learning, reading, and writing theories

Minnesota Reads: A Higher Education Partnership to Better Prepare

Faculty & Future Teachers for Literacy Instruction—2007

Minnesota Reads

LITERACY CONCEPTUAL FRAMEWORK (LCF)

Created in 2002-2005 and adopted by grant participants

Edited in 2006-2007

Current version: March 30, 2007

Please use the following information when citing the framework and other project materials:

Minnesota Reads: A Higher Education Partnership to Better Prepare Faculty and Future Teachers for

Literacy Instruction, 2002-2007. This research was supported in part by the Bush Foundation, Agency, No.

Bush Fed. 8303, Steven Yussen and Deborah R. Dillon, Co-PIs*, University of Minnesota, Twin Cities,

College of Education and Human Development & Department of Curriculum and Instruction.

[*Collaborators include faculty members and research associates from the University of Minnesota-Twin

Cities, Augsburg College, the College of St. Catherine, and St. Cloud State University].

Page 1 of 63



Minnesota Reads

LITERACY CONCEPTUAL FRAMEWORK (LCF)

CONTENTS

Introduction…………………………………………………………………………...3

Principles………………………………………………………………………………6

Professionalism..................................................................................................9

Learning, Reading, and Writing Theories………………………………………11

Language and the Development of Oral Language and Literacy…………...13

Reading………………………………………………………………..…………......16

Writing………………………………………………………………………………..22

Motivation…………………………………………………………………………....26

Texts and Contexts………………………………………………………………….28

Assessment and Evaluation…………………...………………………………..…30

Literate Environment………………………………………………………………34

References…………………………………………………………………………….37

Page 2 of 63



INTRODUCTION

BACKGROUND

This document contains the findings from a multi-year project funded through a grant from the Bush Foundation titled: Minnesota Reads: A Higher Education

Partnership to Better Prepare Faculty and Future Teachers for Literacy

Instruction. This grant was awarded to Professors Steven Yussen and Deborah R.

Dillon, Co-PIs, University of Minnesota, Twin Cities, College of Education and

Human Development & Department of Curriculum and Instruction. Collaborators on the project included the following faculty members and research associates:

Augsburg College: Joy Bartlett, Mary Jacobson, Vicki Olson,

College of St. Catherine: Sherri Buss, Bonnie Fisher, Bonnie LaDuca

St. Cloud State University: Patricia Heine, Christine Inkster, David Heine,

Judith Davison-Jenkins

University of Minnesota-Twin Cities: Richard Beach, Martha Bigelow,

Lee Galda, Michael Graves, Lori Helman, Joan Hughes, Julie Kalnin,

Timothy J. Lensmire, David O’Brien, Becky Rapport, Karen Jorgenson

(now at the University of Kansas) Carolyn Gwinn, Steven Yussen,

Chakorn Techatassanasoontorn, Peggy DeLapp, and Mark Vagle (now at

The University of Georgia).

The goal of this project was to strengthen K-12 preservice literacy teacher education at the four institutions of higher learning who participated in the project and share the findings of this work with other literacy colleagues in the state of Minnesota and nationwide. Faculty members at the four institutions reviewed relevant research in reading and language arts, best practices in teacher education and literacy education, attention to the development of literacy in first and subsequent languages, uses of appropriate technologies to enhance literacy teacher preparation, and evaluation procedures used to document preservice teachers’ learning.

Knowledge gleaned from these sources, along with research findings generated during the project, were used to enhance literacy curriculum, assignments, and assessments at the four institutions. Professional development also included sessions in which university faculty members examined preservice teachers’ assignments and assessments, analyzed these as data sources, and used the findings to strengthen course topics, readings, assignments and the assessments.

Overall findings from the project indicate that professional development sessions, designed by and for university literacy faculty members, promoted consensus building and the development of several key components of K-12 literacy teacher preparation. These included an “agreed upon” conceptual framework used to guide curriculum and program development and syllabi construction at the four institutions, a beginning repertoire of knowledge and practices deemed important for new teachers, four common assignments used across the four institutions, and three pre-and post-course assessments. Initial findings from this work are reported in Vagle, M. D., Dillon, D. R., Davison-Jenkins, J. LaDuca, B., & Olson, V. (2006).

Redesigning literacy preservice education at four institutions: A three-year

Page 3 of 63


Faculty & Future Teachers for Literacy Instruction—2007 collaborative project. Fifty-fifth yearbook of the national reading conference (pp. 324-

340). Milwaukee, WI: The National Reading Conference.

RATIONALE FOR A FRAMEWORK

This document is a Literacy Conceptual Framework (LCF). It represents a synthesis of research and expert insights about the knowledge, skills, and dispositions central to quality literacy instruction. The framework is comprehensive—it contains knowledge and experiences that are important for preservice teachers. The framework is also extensive—it contains detailed information that most teacher preparation programs can only begin to address. Teacher preparation programs should provide the time and resources for high quality coursework, experiences, and practica. In most institutions K-12 literacy teacher preparation includes multiple opportunities to learn about literacy concepts and practices beyond the 2-4 literacy foundations and methods courses. Knowledge about learning theories, language and the development of oral language, motivation, assessments, and professionalism, discussed in the LCF, are also located in educational psychology coursework, linguistics classes, courses in English literature, as well as courses in second languages and cultures and technology. The risk of literacy educators trying to fit all of the contents of the LCF into their courses is that the course content and experiences would not provide enough depth to prepare new teachers with what they need as they begin their careers. However, we also have strong evidence that preparation programs are the starting point for teachers’ learning, and that this learning continues as teachers begin their careers and grow throughout their professional lifetimes. Essentially, teachers’ professional learning can be characterized as a developmental trajectory—always moving forward and becoming more sophisticated as educators gain knowledge about their students; the tasks, texts, and activities necessary to help individuals learn; and the teaching and learning contexts in schools and other educational settings where individuals interact and learn together.

Teacher educators working on the Minnesota Reads project relied on the work of

Sharon

Feiman-Nemser (2001) to think about this developmental trajectory. In her article, “From preparation to practice: Designing a continuum to strengthen and sustain teaching” (

Teachers College Record, 103

(6), 1013-1055), Feiman-Nemser posits the question: What are the central tasks of teacher learning in the early stages of learning to teach? Sharon’s research suggests that teacher learning might occur as phases in a continuum and that each phase has a unique set of knowledges and skills that are required for good teaching. Feiman-Nemser argues that high quality preparation programs are grounded on a substantive orientation, commitments, and ways of working with students.

