EDRD 7715
KENNESAW STATE UNIVERSITY
BAGWELL COLLEGE OF EDUCATION
READING ENDORSEMENT
Fall 2007
I. COURSE NUMBER/SECTION: EDRD 7715
COURSE TITLE: Theory and Pedagogy in the Study of Reading
II. INSTRUCTOR:
Name:
Office:
Office Phone:
E-mail:
Office Hours:
Dr. XX
Kennesaw Hall XXXX
770.423.XXXX
XXXX@kennesaw.edu
TBD
III. CLASS MEETING:
XXPM-XXPM, KH XXXX
IV. TEXT(S):
National Institute of Child Health and Human Development. (2000). Report of the National
Reading Panel. Teaching children to read: An evidence-based assessment of the scientific
research literature on reading and its implications for reading instruction: Reports of the
subgroups (NIH Publication No. 00-4754). Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing
Office.
Ruddell, R. B., & Unrau, N. (eds.). Theoretical models and processes of reading (5th ed.).
Newark, DE: IRA.
The following websites will get you started with some class research:
I Teach; I Learn www.iteachilearn.com
Bilingual Books for Kids: www.bilingualbooks.com
NCTE: http://www.ncte.org
IRA: www.readingonline.org, www.reading.org
V. CATALOG DESCRIPTION:
An advanced study of the socio-psycholinguistic foundations of reading and writing. This course
examines theories of language development and reading acquisition. Candidates will study scientificallybased research in the areas of phonemic awareness, word identification, phonics, vocabulary, fluency,
comprehension and motivation. This course also explores historical perspectives of reading and reading
research and a wide range of instructional practices and curriculum materials that meet the needs of
diverse learners at all grade levels.
EDRD 7715 • Fall 2006 • 1
VI. PURPOSE/RATIONALE:
Mastery of reading skills is basic to successful learning in every school subject. Teachers can further
their training by adding an endorsement in reading to their teaching certificates. Additionally, a reading
endorsement will faciliate teacher acquisition of skills and competencies needed to help students read
and understand content material; it will also aid teachers in identifying reading problems, providing
required interventions, and assisting all students in improving reading skills. A reading endorsement will
provide the incentive, as well as the opportunity, for teachers to become effective reading teachers and
will help them meet state mandates for highly qualified teachers of reading.
In this course teachers will acquire a background in reading theory/research and terminology used in
discussing language/reading development. They will develop an understanding of the sociological,
psychological, and linguistical factors that underpin reading acquisition and begin exploring a wide array
of curricula and instructional practices and materials that meet the needs of a diverse population of
learners at all age levels. After taking this course, teachers will have a stronger understanding of the
reading process including the five dimensions of reading (i.e., phonics, phonemic awareness, fluency,
vocabulary, & comprehension).
Conceptual Framework
Collaborative Development of Expertise in Teaching and Learning
The Professional Teacher Education Unit (PTEU) at Kennesaw State University is committed to
developing expertise among candidates in initial and advanced programs as teachers and leaders who
possess the capability, intent and expertise to facilitate high levels of learning in all of their students
through effective, research-based practices in classroom instruction, and who enhance the structures
that support all learning. To that end, the PTEU fosters the development of candidates as they progress
through stages of growth from novice to proficient to expert and leader. Within the PTEU conceptual
framework, expertise is viewed as a process of continued development, not an end-state. To be
effective, teachers and educational leaders must embrace the notion that teaching and learning are
entwined and that only through the implementation of validated practices can all students construct
meaning and reach high levels of learning. In that way, candidates are facilitators of the teaching and
learning process. Finally, the PTEU recognizes, values and demonstrates collaborative practices across
the college and university and extends collaboration to the community-at-large. Through this
collaboration with professionals in the university, the public and private schools, parents and other
professional partners, the PTEU meets the ultimate goal of assisting Georgia schools in bringing all
students to high levels of learning.
The graduates of advanced programs at Kennesaw State University, in addition to being effective
classroom teachers, also develop expertise as effective teacher leaders who are self-directed, value a
spirit of inquiry, and facilitate learning in all students; they
1. Are committed to students and their learning.
2. Know the subjects they teach and how to teach those subjects to
students.
