EDRD 7717
KENNESAW STATE UNIVERSITY
BAGWELL COLLEGE OF EDUCATION
READING ENDORSEMENT
Fall 2007
I. COURSE NUMBER/SECTION: EDRD 7717
COURSE TITLE: Reading Assessment and Instruction
II. INSTRUCTOR:
Name:
Office:
Office Phone:
E-mail:
Office Hours:
Dr. XXX
Kennesaw Hall XXX
XXX
XXX
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.
Gillet, J. W. & Temple, C. (2000). Understanding reading problems: Assessment and instruction.
(5th ed). New York: Longman
Johns. J. (2001). Basic reading inventory: Pre-primer through grade twelve and early literacy
assessments. (30th ed). Iowa: Kendall/Hunt Publishing Company.
The following websites will get you started with some class research:
I Teach; I Learn www.iteachilearn.com
Bilingual Books for Kids: www.bilingualbooks.com
NCTE: http://www.ncte.org
IRA: www.readingonline.org, www.reading.org
V. CATALOG DESCRIPTION:
An advanced study of reading assessment instruments used for understanding the individual and
diverse needs of all grade-level readers including reading inventories, miscue analysis, and pausing
indices. Students will use assessment data to plan, evaluate, and revise effective reading instruction that
meets the diverse needs of students. Current trends and issues in testing and assessment in U.S.
schools will be studied. A field component is required.
EDRD 7717
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.
The purpose of this course is to provide candidates with the knowledge and skills to assess the diverse
reading needs of their students. This includes choosing appropriate assessment instruments,
implementing assessment and interpreting the results. Further, this course will help candidates plan
instruction based on assessment data to meet the diverse needs of their students. After taking this
course, candidates will have a stronger understanding of the reading process including the five
dimensions of reading (e.g. phonics, phonemic awareness, fluency, vocabulary, comprehension) and
factors that affect reading (e.g. text, context).
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:
As explained in EDRD 7715, a required element in each portfolio for the Reading Endorsement is the
portfolio narrative. The purpose of the portfolio narrative is 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. In your portfolio, you need to include a narrative, which includes descriptive, analytic and
reflective writing in which you reflect on each proficiency and how you make the case that the evidence
you have selected in your portfolio supports a particular proficiency, using the Portfolio Narrative Rubric
as a guide. The narrative should be comprehensive, documenting research-based best practices.
Remember the following are required elements in the final portfolio:
2
EDRD 7717
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 at Kennesaw State University, you are required to be
involved in 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, 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:
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:
3
EDRD 7717
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
Reading 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
Analysis of Reading Process,
Assessment & Instruction
Project
Assessing SBRR
Portfolio
WebCT
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
Analysis of Reading Process,
Assessment & Instruction
Project
Assessing SBRR
Portfolio
WebCT
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
Standard 1:
Candidate
Knowledge,
Skills &
Dispositions
Analysis of Reading Process,
Assessment & Instruction
Project
Portfolio
WebCt
Outcome 2:
Facilitator of Learning
2.2
Outcome 2:
Facilitator of Learning
2.2
4
EDRD 7717
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 Experts
1.1
Standard 1:
Candidate
Knowledge,
Skills &
Dispositions
Analysis of Reading Process,
Assessment & Instruction
Project
Assessing SBRR
Portfolio
WebCT
2.1 Use instructional
grouping options
(individual, small-group,
whole-class, and
computer-based) as
appropriate for
accomplishing given
purposes.
Outcome 2:
Facilitator of Learning
2.2, 2.3, 2.4
Standard 1:
Candidate
Knowledge,
Skills &
Dispositions
Analysis of Reading Process,
Assessment & Instruction
Project
Portfolio
2.2 Use a wide range of
instructional practices,
approaches, and
methods, including
technology-based
practices, for learners at
different stages of
development and from
differing cultural and
linguistic backgrounds.
Outcome 1:
Subject Matter Expert
1.2, 1.3
Standard 1:
Candidate
Knowledge,
Skills &
Dispositions
Analysis of Reading Process,
Assessment & Instruction
Project
Portfolio
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 2:
Facilitator of Learning
2.1, 2.4
Standard 1:
Candidate
Knowledge,
Skills &
Dispositions
Analysis of Reading Process,
Assessment & Instruction
Project
Portfolio
3.1 Use a wide range of
assessment tools and
practices that range from
individual and group
standardized tests to
individual and group
informal classroom
assessment strategies,
including technologybased assessment tools.