We believe that our Literacy Conceptual Framework offers a vision (via the Principles and ideas within the framework) and a substantive orientation about literacy teaching and learning. The LCF and accompanying materials also provide opportunities for preservice teachers to critically examine their beliefs as well as develop (a) subject knowledge and pedagogical content knowledge, (b) an understanding of learners—particularly those

Page 4 of 63


Faculty & Future Teachers for Literacy Instruction—2007 from diverse backgrounds, (c) tools and skills to teach literacy through the “Agreed

Upon Assignments”, and (d) a “Beginning Repertoire” (BR)—the demonstrated ability to work with children and youth in a variety of ways to enhance literacy learning.

The LCF includes 10 key areas of knowledge. For example, the areas of Reading,

Writing, Motivation, and Assessment and Evaluation are included. Content in each of these sections is organized around several key structures: Foundational

Knowledge, Pedagogical Content Knowledge, Instructional Practices and Materials, and Beginning Repertoire. A list of research-based references is provided for each area of knowledge included in the framework; these references can be found in the last section of the framework. As you examine the 10 key areas of knowledge, you will see that the content is based on a spiraling model of learning—knowledge and pedagogical content knowledge as well as instructional strategies and materials would be introduced, studied, revisited, studied in more depth and with current research findings, as preservice teachers learn to teach, develop as teachers, and become expert in their craft. This model matches our ideas about a trajectory or continuum of teacher development.

Finally, a core value that undergirds the framework is our moral obligation as educators to do everything we can to help new teachers meet the literacy needs of all students. While there is no single approach to reach all students, we recognize that effective literacy curricula create a community of learners within a culture of literacy. Our goal is to develop literacy teachers prepared to create literate environments characterized by engaged students, purposeful structures, informed instruction and respect for learners. We hope that you find the Literacy Conceptual

Framework (including the Beginning Repertoire ad References), and the accompanying documents useful (e.g., the “Agreed Upon Assignments and Pre-and

Post Assessments). These documents are available to anyone to use in your particular teacher education settings. We ask that you cite our work—primarily to thank the Bush Foundation who provided grant monies to fund this professional development project—and to honor the many individuals cited earlier in this document who provided their individual and collective scholarship and insights into this effort.

Respectfully,

Deborah R. Dillon

Page 5 of 63



PRINCIPLES

The following principles create a conceptual foundation consistent with comprehensive, rigorous literacy instruction. Together these principles give shape and structure to the knowledge, skills, and dispositions presented within this framework.

Engaged readers and writers: In a literate environment students and teachers use literacy tools in producing and understanding texts in purposeful activities through participation in the full compliment of human enterprises.

Effective literacy educators create opportunities for students to:

 Use literacy tools to think clearly, gain deeper understanding and solve problems.

 Create a wide variety of texts for multiple purposes.

 Enjoy and learn from a variety of literary and informational texts.

 Engage in meaningful activities that motivate students because they are producing texts and performances that have value to them in the community.

 Share in the creation of curriculum that connects school worlds and students’ worlds of home, community, peer, workplace and virtual environments.

 Develop competency in the use of oral and written language to communicate about content of interest and importance to them.

 Monitor and assess their literacy growth.

Purposeful structures: In a literate environment teachers create a rich array of physical and procedural constructs that supports students’ use of literacy tools in meaningful contexts.

Effective literacy educators create structures that:

 Reflect a theoretical conceptualization of how students learn.

 Include a wide variety of quality children’s and young adult literature and other print and non-print materials.

 Infuse quality literature throughout the curriculum to encourage students to appreciate the written word, inspire them to use interesting language, and motivate them to love literature.

 Provide time and reasons to read and write every day.

 Utilize coherent, contextualized and compelling activities.

 Involve parents and community members.

 Feature teachers and other adults as models of readers and writers.

Page 6 of 63



 Recognize the challenges of creating productive, intellectual literacy environments within larger school and community contexts and policies that may not necessarily support those environments.

Informed instruction: In a literate environment teachers use expert knowledge and student needs to plan appropriate instruction.

Effective literacy educators design instruction that:

 Reflects students’ backgrounds, interests, cultural practices, and experiences.

 Integrates language arts (listening, speaking, reading, writing, representing, and viewing) and content area subjects across the curriculum.

 Applies a wide range of strategies to comprehend, interpret, evaluate, and appreciate a wide variety of texts, both print and digital media

 Develops a variety of strategies to produce various types of texts to communicate with a variety of audiences for different purposes.

 Integrates assessment with differentiated instruction.

 Is informed by formal and contextualized assessment.

 Embeds ongoing assessment of students’ strengths and needs using a variety of strategies.

 Guides students’ literacy growth through supportive structures such as the gradual release model of instruction.

 Provide demonstrations and modeling of literacy skills and strategies in multiple contexts.

 Is continually adapted and modified to meet the changing needs of students.

Respect for learners: In a literate environment all students are valued for their ethical and intellectual participation.

Effective literacy educators:

 Respect the physical, emotional, cognitive, social, and linguistic development of the student.

 Respect the cultural background of the student.

 Value students’ social, cultural, political and linguistic capital.

 Promote the understanding of, and respect for, diversity in language use, patterns, and dialects across cultures, ethnic groups, geographic regions, and social roles.

 Build on the linguistic capital that each student brings as foundational to literacy learning.

 Demonstrate respect for the intellectual lives of their students by creating opportunities to develop higher-level comprehension and critical thinking strategies for real purposes.

 Utilize the tools of critical literacy to engage students in explorations of social justice and other issues important to their lives.

Page 7 of 63



 Assist students in becoming independent learners through self-reflection, assessment, and monitoring.

 Foster a classroom environment that empowers students to use the tools of literacy to change their world.

Glossary of Terms

- “foundational knowledge”: knowing-that theoretical knowledge about literacy learning

- “pedagogical content knowledge”: knowing-how knowledge about how to teach literacy

- “instructional strategies and materials”: instructional methods for teaching literacy

- “beginning repertoire”: expectations for what beginning teachers should know and be able to do

Page 8 of 63



PROFESSIONALISM

DISPOSITIONS

1.1.

Preservice teachers value the transformative power of literacy to shape their lives and affect their world. They support students in utilizing the tools of critical literacy to engage in explorations of social justice and other issues important to their lives.

1.2.

Preservice literacy teachers are positive role models and mentors in the classroom. They see themselves as proficient readers, listeners, speakers and writers whose own positive attitudes toward literacy will have a profound effect on the attitudes of their students.

1.3.

Preservice teachers treat all students and their families with utmost respect.

They seek to become knowledgeable about their students’ cultural, linguistic, and literacy backgrounds and understand the importance of the home-school connection.

1.4.

Preservice teachers consider varied perspectives on literacy learning and test the validity of those perspectives.

1.5.

Preservice teachers are active learners who seek answers to the questions that naturally arise in their teaching. They understand the importance of being well informed and up-to-date in their knowledge about literacy learning. They actively seek out opportunities to grow professionally and understand the importance of belonging to and actively participating in professional organizations.