3. Are responsible for managing and monitoring student learning.
4. Think systematically about their practice and learn from experience.
5. Are members of learning communities.
Professional Portfolio Narrative:
A required element in each portfolio for the Reading Endorsement is the portfolio narrative. The purpose
of the portfolio narrative is twofold: 1) to ensure that every candidate reflects on each of the proficiencies
on the RPI with regard to what evidence the candidate has selected for his/her portfolio; 2) to ensure that
every candidate reflects on each of the IRA Reading Standards and their understanding of the five
dimensions of reading (i.e., phonemic awareness, phonics, vocabulary, fluency, & comprehension) as
identified by the National Reading Panel (NRP). In your portfolio, you need to include a narrative, which
includes descriptive, analytic and reflective writing in which you reflect on each RPI proficiency, IRA
standard, and the 5 dimensions of reading and how you make the case that the evidence you have
selected in your portfolio supports your growth in these areas. The narrative should be comprehensive,
2
EDRD 7715
documenting scientfically research-based best practices. Your portfolio should be a “running record” of
your coursework throughout the Reading Endorsement. At the end of the last class (EDRD 7718 Content
Area Reading) you will be required to submit a final portfolio that demonstrates that you have mastered
the IRA Reading Standards, the RPI proficiencies and have developed a strong grasp of scientificallybased reading research (SBRR). While you have some freedom in developing your portfolio, the
following are required elements:
The Literacy Profile—EDRD 7715
Analysis of the Reading Process, Assessment and Instruction Project—EDRD 7717
The Textbook Analysis and Instructional Plan Implementation with Video Critiques—EDRD 7718
The Impact on Student Learning Analysis—EDRD 7717
Evidence of a Professional Development Project (See Field Experience & Prof. Dev. Proj. below).
Field Experiences & Professional Development Project:
While completing your Reading Endorsement, you are required to be involved in 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, publishing reading
research or best practices in reading instruction, actively serving on or chairing reading-related
committees, leading or presenting professional development activities at the school, district, state or
national level, and participating in reading-related community events. As you continue your educational
experiences, you are encouraged to explore every opportunity to learn by doing. Evidence of your
professional involvement is a required element of your final portfolio.
Knowledge Base:
Teacher development is generally recognized as a continuum that includes four phases: preservice,
induction, in-service, renewal (Odell, Huling, and Sweeny, 2000). Just as Sternberg (1996) believes that
the concept of expertise is central to analyzing the teaching-learning process, the teacher education
faculty at KSU believes that the concept of expertise is central to preparing effective classroom teachers
and teacher leaders. Researchers describe how during the continuum phases teachers progress from
being Novices learning to survive in classrooms toward becoming Experts who have achieved elegance
in their teaching. We, like Sternberg (1998), believe that expertise is not an end-state but a process of
continued development.
This course is designed for graduate candidates who are completing a program of study leading to a
reading endorsement. The knowledge base for this course is reflected in the textual readings,
references, objectives, assignments and in-class activities. Program candidates will have an opportunity
to demonstrate pedagogical knowledge and skills related to student needs and motivation, various family
and community literacies and the process of active learning.
The professional learning facilitator:

Demonstrates the knowledge of content required to facilitate learning.

Demonstrates the knowledge of students needed to facilitate learning.

Demonstrates the knowledge of standards and best pedagogical practices to facilitate learning.

Demonstrates skill in creating a facilitative learning environment.

Demonstrates skill in creating facilitative learning experiences.

Demonstrates professionalism.

Has students who are successful learners.
Use of Technology:
3
EDRD 7715
Technology Standards for Educators are required by the Professional Standards Commission.
Telecommunication and information technologies will be integrated throughout the Reading
Endorsement preparation program, and all candidates must be able to use technology to improve
student learning and meet IRA Reading Standards. Candidates in this course will explore and use
instructional media to assist teaching. They will master productivity tools, such as multimedia facilities,
local-net and Internet, and feel confident to design multimedia instructional materials, and use diagnostic
software.