Outcome 2:
Facilitator of Learning
2.5
Standard 1:
Candidate
Knowledge,
Skills, &
Dispositions
Analysis of Reading Process,
Assessment & Instruction
Project
Assessing SBRR
Portfolio
WebCT
3.2 Place students along
a developmental
continuum and identify
students’ proficiencies
and difficulties.
Outcome 2:
Facilitator of Learning
2.1, 2.5, 2.6
Standard 1:
Candidate
Knowledge,
Skills, &
Dispositions
Analysis of Reading Process,
Assessment & Instruction
Project
Impact on Student Learning
Portfolio
Outcome 2:
Facilitator of Learning
2.1 2.4
Collaborative
Professional
3.1
5
EDRD 7717
3.3 Use assessment
information to plan,
evaluate, and revise
effective instruction that
meets the needs of all
students, including those
at different developmental
stages and those from
differing cultural and
linguistic backgrounds.
Outcome 2:
Facilitator of Learning
2.5
Standard 1:
Candidate
Knowledge,
Skills, &
Dispositions
Analysis of Reading Process,
Assessment & Instruction
Project
Portfolio
Impact on Student Learning
3.4 Effectively
communicate results of
assessments to specific
individuals (students,
parents, caregivers,
colleagues,
administrators,
policymakers, policy
officials, community, etc.).
Outcome 3:
Collaborative
Professional
2.6
Standard 1:
Candidate
Knowledge,
Skills, &
Dispositions
Analysis of Reading Process,
Assessment & Instruction
Project
Portfolio
Impact on Student Learning
4.1 Use students’
interests, reading abilities
and backgrounds as
foundations for the
reading and writing
program.
Outcome 2:
Facilitator of Learning
2.2, 2.3
Standard 1:
Candidate
Knowledge,
Skills, &
Dispositions
Analysis of Reading Process,
Assessment & Instruction
Project
Portfolio,
WebCT
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
Analysis of Reading Process,
Assessment & Instruction
Project
Portfolio,
WebCT
4.3 Model reading and
writing enthusiastically as
valued lifelong activities.
Outcome 2:
Facilitator of Learning
3.3
Standard 1:
Candidate
Knowledge,
Skills &
Dispositions
Portfolio
WebCT
4.4 Motivate learners to
be lifelong readers.
Outcome 2:
Facilitator of Learning
2.3
Standard 1:
Candidate
Knowledge,
Skills &
Dispositions
Analysis of Reading Process,
Assessment & Instruction
Project
Portfolio
WebCT
5.1 Display positive
dispositions related to
reading and the teaching
of reading.
Outcome 2:
Faciliator of Learning
2.1, 2.2, 2.3
Standard 1:
Candidate
Knowledge,
Skills &
Dispositions
Analysis of Reading Process,
Assessment & Instruction
Project
Portfolio
WebCT
Impact on Student Learning
Outcome 3:
Collaborative
Professional
3.1, 3.2, 3.3
VIII. COURSE REQUIREMENTS/ASSIGNMENTS:
Analysis of Reading Process, Assessment & Instruction Project (20%): Candidates will work with a
group of 3-5 diverse students in their classroom setting to understand student reading process (reader
profiles). Candidates will keep a running record of reading behavior (using software) as students read
during regular classroom activies (including content area textbook readings and self-selected texts).
6
EDRD 7717
Running records should include all significant miscues, rate and fluency, and comprehension. Running
records will be demonstrated and discussed within the course. Once data has been collected,
candidates will analyze student reading behavior in light of the five dimensions of reading; factors related
to the reader, text, and context; as well as issues of diversity, interest, and motivation. Candidates will
then make recommendations for instruction in both whole group and individual settings and share
findings with parents, students and colleagues as appropriate. Recommendations will include reading
materials, both print and nonprint and resources/strategies for meeting individual needs. An organizer for
this project will be available on WebCT.