1.6.

Preservice teachers believe that all students can learn literacy. They accept all children no matter who they are or what they know and accept responsibility for teaching the students. They first recognize children’s strengths related to language and literacy and then identify areas for improvement.

1.7.

Preservice teachers recognize the significance of being ethical and protecting the privacy and rights of their students. They are advocates for their students and their students’ literacy learning.

1.8.

Preservice teachers are reflective practitioners who continually evaluate the effect of their choices and actions on students, parents and/or others in the learning community. They use journals, portfolios and other tools to regularly reflect upon their teaching and children’s learning of literacy.

1.9. Preservice teachers acknowledge the importance of working collaboratively

with their peers and others in the educational community to maximize the

literacy learning of all students. They willingly share instructional

responsibilities with other teachers. They are open to and actively involved in positive change in the profession.

10.0. Preservice teachers articulate a set of principles consistent with current

theory, research and best practices and are committed to enacting these

principles in their classrooms.

Page 9 of 63



BEGINNING REPERTOIRE

Preservice teachers will demonstrate the following:

1.

Appropriate dispositions toward their own literacy and their students’ literacy learning

2.

Regular reflection upon their own teaching and their students' learning using teacher-reflection journals, portfolios or other tools.

3.

Collaboration with their peers and others in the educational community to maximize their students' literacy learning.

4.

Demonstration of their own reading and writing abilities so they serve as role models in the classroom community.

5.

Active learning, including understanding the importance of answering their own questions and of being informed and up-to-date about literacy knowledge and issues.

Page 10 of 63



LEARNING, READING, AND WRITING THEORIES

FOUNDATIONAL KNOWLEDGE

1.

LEARNING THEORIES

1.1.

Constructivism, especially:

1.1.1.

Transactional theory

1.1.2.

Sociocultural theory

1.2.

Cognitive theories

1.2.1.

Information processing

1.2.2.

Interactive model of reading

1.2.3.

Schema theory

1.3.

Behaviorism

2.

READING AND WRITING THEORIES

2.1.

Reading theories

2.2.

Theories of composition

2.3.

The relationships among reading, oral discourse, media use, and writing

2.4.

New literacies (how reading and writing, as situated practices, vary across time and space, and how digital technologies transform our conceptions of and practices in literacy)

PEDAGOGICAL CONTENT KNOWLEDGE

1.

THE INFLUENCE OF LEARNING THEORY ON LITERACY PRACTICES

1.1.

The influence of constructivism, cognitive theory, and behaviorism on reading instruction

1.1.1.

“Balanced”

1.1.2.

Strategy-based

1.1.3.

Literature-based

1.1.4.

Phonics-based

1.1.5.

Skills-based

1.1.6.

Language experience

1.1.7.

Linguistic

1.1.8.

Whole language

1.1.9.

Inquiry/project-based

1.2.

The influence of constructivism, cognitive theory, and behaviorism on writing instruction

1.2.1.

Formalistic

1.2.2.

Process

1.2.3.

Post-process

1.2.4.

Social constructivist

1.2.5.

Critical pedagogy

1.3.

The influence of philosophies of education and political ideologies on literacy instruction and practices

Page 11 of 63



2.

READING AND WRITING THEORIES AND ASSOCIATED METHODS

2.1.

Activities, methods, materials, and roles associated with different theories

2.2.

Evaluation of program materials and practices in relation to theories

2.3.

The difference between concepts of emergent literacy and readiness and implications for practice in reading

2.4.

Evidence to support a philosophy of reading (theory and research)


Preservice teachers will demonstrate the ability to support their philosophy of literacy instruction with theory and research.

Page 12 of 63



LANGUAGE

AND THE DEVELOPMENT OF

ORAL LANGUAGE AND LITERACY


1.

ENGLISH LANGUAGE STRUCTURES, INCLUDING

1.1.

Phonology (e.g., phonetics, points of articulation, phoneme/grapheme correspondence)

1.2.

Word structure (i.e., prefixes, suffixes, roots), meaning, and origins

1.3.

Syntax (i.e., sentence and phrase word order)

1.4.

Pragmatics (e.g., register, intentionality)

1.5.

Dialect, language variation, and change

2.

SOCIAL AND CULTURAL ASPECTS OF LANGUAGE USE

2.1.

Cultural attitudes toward “Standard English” and its variations

2.2.

Cultural differences in use of oral and written language

2.3.

Influences of power and culture of power on language use and literacy practices

2.4.

Influences of students’ cultures, including race, class, and gender, on their literacy practices

2.5.

Socially constructed and situated nature of language

3.

THE DEVELOPMENT OF LANGUAGE AND LITERACY IN FIRST AND

SUBSEQUENT LANGUAGES

3.1.

Development of oral language

3.2.

Development of knowledge about written language and other symbol systems

3.2.1.

Concepts of print

3.2.2.

Phonemic awareness

3.2.3.

Letter name and sound knowledge

3.2.4.

Word analysis strategies

3.2.5.

Text structure

3.3.

Development of the ability to create meaning through reading, writing and other media

3.3.1.

Textual meaning

3.3.2.

Comprehension/meaning making

3.3.3.

Responding

3.3.4.

Reading/writing/oral language reciprocity

3.3.5.

Home language/literacy practices

3.3.6.

Monitoring processes

3.3.7.

Cueing systems: phonological, syntactic, semantic, pragmatic

3.4.

The interaction between first and subsequent languages

Page 13 of 63



3.4.1.

Multiple causes of errors in learners’ language (e.g., everything is not the result of the first language)

3.4.2.

Developmental process (e.g., listening skills develop faster than writing skills)

3.4.3.

How differences across languages (e.g., phonetics, syntax, word structure) influence language development

3.5.

Differences and similarities in social and cultural practices regarding literacy


1.

ENGLISH LANGUAGE STRUCTURES

1.1.

Appropriate expectations for students’ knowledge and use of English language structures

1.2.

Factors that influence the learning of English language structures for native and non-native speakers

2.

SOCIAL AND CULTURAL ASPECTS OF LANGUAGE

2.1.

Appropriate use of home and school languages and registers

2.2.

Connections and conflicts between school language and students’ other language(s)

2.3.

Use of language as situated in various discourse communities—i.e., language as discursive practice

3.

GUIDING LANGUAGE DEVELOPMENT AND LITERACY IN FIRST AND

SUBSEQUENT LANGUAGES

3.1.

Creating an environment appropriate for language learning

3.2.

Instructional strategies appropriate for oral language learning

3.3.

Recognizing language that has high utility for learners

3.4.

Instructional methods appropriate for emergent readers and writers

3.5.

Instructional methods appropriate for supporting content learning while bridging first and subsequent languages

3.6.

