KENNESAW STATE UNIVERSITY
GRADUATE COURSE PROPOSAL OR REVISION,
Cover Sheet (10/02/2002)
Course Number/Program Name EDRD 8365 Literacy 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:
X New Course Proposal
Course Title Change
Course Number Change
Sections to be Completed
II, III, IV, V, VII
I, II, III
I, II, III
Course Credit Change
Course Prerequisite Change
Course Description Change
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 Date
Approved
Date
Not Approved
Department Curriculum Committee
Not Approved Approved
Approved
Approved
Not Approved
Not Approved
Department Chair
School Curriculum Committee
School Dean
Date
Date
Date
Approved
Approved
Approved
Date
Approved
Not Approved
Not Approved
Not Approved
Not Approved
GPCC Chair
Dean, Graduate Studies
Vice President for Academic Affairs
Date
Date
President Date
1

2
KENNESAW STATE UNIVERSITY
GRADUATE COURSE / CONCENTRATION/PROGRAM CHANGE
I.
II.
III.
IV.
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)
Proposed Information (Fill in for changes and new courses)
Course Prefix and Number EDRD 8365 ___
Course Title _ Literacy 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.
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.
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.
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.
2

3
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
NCATE
Doctoral KSDs
DSL
IRA
Reading
Stds.
NCTE
Standards for the ELA
Evidence of Mastery
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.
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
DSLCL, CIAL,
& PIL
Standard 1:
Candidate
Knowledge,
Skills &
Dispositions
KSDs -
4C,4D,4E,5F
DSLCL, CIAL,
LDL, & PIL
Standard 1:
Candidate
Standard
1.2
Standard
1.3
Standard
1.4
Standard 3.7 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 Best Practices**
Group Activities for
Collaboration
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.
Knowledge,
Skills &
Dispositions
KSDs -4A,6B,6C
DSL CL, CIAL,
LDL, & PIL
Standard
2.3
Standard
3.3.2
3.6.3
Action Research Project
Case Study Review
Group Activities for
Collaboration
*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)
3

4
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
V.
Assignments
Case Study- 2
Class Participation/Professionalism
Final Project
Individual & Group Project
Major Area Paper/Research
Proficiency Exam
Reflective Log-2
Resources and Funding Required (New Courses only)
Amount Resource
Faculty
Other Personnel
Equipment
Supplies
Existing Faculty
0____________
0____________
0________
Travel
New Books
New Journals
Other (Specify)
0________
0________
0________
0________
TOTAL
Funding Required Beyond
Normal Departmental Growth
0________
0_
4

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
COURSE NUMBER
COURSE TITLE FOR LABEL
(Note: Limit 16 spaces)
CLASS-LAB-CREDIT HOURS
Education/Special Education_____________
EDRD 8365
Literacy for Students with Disabilities
3 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
Fall 2006
Regular
NA
NA
APPROVED:
________________________________________________
Vice President for Academic Affairs or Designee
5

6
II.
I.
II.
EDRD 8365 Literacy-based Instruction for Students with Disabilities
Department of Special Education and TESOL
Kennesaw State University
Fall, 2006
INSTRUCTOR : Name
Location: Kennesaw State University
Office:
Phone: e-mail:
III. Class Sessions:
IV.
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.
V.
VI.
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.
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.
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
6

7 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, 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 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 21 st 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.
7

8
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
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 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
www.jdfcure.org
www.epilepsyfoundation.org/ www.nagc.org
www.aamr.org
www.dhr.state.ga.us
www.nasbe.org
X.
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 proficiency. These proficiencies are clearly linked to our conceptual framework, The Collaborative Development of Expertise in Teaching, Learning, and Leadership.
8

9
Literacy Performance
Standards
Course Standards, Outcomes, Performance Indicators & Objectives
NCATE
Doctoral KSDs
DSL
IRA
Reading
Standards
NCTE
Professional
Standards for the ELA
Evidence of Mastery
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.
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
DSLCL, CIAL, &
PIL
Standard 1.2 Standard 3.7
Standard 1.3
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
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.
Standard 1:
Candidate
Knowledge, Skills
& Dispositions
KSDs -
4C,4D,4E,5F
DSLCL, CIAL,
LDL, & PIL
Standard 1.4 Individual Project
Reading Log
Portfolio
Major Area Paper- Research Best
Practices*
Group Activities for Collaboration
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
KSDs
DSL-
-4A,6B,6C
CL, CIAL,
LDL, & PIL
Standard 2.3 Standard 3.3.2
3.6.3
Action Research Project
Case Study Review
Group Activities for Collaboration
*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)
9

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 (Level 4)
B = 80-89%
C = 70-79%
(Level 3)
(Level 2)
D = 60-69% (Level 1)
F = 59% or below
XII. 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”).
10

Schedule:
First Class
Second Class
Third Class
Fourth Class
Fifth Class
Sixth Class
Seventh Class
Eighth Class
Ninth Class
Tenth Class
Eleventh Class
Twelfth Class
Thirteenth Class
Fourteenth Class
Fifteenth Class
11
Topics:
Course Introduction
Principles of Lang. Learn.
Beginning to Read
Principles of Lang. Learn.
Beginning to Read
Teaching Students w/LD
Principles of Lang. Learn.
Beginning to Read
Reading: Group Activity
Preventing Reading Diff.
Teaching Students w/LD
Principles of Lang. Learn.
E-Portfolio
Teaching Students w/LD
Reading: Group Activity
Preventing Reading Diff.
Beginning to Read
Diff. Instructions
Beginning to Read
Best Practices
Reading: Group Activity
Best Practices
Teaching Students w/LD
Teaching Students w/LD
Assignments Due:
Chapters 1 & 2
Chapters 1 & 2
Chapters 4 & 5
Chapter 3 & 4
Lecture/Discussion
Reflective Log
Chapters 7 & 8
Chapter 5
Case Study Review
Chapters 1-3/Lecture
Lecture/Discussion
Chapters 9 & 10
Lecture/Discussion
Reflective Log
Chapters 4-6
Chapter 6 & 7
Chapter 8
Case Study Review
Lecture/Discussion
Major Area Paper/Action
Research
E-Portfolio
Group Project
Lecture/Discussion
Lecture/Discussion
Individual Project
Lecture/Discussion
Culminating Activity
(final project)
Proficiency Exam
11

12
XII.
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 (3 rd 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. 33-65). Baltimore, MD: University Park Press.
Dooley, D. (2001). Social research methods (4 th 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.
Dowhower, S. L. (1991). Speaking of prosody: Fluency’s unattended bedfellow. Theory Into Practice, 30 ,
166-175.
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.
12

13
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.
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.
13

14
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 (6 th 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 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.
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.
14

15
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.
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.
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 (6 th 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.
15

16
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), 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.
Schreiber, P. A. (1991). Understanding prosody’s role in reading acquisition. Theory Into Practice, 30 (3),
160-164.
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.
16

17
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 , 53-65.
Stokes, T. F., & Baer, D. M. (1977). An implicit technology of generalization. Journal of Applied
Behavior Analysis , 10, 349-367.
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, Proed.
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.
17

18
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 third-grade 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.
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.
18

19
19