Diversity Statement:
A variety of materials and instructional strategies will be employed to meet the needs of the different
learning styles of diverse learners in class. Candidates will gain knowledge as well as an understanding
of differentiated strategies and curricula for providing effective instruction and assessment within
multicultural classrooms. One element of course work is raising candidate awareness of critical
multicultural issues. A second element is to cause candidates to explore how multiple attributes of
multicultural populations influence decisions in employing specific methods and materials for every
student. Among these attributes are age, disability, ethnicity, family structure, gender, geographic
region, giftedness, language, race, religion, sexual orientation, and socioeconomic status. An
emphasis on cognitive style differences provides a background for the consideration of cultural context.
Kennesaw State University provides program accessibility and accommodations for persons defined as
disabled under Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 or the Americans with Disabilities Act of
1990. A number of services are available to support students with disabilities within their academic
program. In order to make arrangements for special services, students must visit the Office of Disabled
Student Support Services (ext. 6443) and develop an individual assistance plan. In some cases,
certification of disability is required.
Please be aware there are other support/mentor groups on the campus of Kennesaw State University
that address each of the multicultural variables outlined above.
VII. COURSE GOALS/OBJECTIVES:
The Professional Teacher Education Unit (PTEU) prepares learning facilitators who understand their
disciplines and principles of pedagogy, who reflect on their practice, and who apply these
understandings to making instructional decisions that foster the success of all learners. The following
grid aligns course objectives with the Reading Performance Instrument--RPI), NCATE, and IRA
Professional Reading Standards:
Course Objectives/IRA
Standards
Reading
Performance
Instrument
(RPI)
NCATE
Evidence
1.1 Demonstrate
knowledge of
psychological, sociological,
and linguistic foundations
of reading and writing
processes and instruction.
Outcome 1:
Subject Matter
Expert
1.1
Standard 1:
Candidate
Knowledge,
Skills &
Dispositions
WebCT Discussions
Portfolio
Point-Counterpoint
Reading Log & Theoretical Model
of Reading Paper
Reading Process Project
Literacy Profile
1.2 Demonstrate
knowledge of reading
research and histories of
reading.
Outcome 1:
Subject Matter
Expert
1.1, 1.3
Standard 1:
Candidate
Knowledge,
Skills &
Dispositions
Portfolio
WebCT Discussions
Point-Counterpoint
Reading Log &
Theoretical Model of Reading
Paper
Reading Process Project
Outcome 2:
Facilitator of
Learning
2.2
4
EDRD 7715
1.3 Demonstrate
knowledge of language
development and reading
acquisition and the
variations related to
cultural and linguistic
diversity.
Outcome 1:
Subject Matter
Expert
1.1
1.4 Demonstrate
knowledge of the major
components of reading
(phonemic awareness,
word identification and
phonics, vocabulary and
background knowledge,
fluency, comprehension
strategies, and motivation)
and how they are
integrated in fluent reading.
Outcome 1:
Subject Matter
Expert
1.1
Standard 1:
Candidate
Knowledge,
Skills &
Dispositions
Reading Log & Theoretical Model
of Reading Paper
Portfolio
WebCT Discussions
Point-Counterpoint
Reading Process Project
2.3 Use a wide range of
curriculum materials in
effective reading instruction
for learners at different
stages of reading and
writing development and
from differing cultural and
linguistic backgrounds.
Outcome 1:
1.2, 1.3
Standard 1:
Candidate
Knowledge,
Skills &
Dispositions
Portfolio
Literacy Profile
4.2 Use a large supply of
books, technology-based
information, and nonprint
materials representing
multiple levels, broad
interests, and cultural and
linguistic backgrounds.
Outcome 2:
Facilitator of
Learning
2.4
Standard 1:
Candidate
Knowledge,
Skills &
Dispositions
Literacy Profile
Portfolio
Resource Critiques
4.3 Model reading and
writing enthusiastically as
valued lifelong learners.
Collaborative
Professional
3.3
Standard 1:
Candidate
Knowledge,
Skills &
Dispositions
WebCT Discussions
Portfolio
Reading Log & Theoretical Model
of Reading Paper
5.1 Display positive
dispositions related to
reading and the teaching of
reading.