Appropriate responses to students’ emerging reading and writing

3.7.

The difference between concepts of emergent literacy and readiness and implications for practice

INSTRUCTIONAL STRATEGIES AND MATERIALS

1.

STRATEGIES FOR SUPPORTING THE DEVELOPMENT OF READERS

1.1.

Teaching for understanding with introductory texts

1.2.

Selecting and using appropriate materials

1.3.

Modeling reading strategies and practices

1.4.

Prompting/coaching students during oral reading

1.5.

Teaching the use of a flexible range of independent strategies

Page 14 of 63



1.6.

Attending to specific needs of students learning English as a subsequent language

1.6.1.

Expanding and affirming students’ first and second languages

1.6.2.

Providing helpful feedback to language learners (e.g., correcting errors that interfere with comprehension, avoiding overcorrection)

1.6.3.

Helping students choose texts that are age and proficiency appropriate

1.6.4.

Using age-appropriate materials for a variety of ELLs with a wide range of literacy levels in their first and second languages

1.6.5.

Helping students use their first subsequent language to engage with and understand content area texts and discourse

2.

STRATEGIES FOR SUPPORTING THE DEVELOPMENT OF WRITERS

2.1.

Supporting students’ representation of meaning through writing

2.2.

Supporting students’ use of invented/developmental spelling

2.3.

Supporting students’ acquisition of standard spelling

2.4.

Teaching handwriting


Preservice teachers will demonstrate the ability to do the following with students at their intended licensure level.

Elementary:

1.

Plan for opportunities for students to use oral language to share experiences and interact with peers.

2.

Vary the sophistication of their own language to support students’ language proficiency or other needs.

3.

Make connections among oral language, reading, and writing to strengthen students’ learning.

4.

Explicitly teach literacy knowledge or skills appropriate for developing readers and writers through modeling, explaining, and providing guided practice

Middle school/secondary:

1) Plan for opportunities for students to share experiences, talk, listen, view media, and interact with peers.

2) Vary the sophistication of language to support students’ language proficiency or other needs.

3) Use connections between oral language, reading, writing, and subject-specific discourse to strengthen students’ learning

4) Engage readers in shared reading using multiple copies of texts accompanied by guidance activities

5) Engage writers in a group writing experience

6) Foster critical analysis of language use related to generalizations, categorization, deception, and argument

Page 15 of 63



READING


1.

ENGLISH ORTHOGRAPHY AND DECODING

1.1.

Phonemic awareness

1.2.

Phonics

1.3.

Other cueing systems, e.g., syntactic awareness/syntax, semantic awareness/semantics, orthographic awareness/orthography, pragmatic awareness/pragmatics

1.4.

Spelling patterns

1.5.

Word analysis

1.6.

Page and space level (hypertext)

2.

AUTOMATICITY/FLUENCY

2.1.

Word, sentence, and paragraph level

2.2.

Rate

2.3.

Accuracy

2.4.

Prosody (tempo, pitch, juncture, intonation, phrasing)

2.5.

Impact of text on fluency

2.6.

Relation between fluency and comprehension

3.

VOCABULARY

3.1.

Reading, writing, speaking, and listening vocabulary in first and subsequent languages

3.2.

Depth of word knowledge in productive and receptive vocabulary

3.3.

Word frequency

3.4.

Word parts and relationships among words

3.5.

Idioms

3.6.

Cognates (words similar in primary language and English)

4.

COMPREHENSION

4.1.

Comprehension processes and strategies

4.2.

The socially constructed and situated nature of understanding

4.3.

Factors influencing the comprehension of text, including digital text, hypertext, and hypermedia

4.3.1.

Reader, including first and subsequent language learners

4.3.2.

Text and text structures

4.3.3.

Purpose

4.3.4.

Social and instructional contexts

4.4.

Purposes of comprehension

4.4.1.

Reading to acquire declarative and procedural knowledge

4.4.2.

Reading to engage in social actions

4.4.3.

Reading for aesthetic purposes

4.5.

Higher order thinking

Page 16 of 63




1.

DECODING INSTRUCTION

1.1.

Methods of teaching a variety of decoding strategies: use of graphics, phonics, syntax, context, prior knowledge, structural analysis

1.2.

Rationale for emphasizing particular decoding strategies

1.3.

Influence of first, second, and additional languages and variations of languages (dialects, etc.) on decoding

2.

FLUENCY AND AUTOMATICITY

2.1.

Development of fluency and automaticity

2.2.

Relationship of decoding and automaticity

2.3.

Relationship of fluency and comprehension

3.

VOCABULARY DEVELOPMENT

3.1.

Size and nature of the vocabulary learning task

3.2.

Range of differences in the vocabularies of children from different socioeconomic and language backgrounds

3.3.

Useful and feasible vocabulary instruction

3.4.

Relationship of vocabulary and comprehension

4.

COMPREHENSION OF SPECIFIC SELECTIONS

4.1.

The distinction between fostering comprehension of specific selections and teaching comprehension strategies in general

4.2.

The influence of students, texts, and purposes on teaching comprehension of specific selections

4.3.

Determining students’ need for assistance

4.4.

How instruction before, during, and after students read specific selections influences comprehension, learning, and engagement with text

4.5.

How discussion and interaction influence meaning making.

5.

COMPREHENSION STRATEGIES

5.1.

Strategies that foster engagement and understanding of print and media texts

5.2.

The development of comprehension strategy use over time and across print and media texts, contexts, and modalities

5.3.

Students’ independent development and use of strategies

5.4.

Criteria for selecting strategies to teach, based on text, task, and learners

6.

HIGHER ORDER THINKING AND DEEP UNDERSTANDING

6.1.

The distinction between higher-order thinking and deep understanding

6.2.

Criteria for selecting when and how to teach for higher order thinking and deep understanding

Page 17 of 63



7.

INDEPENDENT READING

7.1.

The relationship of independent reading to fluency, confidence, knowledge about texts, vocabulary, engagement, motivation

7.2.

The benefit of reading in the native language

7.3.

The role of independent reading in promoting media literacy

7.4.

Characteristics of effective independent reading programs

7.5.

The role of discussion based on independent reading

8.

CONTENT AREA READING AND SUPPORT OF ACADEMIC LITERACIES

8.1.

Oral/written discourse specific to disciplines

8.2.

The role of text structure, textbook features, and learning in the disciplines

The distinction between instructional strategies, text-based guidance/scaffolding strategies, and strategies leading to independent learning (strategic reading) from texts across disciplines

8.3.

The intersection of print text, media text, and accompanying modalities in learning in the disciplines

INSTRUCTIONAL PRACTICES AND MATERIALS

1.

TEACHING DECODING

1.1.

Phonemic awareness (e.g., sound boxes)

1.2.

Decoding strategies

1.2.1.

