Sheet (10/02/2002)
Course Number/Program Name EDRD 8350 Literacy-based Instruction for
Language Learners_
Department Special Education
Degree Title (if applicable) Ed.D.
Proposed Effective Date Fall 2006
English
Check one or more of the following and complete the appropriate sections:
X New Course Proposal
Course Title Change
Course Number Change
Course Credit Change
Course Prerequisite Change
Course Description Change
Sections to be Completed
II, III, IV, V, VII
I, II, III
I, II, III
I, II, III
I, II, III
I, II, III
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
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 8XXX___
Course Title _ Literacy-based Instruction for English Language Learners_
Credit Hours _3_credit hours__________________________________
Prerequisites Admission into the Special Education graduate program
Description (or Proposed Degree Requirements)
The focus of this course is diversity, emphasizing issues related to content
instruction for students with English as a second or foreign language. Specific
issues include (but are not restricted to) first and second language acquisition,
knowledge of proficiency levels, linguistic and 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
Demographic changes in school populations, No Child Left Behind, and current
research on best practice for acquisition of academic language (Cummins,et.al)
make it clear that instruction in literacy related to English language learners is an
essential area of study for all teacher educators and administrators. Development
of a knowledge base in the principles of best practice literacy-based instruction
for English language learners at all proficiency levels impacts system-wide
decisions on the selection of appropriate models and strategies for English
language instruction. This course prepares teacher educators and administrators to
be effective facilitators of instruction to students in grades, P-12. Effective
teachers of English language learners must have a firm grounding in the principles
and practices related to the acquisition of reading in a second language. 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. Karen Harris________________________________
Text:
3
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.
Flick, D. Developing and Teaching an Inclusive Curriculum. Boulder: University
of Colorado, Faculty Teaching Excellence Program, n.d.
Prerequisites: Admission into the Special Education/ESOL graduate
program or permission from advisor.
Course Standards, Outcomes, Performance Indicators & Objectives:
TESOL
Performance Standards
1.b.1. Establish and maintain
an inquiry-based classroom
1.b.5. Understand and apply
knowledge of language and
literacy development theory
and research to provide
optimal learning environments
for ESOL learners and to
conduct theory-based research
in the K-12 classroom.
1.b.8. Understand and apply
knowledge of sociocultural
and political variables to
facilitate the process of
learning English.
NCATE Standards
Doctoral KSDs
DSL Roles*
NCATE Standard I
NCATE Standard IV (Diversity)
KSDs-1A,4E
DSL-CIAL, CL
NCATE Standard I
NCATE Standard IV (Diversity)
KSDs-4B,4C,6D
DSL-CL,CIAL,DAL, & LDL
NCATE Standard I
NCATE Standard IV (Diversity)
KSDs-2A,3A,3B,5F
DSL-CL, CIAL, & RDL
Course Objectives
Evidence of
Mastery
Understand nature of
epistemology and ways of
knowing in an educational
environment
Understand and critically
investigate epistemological
assumptions and
orientations of knowing,
pedagogy, and practice
Discussion
Small group
discourse
Reflections
Discussion
Individual/group
activities
Major Area Paper
Address how culture
impacts teaching and
learning
Discussion
Group project
Individual projects
Case Study Review
2.b.1. Continually expand
NCATE Standard I
Facilitate ongoing
knowledge of students’
NCATE Standard IV (Diversity)
reflection and culturally
cultures and consistently
KSDs-4A,4D,5D,5F
responsiveness
integrate knowledge of
DSL-CL, CIAL, & PL
cultural groups in teaching.
2.b.4. Continually add to
repertoire of instructional
techniques to meet the needs
of students with diverse
backgrounds.
*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)
Proficiency Exam**
Final project
Reflections
4
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
Supplies
Travel
New Books
New Journals
Other (Specify)
Existing Faculty
0____________
0____________
0________
0________
0________
0________
0________
TOTAL
0________
Funding Required Beyond
Normal Departmental Growth
0_
5
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 8350
Literacy/ESOL
3 Credit Hours
Fall 2006
Regular
NA
NA
APPROVED:
__________________________________________
______
Vice President for Academic Affairs or Designee
6
I.
EDUC 8350 Literacy-based Instruction for English Language Learners
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.
Flick, D. Developing and Teaching an Inclusive Curriculum. Boulder: University of Colorado,
Faculty Teaching Excellence Program, n.d.
Recommended:
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.
V.
Catalog Description: The focus of this course is diversity, emphasizing issues related to content
instruction for students with English as a second or foreign language. Specific issues include ( but
are not restricted to) first and second language acquisition, knowledge of proficiency levels,
linguistic and 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.