Outcome 2:
Facilitator of
Learning
2.1, 2.2, 2.3
Standard 1:
Candidate
Knowledge,
Skills &
Dispositions
WebCT Discussions
Reading Log & Theoretical Model
of Reading Paper
Reading Process Project
5.3 Work with colleagues
to observe, evaluate, and
provide feedback on each
other’s practice.
Outcome 3:
Collaborative
Professional
3.1, 3.2, 3.3, 3.4
Outcome 3:
Collaborative
Professional
3.1, 3.2
Outcome 2:
Facilitator of
Learning
2.2
Outcome 2:
Facilitator of
Learning
2.1, 2.4
Standard 1:
Candidate
Knowledge,
Skills &
Dispositions
Portfolio
WebCT Discussions
Point-Counterpoint
Reading Log & Theoretical Model
of Reading Paper
Literacy Profile
Standard 4:
Diversity
Reading Process Project
Point-Counterpoint
5
EDRD 7715
VIII. COURSE REQUIREMENTS/ASSIGNMENTS:
Point-Counterpoint. (10%): Candidates will choose one of the five dimensions of reading and examine
arguments for and against the findings of the National Reading Panel as well as recent reform stemming
from the Panel findings. Research for Point-Counterpoint should include at least two scholarly sources
(in addition to course readings) for each position. A concluding statement should discuss implications of
the findings for content area reading instruction as well as meeting the needs of diverse students.
Synthesis of findings will be written as a formal paper (5-7) pages following APA (5th edition) guidelines
using 12 pt. font and double-spaced.
Reading Log & Theoretical Model of Reading Paper. (10%): Candidates will maintain a reading log
(reflection on all course readings) throughout the semester. These reflections will serve as a basis for a
theoretical model of reading paper. This paper will synthesize and reflect upon course readings and will
take into account the importance of respecting learners of all ages (7-8 pp. , 5th edition APA guidelines
and 12 pt. font, double-spaced.)
Literacy Profile. (35%): Candidates will develop one literacy story/profile of a child and provide a
“frame,” supported by reading research, for which it connects to larger issues in literacy instruction.
Candidates should consider the child’s language development, his/her reading acquisition, interests and
attitudes toward reading; cultural, political, economic, and social factors influencing literacy development
and instructional strategies that will meet the needs of this particular student. This core assignment will
be an integral part of your portfolio. Major components/dimensions of reading (phonics, phonemic
awareness, comprehension, vocabulary, and fluency) should also be considered. Once the analysis of
the student is complete, the candidate will prepare a notebook of instructional strategies and activities
tailored to the needs of this student. In selecting instructional strategies, candidates must consider ways
of motivating at-risk and aliterate readers, as well as methods for modeling reading and writing as valued
lifelong activities.
Resource Critiques. (10%): Candidates will evaluate 12 professional resources for teaching reading.
Resources may include reading programs, software, professional readings, videos, etc. Three resources
should focus on emergent readers, 3 on upper elementary readers, 3 on middle school readers, and 3
on high school students. Resources should also focus on ways to meet the reading needs of a diverse
population of readers (e.g., ESOL, special needs, etc.).
Reading Process Project. (20%): Candidates will develop a tool for use in explaining the reading
process to parents, fellow teachers, or others. This tool may be a short professional development
activity, a workshop presentation, a website, a pamphlet, a video, or any other product that would
successfully communicate the reading process. NOTE: Sharing this tool by way of a presentation in a
larger community may be a method of achieving the required Professional Development Project.
WebCT Discussions. (5%): Throughout this course, you will be asked to reflect on the readings and to
post your reflections on the class WebCT discussion board. This activity provides us with the opportunity
to share thoughts and ideas with each other, to learn from and about other’s perspectives, and to allow
time for personal reflection. The focuses of the prompts are designed to ensure that your attention is
drawn to key elements in the readings and to encourage reflection on aspects that I consider important
to your understanding of the content. Full credit is given to responses that incorporate reflection, address
all components of the prompt(s), and are posted by the assigned date.