Transfer of decoding skills from other languages to English

1.2.2.

Phonics, including blending

1.2.3.

Word analysis (base words, affixes, syllabication)

1.2.4.

Use of context (this refers to word or sentence context, e.g., decoding homographs)

1.3.

Use of decoding and word structure knowledge in meaningful contexts with continuous texts (e.g., coach children as they read) in native and additional languages

1.4.

Developing systematic teaching sequences

1.5.

Planning word study lessons to expand children’s knowledge and use of decoding/word analysis strategies (e.g., word building, word sorts, making analogies, chunking texts)

1.6.

Media texts

1.6.1.

Fostering learners’ understanding of how various texts, including print and other media, when used together, create meaning

1.6.2.

Fostering children’s understanding of strategies for decoding media texts (linking meaning in print text with media text, chunking print text and media text together)

2.

TEACHING FLUENCY/AUTOMATICITY

2.1.

Selection of materials to promote fluent reading

2.2.

Fostering fluency in meaningful contexts (e.g., repeated reading, assisted reading, readers’ theater, choral reading, echo reading)

2.3.

Teacher modeling of fluent reading

Page 18 of 63



3.

TEACHING VOCABULARY

3.1.

Developing vocabulary through discussion, reading aloud, and silent reading

3.2.

Selecting and teaching individual words, including sight words, new words for known concepts, and words for new concepts

3.3.

Teaching word learning strategies (e.g., context, structural analysis, and use of the dictionary, looking for cognates)

3.4.

Fostering students’ word consciousness, their awareness of and interest in words and their meanings

3.

TEACHING COMPREHENSION OF SPECIFIC SELECTIONS

3.1.

Using instructional frameworks, e.g., DR-TA, SRE (Scaffolded Reading

Experience), and various pre-, during- post-reading frameworks

3.2.

Selecting appropriate procedures, e g., building background knowledge, previewing, questioning, summarizing, preteaching vocabulary, discussion, writing, semantic maps, reading guides, discussion webs

3.3.

Selecting texts appropriate for various students, contexts, and purposes with attention to engagement, accessibility, and leveling factors

4.

TEACHING COMPREHENSION STRATEGIES

4.1.

Approaches to teaching strategies, e.g., direct explanation, transactional strategies instruction

4.2.

Research-based comprehension strategies

4.2.1.

Determining what is important

4.2.2.

Summarizing

4.2.3.

Making inferences (e.g., main idea, cause and effect)

4.2.4.

Activating background knowledge

4.2.5.

Prediction (e.g., based on story structure or editing of film)

4.2.6.

Creating and interpreting visualizations and graphic representations

4.2.7.

Metacognition

4.2.8.

Self-questioning

4.2.9.

Monitoring comprehension and using fix-up strategies

4.2.10.

Reflection

4.2.11.

Evaluation (e.g., distinguishing fact from opinion, identifying author’s point of view) of both print text and other media text

4.3.

Teaching based on students’ needs

4.3.1.

Use of assessments to determine needs

4.3.2.

In-depth instruction over time

4.3.3.

Gradual release of responsibility

4.3.4.

Strategies for ELLs

4.4.

Understanding media text

4.4.1.

Understanding media texts, particularly print texts juxtaposed with other media

4.4.2.

Monitoring understanding of media texts

Page 19 of 63



5.

TEACHING HIGHER ORDER THINKING AND DEEP UNDERSTANDING

5.1.

Direct teaching

5.2.

Questioning

5.2.1.

Asking questions that lead to high level thinking

5.2.2.

Teaching students to generate higher level questions

5.3.

Units of study

5.3.1.

Teaching for understanding units (such as those described by

Newmann, Perkins, and Wiggins & McTighe)

5.3.2.

Units focused on how to analyze texts, determine perspective, and make connections (e.g., text-text, text-self, self-text) that lead to deeper understanding

5.3.3.

Units to foster student understanding of analysis of print text in relation to media text (higher order thinking strategies such as “deep viewing” and critique applied to visual-spatial texts and multiple representations of idea)

5.4.

Reading practices

5.4.1.

Procedures such as Questioning the Author and Knowledge by Design

5.4.2.

Critical thinking and the use and understanding of warrants for positions taken (e.g., the IDEAL problem solving strategy, Socratic questioning inquiry)

5.4.3.

Shared, interpretive reading (e.g., reader response activities, literature discussion groups)

5.5.

Connections

5.5.1.

Helping students see connections (e.g., printed text-media text; selfmultiple electronic texts)

5.5.2.

Recognizing the perspectives of authors and readers and of building connections between readers and texts and between different texts

5.5.3.

Helping students foster critical self-analysis of their own purposes, attitudes, sense of audience, and use of supporting evidences and sources

6.

PROMOTING EFFECTIVE INDEPENDENT READING

6.1.

Setting goals

6.2.

Connecting home and school

6.3.

Selecting independent reading materials from a range of genres, formats, and levels

6.4.

Selecting strategies for individual student conferences

7.

TEACHING CONTENT AREA AND ACADEMIC LITERACIES AND STUDY

STRATEGIES

7.1.

Texts

7.1.1.

Assessing content texts to determine accessibility by a range of readers.

7.1.2.

Selection of multiple texts, including print and digital texts and media to foster understanding of concepts in academic disciplines

7.2.

Readers

7.2.1.

Assessing readers’ skills, strategy use, engagement and motivation for reading texts in various content areas

Page 20 of 63



7.2.2.

Supporting readers’ learning of content materials while attending to motivation and engaging readers with content texts

7.3.

Teaching research-based comprehension strategies (e.g,, see 4.2) to support learning from content texts and promote independent studying from texts



Elementary:

1.

Organize and plan for effective independent reading

2.

Engage students in guided reading lessons

3.

Explicitly teach comprehension strategies through modeling, explaining, and providing guided practice

4.

Develop lessons designed to foster comprehension of a specific text

5.

Explicitly teach appropriate phonemic awareness, phonics, decoding, or word analysis skills or strategies

6.

Engage students in lessons designed to promote fluency

7.

Engage students in vocabulary lessons

8.

Assess students’ literacy levels through their reading

Middle School/secondary:

1. Organize and plan for effective independent reading based on purposes and goals

formulated by students

2. Engage students in guided reading of a range of genres

3. Explicitly teach comprehension strategies via modeling, explaining, and

providing guided practice appropriate for various genres and for a variety of

purposes

4. Develop lessons designed to foster comprehension of discipline-specific texts in

multimodal formats (e.g., print texts and other media texts)

5. Engage students in vocabulary lessons and promote independent learning of

vocabulary necessary for comprehending a variety of texts

6. Select a range of different types of texts, including print and media texts, that

foster intertextual connections between texts in terms of topics, themes, issues,

and genre features

7. Generate open-ended questions designed to encourage students’ use of higher-

order thinking and divergent responses to print and media texts

8. Create discussion groups, cooperative-learning activities, and/or drama activities

9. Draw on knowledge of students’ grade level, prior knowledge, needs, reading

ability, reading interests, and cultural attitudes to devise appealing units

10. Critically examine literary portrayals of racist, sexist, and class-biased beliefs and attitudes and ways to foster critical analysis of such beliefs and attitudes

Page 21 of 63



WRITING


1.