7
VI.
Purpose/Rationale: Demographic changes in school populations, No Child Left Behind, and
current research on best practice for acquisition of academic language (Cummins,et.al) make it
clear that instruction in literacy related to English language learners is an essential area of study
for all teacher educators and administrators. Development of a knowledge base in the principles
of best practice literacy-based instruction for English language learners at all proficiency levels
impacts system-wide decisions on the selection of appropriate models and strategies for English
language instruction. This course prepares teacher educators and administrators to be effective
facilitators of instruction to students in grades, P-12. Effective teachers of English language
learners must have a firm grounding in the principles and practices related to the acquisition of
reading in a second language. 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, 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
8
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 21 st
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. Related websites for this class are:
www.nameorg.org.
www.mcassessment.org
www.newhorizons.org./multicultural/banks.html/
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.
X.
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 schoolbased 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
9
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 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
TESOL
NCATE Standards
Course Objectives
Performance Standards
Doctoral KSDs
DSL Roles*
1.b.1. Establish and maintain
NCATE Standard I
Understand nature of
an inquiry-based classroom
NCATE Standard IV (Diversity)
epistemology and ways of
KSDs-1A,4E
knowing in an educational
DSL-CIAL, CL
environment
1.b.5. Understand and apply
NCATE Standard I
Understand and critically
knowledge of language and
NCATE Standard IV (Diversity)
investigate epistemological
literacy development theory
KSDs-4B,4C,6D
assumptions and
and research to provide
DSL-CL,CIAL,DAL, & LDL
orientations of knowing,
optimal learning environments
pedagogy, and practice
for ESOL learners and to
conduct theory-based research
in the K-12 classroom.
1.b.8. Understand and apply
knowledge of sociocultural
and political variables to
facilitate the process of
learning English.
NCATE Standard I
NCATE Standard IV (Diversity)
KSDs-2A,3A,3B,5F
DSL-CL, CIAL, & RDL
Address how culture
impacts teaching and
learning
Evidence of
Mastery
Discussion
Small group
discourse
Reflections
Discussion
Individual/group
activities
Major Area Paper
Discussion
Group project
Individual projects
Case Study Review
2.b.1. Continually expand
NCATE Standard I
Facilitate ongoing
Proficiency Exam**
knowledge of students’
NCATE Standard IV (Diversity)
reflection and culturally
Final project
cultures and consistently
KSDs-4A,4D,5D,5F
responsiveness
Reflections
integrate knowledge of
DSL-CL, CIAL, & PL
cultural groups in teaching.
2.b.4. Continually add to
repertoire of instructional
techniques to meet the needs
of students with diverse
backgrounds.
*Distributed School Leadership(DSL) CODES:
**Targeted for Unit Assessment
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)
10
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
B = 80-89%
C = 70-79%
D = 60-69%
F = 59% or below
XII.
(Level 4)
(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
11
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”).
Topics
Course Introduction
Understanding literacy development
Assignments Due:
Principals of first and second language acquisition and how they
impact learning to read
Chapters
Understanding culture and how it relates to learning to read
Chapter
Lecture/Discussion
Reflective Log
Chapters
Linguistic and phonemic awareness
Phonics instruction to student who are English language learners
Establishing an inquiry-based classroom
Beginning to read
Preventing reading difficulties in early stages of reading
Practical application for teaching vocabulary in content area
Increasing reading comprehension & fluency
Peer mediated approaches to teaching reading in general education
content.
XI.
Chapters
Chapter
Case Study Review
Chapters 1-3/Lecture
Reading: Group Activity
Chapter
Case Study Review
Chapters 1-3/Lecture
Reading: Group Activity
Lecture/Discussion
Reflective Log
Chapters
Chapter
Major Area Paper/Action
Research
References/Bibliography
Adams, M. J. (1990). Beginning to read: Thinking and learning about print. Cambridge, MA: Academic
Press.
Baldwin, J. (1988). A talk to the teachers. The Graywolf annual five: Multiculturalliteracy. Saint Paul,
Minnesota: Graywolf Press.
Bond, L. (1998). Culturally responsive pedagogy and the assessment of accomplished teaching.
Journal of Negro Education 67, 3, 242-254.
Bowers, C.A. & Flinders, D. J. (1990). Responsive teaching: An ecological approach to classroom patterns
of language, culture, and thought. Advances in Contemporary Educational Thought, 4. NY:
Teachers College 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.
12
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.
Darling-Hammond, L. (Ed.). (2002). Learning to teach for social justice. NY: Teachers College Press.