Portfolio. (10%): In this class, you will begin developing your portfolio in which you illustrate your growth
and expertise as a reading teacher. Within this portfolio, you will compile evidence that illustrates you
have met the goals and objectives of the Reading Endorsement program (see table with objectives, IRA
Standards and RPI and the section on the portfolio narrative). At the end of the Reading Endorsement,
you will write a narrative as a final reflection of your experience, illustrating how you have met the RPI
proficiencies and IRA Reading Standards. I will provide further details throughout the course.
6
EDRD 7715
IX. Evaluation and Grading:
A = 90 – 100%
B = 80 – 89%
C = 70 – 79%
D = 60 – 69%
Late Work
I will accept late work. However, I do deduct points from all late work. No exceptions. I consider work late
if it is not handed in during the assigned class time. Each day an assignment is late, the activity will
receive a 25% grade reduction per day. (If an assignment is due on Tuesday and you turn it in on
Thursday, the assignment is two days late.) I do count Saturday and Sunday. Should you turn in work on
the day of class but after the class is over, the work is one day late. I will consider incompletes for
extenuating circumstances. I expect all work to be turned in on time; being absent from class will not
serve as an adequate reason for failing to submit work in a timely manner or for being prepared for
class.
Standards:
When submitting work, please remember the following:
-secure single sheets of paper—Do not dogear or turn in loose sheets
-type/word process all assignments (crisp, clear printout)
-no report covers or plastic sleeves
-along with your name, please include the date and course # on work
All work should be edited well. Points will be deducted from all work that does not meet professioinal
standards. In some cases, I may return the work without a grade.
X. ACADEMIC INTEGRITY:
Every KSU student is responsible for upholding the provisions of the Student Code of Conduct, as
published in the Undergraduate and Graduate Catalogs. Section II of the Student Code of Conduct
addresses the University's policy on academic honesty, including provisions regarding plagiarism and
cheating, unauthorized access to University materials, misrepresentation/falsification of University
records or academic work,malicious removal, retention, or destruction of library materials,
malicious/intentional misuse of computer facilities and/or services, and misuse of student identification
cards. Incidents of alleged academic misconduct will be handled through the established procedures of
the University Judiciary Program, which includes either an "informal" resolution by a faculty member,
resulting in a grade adjustment, or a formal hearing procedure, which may subject a student to the Code
of Conduct's minimum one semester suspension requirement.
XI. ATTENDANCE POLICY:
The expectations for attending class are in accordance with the Graduate Catalogue. All students are
expected to attend classes in accordance with the scheduled time of the course. Should you be absent,
you are responsible for making up the work missed. In-class activities may not be made up.
XII. COURSE OUTLINE:
What follows is a tentative schedule (subject to change with notice). I have indicated the dates
that readings from your text are due. I may also assign other readings which are are not
indicated in the reading schedule.
Week 1
Introduction/Syllabus
Perspectives on Reading Research and Practice: Past and Present
Week 2
Language and Cognition in Sociocultural Contexts
7
EDRD 7715
Literacy & Identity (e.g., ESOL, Cultural Perspectives)
Week 3
Foundations of Literacy Development
Emergent Literacy
Delayed and Disabled Readers
Week 4
Foundations of Literacy Development continued
From Word Perception to Phonics, and Beyond
Phonemic Awareness
Week 5
Comprehension Development from Words to Worlds
Vocabulary
Week 6
Comprehension Development continued
Comprehension and Culture
Developing Fluency
Week 7
Extending Comprehension through Metacognition
Week 8
Instructional Effects on Literacy Development
Week 9
Models of Reading/Writing Processes:
Cognitive-Processing Models
Week 10
Models of Reading/Writing Processes:
Dual Coding Model
Transactional Model
Individual-Environmetal Model of Writing
Week 11
Models of Reading/Writing Processes:
Attitude-Influence Model
Sociocognitive Model
Week 12
Context, Word Identification, and Constructing Meaning
Week 13
At-risk learners
Week 14
Teaching for Second Language Learners
Week 15
New Horizons in Literacy Instruction
8
EDRD 7715
XIII.
REFERENCES AND BIBLIOGRAPHY:
Angelillo, J. (2003). Writing about reading. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.