WRITING AS A PART OF LITERACY

1.1.

The relationship of writing to literacy development

1.2.

The influence of students’ homes, peer groups, workplaces, and communities on their writing

1.3.

The use of multiple literacies (oral, print, visual, media, and digital literacies) to produce texts.

1.4.

The connection between writing and art work, visual images, or drawing

1.5.

Individual differences in preferred modalities (e.g., oral, print, mixed, digital).

2.

WRITING PROCESSES

2.1.

Writing as a developmental process

2.2.

The recursive nature of writing processes

2.3.

Differences and processes between constructing knowledge, organizing content, revising and editing.

3.

FUNCTIONS, STRUCTURES, AND CONVENTIONS OF WRITTEN ENGLISH

3.1.

Conventions and characteristics of various genres

3.2.

The functions of writing that vary according to purpose, audience, and context.

3.3.

The role of conventions and structures (spelling, capitalization, punctuation, grammar)


1.

HOW TO CREATE A CONTEXT FOR WRITING AS A PART OF LITERACY

1.1.

Writing workshop

1.2.

Uses of informal writing tools (free writing, mapping, listing, journal writing, note taking)

1.3.

Uses of different types of formal writing (reports, essays, persuasive)

1.4.

Writing across the curriculum

1.4.1.

How to use formal and informal writing to foster learning across the curriculum

1.5.

Online/virtual context (chat rooms, email, blogs)

1.6.

Rationale and theories of enhancing motivation for and engagement in writing

1.6.1.

Student control of topic choices and writing process

1.6.2.

Writing for various audiences

1.6.3.

Writing for authentic purposes

Page 22 of 63



2.

HOW STUDENTS LEARN TO WRITE

2.1.

How emergent literacy learners use writing as a tool for expressing and creating meaning

2.2.

How students’ writing changes over time

2.3.

The difference between concepts of emergent literacy and readiness and implications for practice in writing

2.4.

Written English acquisition for English language learners

2.4.1.

Pre-emergent

2.4.2.

Emergent

2.4.3.

Developing

2.4.4.

Independent

2.4.5.

Fluent

2.4.6.

Proficient

3.

FUNCTIONS, STRUCTURES, AND CONVENTIONS OF WRITTEN ENGLISH

3.1.

Appropriate expectations based on students’ age, native language, language proficiency, and literacy development

3.2.

The development of spelling knowledge


1.

CREATING CONTEXTS FOR WRITING

1.1.

Modeling of the recursive composing process

1.2.

Engaging students in appropriate use of the writing process

1.3.

Use of both peer and outside audiences

1.4.

Student choice and involvement in planning (students experience some sense of ownership in their writing)

1.5.

Inquiry-based learning in which students address topics, themes, issues, and questions of importance to them and their communities

1.6.

Use of group process, drama, simulations, and interdisciplinary writing activities

1.7.

Use of informal and formal writing as tools for learning and expression

1.8.

Use of the library and other information sources

2.

PLANNING FORMAL AND INFORMAL WRITING INSTRUCTION AND

EXPERIENCES

2.1.

Genres and types of writing

2.1.1.

Autobiographical

2.1.2.

Narrative

2.1.3.

Family history/Memoir

2.1.4.

Ethnographic

2.1.5.

Persuasive

2.1.6.

Expository

2.1.7.

Poetry

2.2.

Informal writing

2.2.1.

Free writing

Page 23 of 63



2.2.2.

Journal writing / writer’s notebook

2.2.3.

Note-taking

2.2.4.

Listing

2.2.5.

Jotting

2.2.6.

Mapping

2.2.7.

Writer’s notebook

2.3.

Writing across the curriculum

2.3.1.

Analyzing information

2.3.2.

Synthesizing information

3.

STRATEGIES FOR RESPONDING TO STUDENTS’ WRITING (Revising)

3.1.

Identify and explain reasons for difficulties in students’ writing in order to provide reader-based feedback to pupils’ writing

3.2.

Describe specific aspects of writing to help students understand a reader’s experience in processing a text.

3.3.

Model self-assessing processes to assist students in judging and predicting appropriate revisions.

3.4.

Teach students to conduct peer-conferences using modeling, video, and sample pupil writing.

3.5.

Model the use of communication techniques to train students to engage in conference feedback.

4.

TEACHING FUNCTIONS, STRUCTURES, AND CONVENTIONS OF

WRITTEN ENGLISH (Editing)

4.1.

Spelling

4.2.

Grammar

4.3.

Capitalization, punctuation, and other conventions

4.4.

Appropriate citation of sources and avoidance of plagiarism

4.5.

Proofreading and editing

5.

TOOLS

5.1.

Handwriting

5.2.

Word processing

5.3.

Writing resources (dictionaries, thesauruses, word walls)


Preservice teachers will demonstrate the ability to do the following at their intended licensure level

Elementary

1.

Apply current theories of composition instruction to create engaging, purposeful writing experiences

2.

Demonstrate and scaffold composing, revising, and editing strategies

3.

Provide “reader-based” feedback to pupils’ writing based on identification of

Page 24 of 63


Faculty & Future Teachers for Literacy Instruction—2007 strengths and difficulties in students’ writing

4.

Integrate reading of literature and other texts as well as discussion and drama with writing instruction.

5.

Apply current theories and research to teach spelling, grammar, usage, and print conventions for the purpose of clear communication.

6.

Plan for opportunities for publication of writing.

7.

Assess students’ literacy levels through their writing

Middle school/secondary (in addition to the above)

1) Teach strategies for a range of different types or genres of writing: persuasive, argumentative, autobiographical, narrative, family history, poetry, memoir, ethnographic, essay, and report writing

2) Create rich contexts, including writing workshop, that engage students in writing for varied audiences for authentic purposes

3) Develop writing assignments based on informal writing tools

4) Determine individual differences in writing ability

5) Demonstrate and scaffold generating ideas, choosing a topic, discovering, goal setting, audience analysis, revising, self-assessing, drafting, editing

6) Train peers to conduct peer-conferences using modeling, video, and sample pupil writing

7) Encourage uses of online writing, as well as the Web as a research resource

8) Develop interdisciplinary, “writing-across-the-curriculum,” writing activities that consider differences in disciplinary perspectives and students’ knowledge

9) Respond to students’ editing in terms of text readability: subheads, white space, staging of information (given-new), syntax, graphics, appeal to prior knowledge

10) Formulate criteria for evaluating students’ writing based on knowledge of secondary students’ revision, self-assessing process, inferences about intentions, problems in fulfilling intentions, predicted appropriate revisions

11) Employ writing portfolios to foster student reflection on growth in writing ability over time as well as one’s own teaching.