Delpit, L. (1995). Other people’s children: Cultural conflict in the classroom. NY: New 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), 389-406.
Echevarria, J., Vogt, M. E., & Short, D. J. (2000). Making content comprehensible for English language
learners. Boston: Allyn & Bacon.
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., & 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.
13
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), 203212.
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.
Garcia, E. (1999). Student cultural diversity. 2nd ed. Boston: Houghton Mifflin. Gay, G. & Banks, J. A.
(2000). Culturally responsive teaching: Theory, research, and practice. Multicultural education
series. NY: Teachers College Press.
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.
Grant, C., Wieczorek, K., & Gillette, M. (2000). Text materials and the intersections of race, class, gender
and power. Race, Gender & Class in Education 7 (3), 11-34.
Guerra, J. C. (1998). Close to home: Oral and literate practices in a transnational transnational Mexicano
community. NY: Teachers College Press, Columbia University.
Herman, P. A. (1985). The effect of repeated readings on reading rate, speech pauses, and word recognition
accuracy. Reading Research Quarterly, 20, 553-565.
Hernandez, H. Multicultural education: A teacher’s guide to linking context, process, and content. 2nd ed.
NY: Merrill Prentice Hall.
Hilliard III, A. G. (Ed.). (1991). Testing African-American students. Morristown, NJ: Aaron Press.
Homan, S. P., Klesius, J. P., & Hite, C. (1993). Effects of repeated readings and non-repetitive 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.
Irvine, J. J. & Armento, B. J. (2001). Culturally responsive teaching: Lesson planning for elementary and
middle grades. Boston: McGraw Hill.
Jones, T. G. & Fuller, M. L. (2003). Teaching Hispanic children . Boston: Allyn & Bacon.
14
Klein, M. D. & Chen, D. (2001). Working with children from culturally diverse backgrounds . Toronto,
Ontario: Thomson.
Lane, H. B., Pullen, P. C., & Hudson, R. F. (2003). Identifying essential instructional components of
literacy tutoring. Unpublished Manuscript. University of Florida.
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.
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 firstgrade readers: Responding to the needs of diverse learners. Reading Research Quarterly, 33(1),
62-90.
McAllister, G. & Irvine, J. J. (2002, December). The role of empathy in teaching culturally diverse
students: A qualitative study of teachers’ beliefs. Journal of Teacher Education 53 (5), 433-443.
McCarthy, C. (1998). The uses of culture: Education and the limits of ethnic affiliation. NY: Routledge.
Miramontes, O. B., Nadeau, A., & Commins, N L. (1997). Restructuring schools for linguistic diversity:
Linking decision making to effective programs. NY: Teachers College Press, Columbia University.
National Association for Multicultural Education. (2003). Available: www.nameorg.org.
National Conference on Assessment of Multicultural/Diversity Outcomes (2003). Available:
www.mcassessment.org
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.
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.
Pinnell, G. S., & Fountas, I. C. (1998). Word matters: Teaching phonics and spelling in the reading/writing
classroom. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.
15
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), 146-151.
Rasinski, T. V., Padak, N., Linek, W., & Sturtevant, E. (1994). Effects of development on urban secondgrade 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), 325-331.
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), 403-408.
Samuels, S. J. (1997). The method of repeated readings. Reading Teacher, 50(5), 376-382.
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.
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.
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.
Taylor, D. (Ed.) (1997). Many families, many literacies. Portsmouth, New Hampshire: Heinemann.
16
Tharp, R. (Ed.). (Summer 2002). A practical guide to understanding and implementing two-way immersion
programs. Talking Leaves: Center for Research on Education, Diversity & Excellence 6 (2), 1, 3.
Thomas, A., Fazio, L., & Stiefelmeyer, B. L. (1999). Families at school: A guide for educators. Newark,
Delaware: International Reading Association.
Trimmer, J. & Warnock, T. (1992). Understanding others: Cultural and cross-cultural studies and the
teaching of literature. Urbana, IL: NCTE.
Torgesen, J. K., Wagner, R. K., & Rashotte, C. A. (1999). Test of word reading efficiency. Austin: TX, Pro-
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.
Vavrus, M. (2002, October). Connecting teacher identity formation to culturally responsive teaching.
Paper presented at the annual meeting of the National Association of Multicultural Education,
Washington, D.C.
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.
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., & Katzir-Cohen, T. (2001). Reading fluency and its intervention. Scientific Studies of Reading,
5(3), 211-239.
Zutell, J., & Rasinski, T. V. (1991). Training teachers to attend to their students’ oral reading fluency.
Theory Into Practice, 30, 211-21.
17