Brozo, W., & Simpson, M. (1995). Readers, teachers, learners (2nd ed.). Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice
Hall.
Burke, J. (2002). Reading reminders: Tools, tips, and techniques. Portsmouth, NH: Boynton/Cook.
Burkhardt, R. (2003). Writing for real. Westerville, OH: NMSA.
Calkins, L. (2001). The art of teaching reading. Boston: Allyn & Bacon.
Campbell, R. (2004). Phonics naturally, reading and writing for real purposes. Portsmouth, NH:
Heinemann.
Cole, A. D. (2004). When reading begins: The teacher's role in decoding, comprehension, and fluency.
Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.
Cullinan, B. (1992). Read to me: Raising kids who love to read. New York: Scholastic.
Cullinan, B., & Galda, L. (1994). Literature and the child. San Diego: Harcourt Brace.
Dahl, K., Scharer, P., Lawson, L., & Grogan, P. (2001). Rethinking phonics: Making the best teaching
decisions. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.
Davenport, M. R. (2002). Miscues not mistakes: Reading assessment in the classroom. Portsmouth, NH:
Heinemann.
Dornan, R., Rosen, L., & Wilson, M. (1997). Multiple voices, multiple texts: Reading in the secondary
content areas. Portsmouth, NH: Boynton/Cook.
Dudley-Marling, C., & Paugh, P. (2004). A classroom teacher's guide to struggling readers. Portsmouth,
NH: Heinemann.
Eldredge, J. L. (2005). Teaching decoding: Why and how. Newark, DE: IRA.
Ellery, V. (2005). Creating strategic readers. Newark, DE: IRA.
Farris, P., Fuhler, C., & Walther, M. (2004). Teaching reading: A balanced approach for today’s
classrooms. Boston: McGraw-Hill.
Flippo, R. F. (2003). Assessing readers qualitative diagnosis and instruction. Portsmouth, NH:
Heinemann.
Flood, J. (2005). Literacy development of students in urban schools: Newark, DE: IRA.
Fox, B. (2004). Word identification strategies: Phonics from a new perspective. Newark, DE: IRA.
Freedman, D. E., & Freedman, Y. S. (2004). Essential linguistics: What you need to know to teach
reading, ESL, spelling, phonics, grammar. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.
Gallis, K. (1994). How children talk, write, draw, dance, and sing their understanding of the world. New
York: Teachers College Press.
Goodman, K. (1996). On reading: A common-sense look at the nature of language and the science of
reading. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.
Goodman, Y. M. , & Owocki, G. (2002). Kidwatching: Documenting children's literacy development.
Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.
Graves, M. (2001). Teaching reading in the 21st century. Needham Heights, MA: Allyn & Bacon.
Gunning, T. G. (1996). Creating reading instruction for all children (2nd ed.). Boston: Allyn & Bacon.
Gunning, T. G. (2000). Phonological awareness and primary phonics. Boston: Allyn & Bacon.
Hammond, B. (2005). Teaching African American learners to read: Newark, DE: IRA.
Harp, B., & Brewer, J. (2004).The informed reading teacher. Columbus, OH: Prentice Hall.
Heilman, A. (1998). Phonics in proper perspective. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Merrill.
Heilman, A., Blair, T., & Rupley, W. (1998).Principles and practices of teaching reading (9th ed.).
Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.
Johnson, D. (2001). Vocabulary in the elementary and middle school. Needham Heights, MA: Allyn &
Bacon.
Kamil, M. L., Mosenthal, P. B., Pearson, P. D., & Barr, R. (Eds.). (2000). Handbook of reading
research. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Krashen, S. D. (2003). Explorations in language acquisition and use. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.
Lenski, S. D., & Nierstheimer, S. L. (2004). Becoming a teacher of reading: A developmental approach.
Upper Saddler River, NJ: Merrill Prentice Hall.
Lyons, C. A. (2003). Teaching struggling readers how to use brain-based research to maximize learning.
Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.
Macrorie, K. (1988). The I-search paper. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.
Mandel, L., Morrow, L., Gambrell, L. B., & Pressley, M. (Eds.). (2003). Best practices in literacy
instruction. Newark, DE: IRA.