12) Foster the use of intertextual connections between print text images and video clips in multi- genre, multi-modal productions.

Page 25 of 63



MOTIVATION/ENGAGEMENT


1.1.

THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN MOTIVATION AND ENGAGEMENT IN

READING.

1.2.

SOCIAL AND COGNITIVE FACTORS IN MOTIVATION

1.2.1.1.

Perceptions about ability

1.2.1.2.

Attribution

1.2.1.3.

Self efficacy

1.2.1.4.

Ability to self regulate

1.2.1.5.

Disparities between home and school literacy practices


1.

STUDENTS

1.1.

The impact of knowledge, interest, or apprehension on self-efficacy

1.2.

Perseverance

1.3.

The development of strategies for engagement with text

1.4.

The role of peers and how interactions with peers impact motivation for literacy learning.

2.

TASKS AND CONTEXTS

2.1.

Understand the impact of various contexts and activities on students’ motivation and engagement.

2.2.

Involve students in literacy for a variety of purposes to satisfy needs.

2.3.

Design literacy tasks that are meaningful, involve choice, allow students to self regulate and to attribute the accomplishment to factors within their control.

2.4.

Honor students’ home cultures while also giving students access to the culture of power.

2.5.

Draw on students’ engagement with media/digital texts in developing classroom activities.

2.6.

Provide consistent, specific feedback related to tasks and lessons.


.

1.

Incorporate literature from many genres and cultures across the curriculum that takes into account students’ interest, knowledge, and backgrounds.

2.

Select texts for specific purposes and for specific students.

3.

Create literacy activities that encourage students to transform their environment (social, political, physical)

Page 26 of 63



4.

Offer students choice in selection of materials.

5.

Read aloud appropriate literature from many genres and cultures across the curriculum.

6.

Engage students in practices that foster independent reading (SSR, DEAR, free reading).

7.

Incorporate literature study based on collaboration with peers.

8.

Support students as they become self-regulating.

9.

Employ practices that promote the use of a variety of media for independent reading (print, film, TV, CDs and DVDs, web)



1.

Assess students’ motivation using common scales, surveys, or questionnaires

2.

Based on assessments, provide options in the classroom that allow for choice and provide ample open-ended activities

3.

Design purposeful lessons that match ability level and interests and honor home cultures

4.

Provide specific feedback (verbal or written) during lessons so that individual students can attribute successes to factors within their control

5.

Plan for extended reading and writing so that students fulfill personally relevant goals, develop further interest in topics, and develop self-efficacy through practice and success.

6.

Provide opportunities for students to work collaboratively with peers.

7.

Provide opportunities for students to engage in social interaction with peers in inquiry projects, classroom discussions, and peer conferencing related to reading and writing.

Page 27 of 63



TEXTS AND CONTEXTS


1.

TEXTS

1.1.

Similarities, differences, and functions of narrative, descriptive, expository, and poetic text

1.2.

The effect of literary and visual elements

1.3.

Specific texts

1.3.1.

Quality literature from many genres and cultures

1.3.2.

Authors and illustrators from many cultures

1.3.3.

Digital texts and media

2.

ANALYSIS AND CRITIQUE

2.1.

Ways to critique texts

2.2.

Ways to analyze poetic, narrative, and nonfiction texts

3.

THE RHETORICAL CONTEXT THAT CONSTITUTES LITERACY

3.1.

Subject matter

3.2.

Purpose

3.3.

Audience

3.4.

Genres

3.5.

Structures

3.6.

Hypertext and hypermedia structures: Intertext and intermediality


1.

TEXT EVALUATION AND SELECTION

1.1.

Evaluation of quality and cultural authenticity

1.2.

Evaluation of text accessibility, including text’s organization, textual aids, readability, in expository text

1.3.

Selection for specific purposes

1.3.1.

Learning of content or strategies

1.3.2.

Interest and engagement

1.3.3.

Instruction

1.3.4.

Independent reading

2.

EFFECTIVE USE OF TEXTS IN LITERACY DEVELOPMENT

2.1.

The role of literature across the curriculum

2.2.

The role of literature in literacy instruction

2.3.

Children’s literature from a variety of cultures and genres appropriate for a classroom collection

2.4.

Analysis of texts for content, vocabulary and conceptual load, and linguistic structures that will be difficult for ELLs

2.5.

Designing a discussion about a text

Page 28 of 63



2.6.

Integrating digital/media production tools into literacy activities


1.

Supporting students’ developing understanding of how literature works

2.

Helping students understand author’s craft

3.

Introducing students to new books from a variety of cultures and genres using book talks, interest centers, and classroom displays

4.

Helping students use text structure and textual aids and features to construct meaning

5.

Facilitating a discussion about a text



Elementary:

1) Select quality literature from a range of genres and cultures

2) Read aloud to students, selecting appropriate texts and planning response opportunities

3) Plan for engaging students in appropriate analysis of literature.

4) Plan for engaging students in discussions

5) Integrate a variety of texts and writing opportunities into disciplines

Middle School/secondary:

1) Select quality literature from a range of genres and cultures

2) Engage students in appropriate analysis of literature.

3) Engage students in discussions of a range of text genres, including print and media texts

4) Scaffold stuents’ understanding of content area texts

5) Include a variety of writing opportunities

6) Foster analysis of the use of different film/video/presentation techniques in media/digital/presentation texts

7) Employ media production to develop an understanding of the use of techniques

8) Demonstrate critical analysis of media representation, invited stances, value assignments, and genre characteristics

9) Involve students in actively responding to and critically analyzing media texts

10) Determine the social uses of media by adolescents and ways of building on those social uses in order to motivate students

11) Help students learn to critically analyze language use and discourses in texts reflecting certain attitudes, perspectives, and ideological orientations.

Page 29 of 63



ASSESSMENT AND EVALUATION


1.

Key vocabulary related to assessment and evaluation

1.1.

Assessment (collecting data on students’ learning)

1.2.

Evaluation (making judgments about the degree and level of student learning)

1.3.

Reliability (extent to which measures are repeatable)

1.4.

Validity (extent to which measures accurately represent the concept or skill being measured)

2.

Types of assessment and evaluation

2.1.

Norm referenced tests

2.2.

Criterion referenced tests

2.3.

Authentic assessment

2.4.

Portfolio evaluation in writing and reading

2.5.

Observation and anecdotal records

3.