Assessing SBRR (20%): Candidates will choose one of the five dimensions of reading and examine
research methods of assessing the dimension (across all grade levels) using the National Reading
Panel’s Report as a starting point. Research for this project should include at least two scholarly sources
(in addition to course readings) and atleast two methods of assessment. A concluding statement should
discuss implications of the findings for 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 doublespaced.
Impact on Student Learning: Assessment & Instruction (40%): During this course, you will
constantly be assessing the influence of your instruction on your students’ learning and considering what
factors, such as student diversity, might affect your students’ achievement. For this assignment, assess
your students reading, design a unit of study to meet the needs of your students, and analyze its impact
on your students’ learning. Then, you will reflect on the impact that particular unit had on your students’
learning using the “Impact on Student Learning Analysis” Rubric as a guide. (A copy of this rubric is
available on the course WebCT site.) You will want to consider how the differences that every student
brings to the classroom setting may have influenced learning. (See the definition of “every student” at the
top of the Impact on Student Learning Rubric). The length of the reflection is up to you, but it should be
concise. (See Directions for the Impact on Student Learning Analysis that accompanies the Rubric for
greater detail.)
WebCT Discussions (10%). 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 continue 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.
IX. Evaluation and Grading:
Grading Scale:
90 – 100%. =A
80 – 89% =B
70 – 79% =C
60 – 69% =D
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
7
EDRD 7717
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 Undergraduate Catalogue. All students
are expected to attend classes in accordance with the scheduled time of the course. Should you be
absent, you are responsible for making up the work missed. In-class activities may not be made up.
XII. COURSE OUTLINE:
What follows is a tentative schedule (subject to change with notice). I have indicated the dates
that readings from your text are due. I may also assign other readings which are are NOT
indicated in the reading schedule. I prefer to leave a bit of reading open until we see your needs
and interests. I will announce them as need arises.
Week 1
Introduction/Syllabus
What is assessment? Why assess reading?
Informal and formal assessment
GT Chapter 1 & 5
NRP Introduction
Article on SBRR
Week 2
Stages of Reading; Review of 5 Dimensions of Reading
Assessing Factors that Affect Reading: Reader, Text, and Context
Begin Analysis of Reading Process
Choose Dimension for Assessing SBRR
GT Chapter 1 & 5
NRP Alphabetic Principles
Week 3
Assessment Instruments: Interviews, Inventories, Observational Checklists
Assessing Interest, Attitude, and Reading Habits
Planning Instruction Based on Assesment Data
8
EDRD 7717
NRP Fluency
Week 4
Assessment Instruments: Running Records, Miscue Analysis, Informal Reading Inventory
Assessing the Five Dimensions of Reading
Work on Analysis of Reading Process
JJ Chapter 1 & 2
Assessment & Instruction Project: Part 1 due
Week 5
Assessment Instruments: Running Records, Miscue Analysis, Informal Reading Inventory
Assessing the Five Dimensions of Reading
Begin Assessment & Instruction Project
JJ Chapter 3 & 4
NRP Comprehension
Week 6
Assessment Instruments: Informal Reading Inventory, Retelings, Comprehension Assessment
Assessing the Five Dimensions of Reading
Work on Analysis of Reading Process
Work on Assessment & Instruction Project
JJ Chapter 5 & 6
Analysis of Reading Process due
Week 7
Assessment Instruments: Informal Reading Inventory, Retelings, Comprehension Assessment
Assessing the Five Dimensions of Reading
Planning Instruction based on Assessment Data
Work on Assessment & Instruction Project
GT Chapter 3 & 8
NRP Vocabulary
Week 8
Assessment Instruments: Cloze Passages, Word Analysis, Pausing Index
GT Chapter 2 & 7
Week 9
Assessment Instruments: Cloze Passages, Word Analysis, Pausing Index
Assessment & Instruction Project Part 2 due
GT Chapter 2 & 7
Week 10
Work on Assessment & Instruction Project
Assessment Instruments: Think Alouds, Reading/Writing Checklists
Planning Instruction based on Assessment Data
Week 11
Assessing Metacognition
Assessment & Instruction Project Part 3 due
Week 12
Assessing Texts and Texbooks – What does this mean for instruction?
Technology and Assessment
GT Chapter 9
Assessing SBRR due
Week 13
Assessing English Language Learners
GT Chapter 10 & 11
9
EDRD 7717
Week 14
Assessment & Instruction Project Part 4 due
Week 15
Portfolios: Yours and Theirs
GT Chapter 4
Assignment: Portfolio
XIII.