9
EDRD 7715
May, F. (2001). Unraveling the seven myths of reading. Needham Heights, MA: Allyn & Bacon.
McCormick, R., & Paratore, J. (Eds.). (2003). After early intervention, then what? Teaching struggling
readers in grades 3 and beyond. Newark, DE: IRA.
McLaughlin, M., & Allen, M. B. (2002). Guided comprehension: A teaching model for grades 3-8.
Newark, DE: IRA.
Moore, R., & Gilles, R. (2005). Reading conversations: Retrospective miscue analysis with struggling
readers, grades 4-12. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.
Mueller, P. N. (2001). Lifers: Learning from at-risk adolescent readers. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.
Opitz, M. F., & Rasinski, T. (1998). Good-bye round robin: 25 effective oral reading strategies.
Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.
Pinnell, G. S., & Fountas, I. C. (1998). Word matters: Teaching phonics and spelling in the
reading/writing classroom. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.
Power, B., & Hubbard, R. (2001). Language development: A reader for teachers (2nd ed.). Columbus,
OH: Prentice Hall.
Prescott-Griffin, M. L. (2005). Reader to reader: Building independence through peer partnerships.
Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.
Prescott-Griffin, M. L., & Witherell, N. L. (2004). Fluency in focus: Comprehension strategies for all
young readers. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.
Putnam, L. (Ed.). (1996). How to become a better reading teacher. Columbus, OH: Prentice Hall.
Rasinski, T. (2003). The fluent reader: Oral reading strategies for building word recognition, fluency,
and comprehension. New York: Scholastic.
Rasinski, T., & Padak, N. (2000). Effective reading strategies: Teaching children who find reading
difficult (2nd ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Merrill Prentice Hall.
Rasinski, T., & Padak, N. (2001). From phonics to fluency: Effective teaching of decoding and reading
fluency in the elementary school. Newark, DE: IRA.
Reynolds, M. (2004). I won't read and you can't make me. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.
Rhodes, L. K. (Ed.). (1992). Literacy assessment: A handbook of instruments. Portsmouth, NH:
Heinemann.
Robinson, R. (2000). Historical sources in U.S. reading education. 1900-1970: An annotated
bibliography. Newark, DE: IRA.
Robinson, R. (2003). Readings in reading instruction: Its history, theory, and development. Boston,
Allyn & Bacon.
Robinson, R. D., McKenna, M. C., Wedman, J. M., & et.al. (2000). Issues and trends in literacy
education. Needham Heights, MA: Allyn & Bacon.
Routman, R. (2002). Reading essentials: The specifics you need to teach reading well. Portsmouth, NH:
Heinemann.
Ruddell, R., Ruddell, M., & Singer, R. (1994). Theoretical models and processes of reading: Newark,
DE: IRA.
Ruddell, R. B., & Unrau, N. (eds.). Theoretical models and processes of reading (5th ed.).
Newark, DE: IRA.
Santman, D. (2005). Shades of meaning: Comprehension and intrepretation in middle school.
Portsmouth, NH.
Schoenbach, R., & Greenleaf, C. (1999). Reading for understanding. New York: Jossey-Bass.
Smith, F. (1996). Reading without nonsense (3rd ed.). New York: Teachers College Press.
Smith, F. (2003). Unspeakable acts, unnatural practices: Flaws and falacies in scientific reading
instruction. Portsmouth, NH.
Smith, N. B. (2002). American reading instruction. Newark, DE: IRA.
Smith, R. (2005). Teaching reading in today's middle school. Boston: Houghton Mifflin.
Steineke, N. (2003). Reading and writing together: Collaborative literacy in action. Portsmouth, NH:
Heinemann.
Strickland, K. (2005). What's after assessment? Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.
Tompkins, G. E. (2003). Literature for the 21st century (3rd ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Merrill.
Tyner, B. (2004). Small-group reading instruction: A differentiated teaching model for beginning and
struggling readers. Newark, DE: IRA.
Weaver, C. (2002). Reading process and practice (3rd ed.). Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.
Wilde, S. (2000). Miscue analysis made easy. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.
10
EDRD 7715