REFERENCES AND BIBLIOGRAPHY:
Alvermann, D. E. (2001a). Effective literacy instruction for adolescents. Paper presented at the National
Reading Conference, Chicago.
Alvermann, D. E. (2001b). Reading adolescents reading identities: Looking back to see ahead. Journal
of Adolescent & Adult Literacy, 44(8), 676 - 690.
Alvermann, D. E., & Moore, D. W. (1991). Secondary school reading. In R. Barr, M. L. Kamil, P. B.
Mosenthal & P. D. Pearson (Eds.), The handbook of reading research (Vol. II, pp. 951 - 983).
New York: Longman.
Anders, P. L., Hoffman, J. V., & Duffy, G. G. (2000). Teaching teachers to teach reading: Paradigm
shifts, persistent problems, and challenges. In M. L. Kamil, P. B. Mosenthal, P. D. Pearson & R.
Barr (Eds.), Handbook of reading research, volume iii (pp. 719-742). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence
Erlbaum Associates, Publishers.
Anderson, R. C., Wilson, P. T., & Fielding, L. G. (1988). Growth in reading and how children spend their
time outside of school. Reading Research Quarterly, 23(3), 285 - 303.
Ash, G. E. (2002). Teaching readers who struggle: A pragmatic middle school framework. Reading
Online, 5(7).
Atwell, N. (1998). In the middle: New understandings about writing, reading, and learning. Portsmouth:
Boynton/Cook Publishers, Inc.
Barrentine, S. J. (Ed.). (1999). Reading assessment: Principles and practices for elementary teachers.
Newark: International Reading Association.
Baumann, J. F., Edwards, E. C., Font, G., Tereshinki, C. A., Kame'enui, E. J., & Olejnik, S. (2002).
Teaching morphemic and contextual analysis to fifth-grade students. Reading Research
Quarterly, 37, 150 - 170.
Bean, T. (2000). Reading in the content areas: Social constructivist dimensions. In P. L. Anders, J. V.
Hoffman & G. G. Duffy (Eds.), Handbook of reading research (Vol. III, pp. 629-644). New
Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Publishers.
Braunger, J., & Lewis, J. (1998). Building a knowledge base in reading (2nd ed.). Newark, NJ:
International Reading Association.
Campbell, J. R. (2001). A focus on naep data: What it means, what it does not mean, and the findings
from the expert study. In R. F. Flippo (Ed.), Reading researchers in search of common ground
(pp. 147-158). Newark: International Reading Association.
Cunningham, P. M. (2000). Phonics they use: Words for reading and writing (third ed.). New York:
Addison Wesley Longman, Inc.
Curtis, M. E., & Longo, A. M. (2001, November). Teaching vocabulary to adolescents to improve
comprehension. Reading Online, 5(4).
Dahl, K. L., Barto, A., Bonfils, A., Carasellow, M., Christopher, J., Davis, R., et al. (2003). Connecting
developmental word study with classroom writing: Children's descriptions of spelling strategies.
The Reading Teacher, 57, 310-319.
Fielding, L. G., & Pearson, P. D. (1994). Reading comprehension: What works. Educational Leadership,
51(5), 62-68.
Flippo, R. F. (2001a). The "real" common ground: Pulling the threads together. In R. F. Flippo (Ed.),
Reading researchers in search of common ground (pp. 178-184). Newark: International Reading
Association.
Flippo, R. F. (Ed.). (2001b). Reading researchers in search of common ground. Newark: International
Reading Association.
10
EDRD 7717
Fountas, I. C., & Pinnell, G. S. (2001). Guiding readers and writers grades 3-6: Teaching
comprehension, genre, and content literacy. Portsmouth: Heinemann.
Gee, J. P. (2001). What is literacy? In P. Shannon (Ed.), Becoming political, too: New readings and
writings on the politics of literacy education (pp. 1-9). Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.
Goodman, K. (1996). On reading: A common-sense look at the nature of language and the science of
reading. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.
Graves, M. F., Juel, C., & Graves, B. B. (1998). Teaching reading in the 21st century. Needham Heights:
Allyn and Bacon.
Harp, B. (2000). The handbook of literacy assessment and evaluation. Norwood, MA: ChristopherGordon Publishers, Inc.
Harris, T. L., & Hodges, R. E. (1995). The literacy dictionary: The vocabulary of reading and writing.
Neward: International Reading Association.
Harvey, S. (1998). Nonfiction matters: Reading, writing, and research in grades 3-8. Portland: Stenhouse
Publishers.
Kibby, M. W. (1995). Practical steps for informing literacy instruction: A diagnostic decision-making
model. Newark, DE: International Reading Association.
Laflamme, J. G. (1997). The effect of the multiple exposure vocabulary method and the target
reading/writing strategy on test scores. Journal of Adolescent & Adult Literacy, 40, 372.
Leu, D. J. (2000). Literacy and technology: Deictic consequences for literacy education in an information
age. In M. L. Kamil, P. B. Mosenthal, P. D. Pearson & R. Barr (Eds.), Handbook of reading
resesarch (Vol. III, pp. 743-788). Mahwah: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Publishers.
Luke, A., & Freebody, P. (1997). The social practices of reading. In S. Muspratt, A. Luke & P. Freebody
(Eds.), Constructing critical literacies: Teaching and learning textual practice (pp. 185-226).
Cresskill, NJ: Hampton Press, Inc.
Moore, D. W., Bean, T. W., Birdyshaw, D., & Rycik, J. A. (1999). Adolescent literacy: A position
statement for the commission on adolescent literacy of the international reading association.
Nagy, W. E., & Scott, J. A. (2000). Vocabulary processes. In M. L. Kamil, P. B. Mosenthal, P. D. Pearson
& R. Barr (Eds.), Handbook of reading research (Vol. III, pp. 269 - 284). Mahwah: Lawrence
Erlbaum Associates, Publisher.
Pressley, M. (1998). Reading instruction that works: The case for balanced teaching. New York: The
Guilford Press.
Rhodes, L. K., & Shanklin, N. L. (1993). Windows into literacy: Assessing learners k-8. Portsmuth:
Henemann.
Ruddell, R. B., & Unrau, N. J. (Eds.). (2004). Theoretical models and processes of reading. Newark, DE:
International Reading Association.
Rupley, W. H., Logan, J. W., & Nichols, W. D. (1999). Vocabulary instruction in a balanced reading
program. The Reading Teacher, 52, 336 - 347.
Smith, F. (1994). Understanding reading: A psycholinguistic analysis of reading and learning to read (5th
ed.). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc., Publishers.
Smith, F. (Ed.). (1973). Psycholinguistics and reading. New York: Holt, Rinehart, and Winston, Inc.
Stahl, S. A., Richek, M. A., & Vandevier, R. J. (1991). Learning meaning vocabulary through listening: A
sixth-grade reflection. In J. Zutell & S. McCormick (Eds.), Learner factors/teacher factors: Issues
in literacy research and instruction, fortieth yearbook of the national reading conference (pp. 185
- 192). Chicago: The National Reading Conference, Inc.
Stanovich, K. (1986). Matthew effects in reading: Some consequences of individual difference in the
acquisition of literacy. Reading Research Quarterly, 21(4), 360-407.
Templeton, S., & Morris, D. (1999). Questions teachers ask about spelling. Reading Research Quarterly,
34, 102 - 112.
Turbill, J. (2002). The four ages of reading philosophy and pedagogy: A framework for examining theory
and practice. Reading Online, 5(6).
Wade, S. E., & Moje, E. B. (2000). The role of text in classroom learning, volume iii. In M. L. Kamil, P. B.
Mosenthal, P. D. Pearson & R. Barr (Eds.), Handbook of reading research (Vol. III, pp. 609 627). New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Publishers.
White, T. G., Power, M. A., & White, S. (1989). Morphological analysis: Implications for teaching and
understanding vocabulary growth. Reading Research Quarterly, 24, 283-304.
Wiseman, D. L., Many, J. E., & Altieri, J. (1997). When the literary response is: "i like the book - it is
funny." where do we go from here? Georgia Journal of Reading, 17-25.
Wood, K. D., & Dickinson, T. S. (2000). Promoting literacy in grades 4 - 9. Needham Heights: Allyn &
Bacon.
11
EDRD 7717
12
EDRD 7717