Issues related to assessment and evaluation

3.1.

Limitations of various approaches

3.2.

Learning differences

3.3.

Language use

3.4.

Bias

4.

Reporting of results of assessment and evaluation

5.

High stakes testing


1.

Use of appropriate assessment tools

1.1.

Selecting appropriate assessment tools, based on their purpose, value, and limitations

1.2.

Using clear goals and objectives to formulate criteria for assessment

2.

Relationship of assessment and instruction

2.1.

Planning instruction based on on-going observations of students, student work, and other assessment data

2.2.

Changing or modifying instruction based on assessment data.

2.3.

Using data on individual differences to vary instruction and to model and facilitate student learning and self-assessment.

2.4.

Providing positive, constructive feedback to foster students’ self-confidence in their literacy practices.

Page 30 of 63



3.

Interpretation and reporting of results

3.1.

The influence of self-concept, prior knowledge, interest, engagement, and perceived value of an activity on students’ degree and level of participation

3.2.

Reporting results of assessments to various stakeholders

4.

High stakes testing

4.1.

Minnesota testing requirements

4.2.

Test preparation


1.

Assessment criteria

1.1.

Formulating specific assessment criteria based on goals and objectives

1.2.

Formulating specific criteria for writing assessments in terms of the purpose, audience, genre, tasks, and value related to the assignment; involving students in formulation of these criteria so that students understand the criteria.

1.3.

Formulating specific criteria for reading assessments

2.

Using general assessment tools in the context of literacy development and engagement:

2.1.

Observations/field notes

2.2.

Checklists

2.3.

Appropriate questions (e.g., literal, inferential, evaluative)

2.4.

Surveys, interest inventories

2.5.

Interviews

2.6.

Think-aloud protocols

2.7.

Work samples

2.8.

Portfolios

2.9.

Conferences

2.10 Performance assessments

2.11 Informal and formal tests

2.12 Student self-assessment

2.13 Rubrics

3.

Reading assessment

3.1.

Administering specific reading assessments:

3.1.1.

Miscue analysis, running records, or Informal Reading

Inventories (IRIs)

3.1.2.

Word recognition tests

3.1.3.

Interest inventories

3.1.4.

Informal reading conferences

3.1.5.

Emergent literacy assessments (Observation Survey; Sulzby scale).

3.1.6.

Written and oral responses to texts

3.2.

Using reading assessment results to determine students’:

3.2.1.

Reading interests and individual differences

3.2.2.

Understanding

Page 31 of 63



3.2.3.

Use of strategies and cuing systems

3.2.4.

Reading level

3.2.5.

Perceptions of the social context and purpose for learning from or using texts.

3.2.6.

Prior knowledge, interest, engagement, and perceived value and how these influence responses to texts.

3.2.7.

Language abilities and their influence on text comprehension.

3.2.8.

Perceived connections between texts and other aspects of their lives or disciplinary learning.

3.2.9.

Change in performance over time.

3.3.

Using reading assessment results to plan instruction.

4.

Writing assessments

4.1.

Assessing writing through:

4.1.1.

Analysis of developmental spelling

4.1.2.

Holistic scoring and/or trait analysis

4.1.3.

Conferences with students

4.1.4.

Portfolios

4.1.5.

On-demand writing

4.2.

Responding to writing using:

4.2.1.

Written and oral/taped feedback to specific aspects of student drafts.

4.2.2.

Conference feedback during different phases of the composing process.

4.2.3.

Editing feedback related to reasons for difficulty in clarity/readability.

4.2.4.

Portfolio feedback in terms of strengths and weaknesses, change over time, and self-reflection abilities.

4.3.

Using writing assessment results to evaluate students’:

4.3.1.

Attitudes towards and confidence in writing.

4.3.2.

Ability to self-assess and revise their drafts.

4.3.3.

Ability to edit for readability and clarity

4.3.4.

Strengths and weaknesses related to writing for particular purposes or audiences or using particular genres and rhetorical strategies.

4.3.5.

Uses of writing to explore ideas, portray experiences, construct identities, and challenge status quo beliefs and attitudes.

4.3.6.

Uses of prior knowledge, experiences, interest, and engagement in their writing.

4.3.7.

Language proficiencies and their influence on writing.

4.3.8.

Changes in writing ability over time.

4.4.

Planning instruction based on assessment

5.

Reporting assessment results

5.1.

Reports for parents/families, other teachers, and administrators

5.2.

Use a variety of reporting formats, including written reports and conferences

Page 32 of 63





Elementary:

1.

Select appropriate assessments for particular purposes.

2.

Use multiple ongoing assessments to document student progress over a period of time.

3.

Use assessment results to plan instruction.

4.

Administer and interpret a running record, informal reading inventory, or miscue analysis.


1) Select appropriate assessments for particular purposes.

2) Use multiple ongoing assessments to document student progress over a period of time.

3) Use assessment results to plan instruction.

4) Administer and interpret an informal reading inventory, or miscue analysis and surveys/interviews that target students motivation and engagement

5) Administer and interpret results of a Content Reading Inventory (CRI)

6) Consider issues of validity and reliability in literature tests and assessments, including the limitations of multiple choice tests.

7) Devise criteria and rubrics consistent with the learning objectives for a particular lesson plan or unit.

8) Employ informal writing and talk tools to determine differences in students’ level of literary interpretation.

9) Incorporate self-assessment prompts and criteria in guided literature assignments.

10) Provide “reader-based” written and oral feedback to students in terms of their ability to employ interpretive strategies and critical lenses.

11) Devise reading-interests and motivation inventories to determine students’ reading preferences and interests.

12) Employ portfolios for use in fostering student collection of relevant response documents and self-reflection of growth in learning literature during a unit or course.

13) Provide feedback to students on their written essays and portfolios based on criteria and rubrics; communicate this feedback to parents through class letters/newsletters and/or parent conferences.

Page 33 of 63



LITERATE ENVIRONMENT


1. THE PURPOSE FOR AND COMPONENTS OF A LITERATE ENVIRONMENT

1.1 Affective environment

1.2 Intellectual environment

1.3 Physical environment (space, furnishings, and materials)

1.4 Classroom structures, routines, and activities

2. THE IMPORTANCE OF PURPOSEFUL ACTIVITIES AND LITERATE

ENVIRONMENTS

2.1 Authentic reasons to read and write

2.2 Relationship between literate environments and motivation

2.3 Relationship between instructional goals and literate environment


1.

CREATING A LANGUAGE- AND LITERACY-RICH ENVIRONMENT

1.1.

Using the physical environment to support reading and writing for all students including ELLs.

1.2.

Integrating reading, writing, and word consciousness throughout the day and throughout the curriculum

1.3.

Building, organizing, and using a classroom library

1.4.

Linking reading and writing

1.5.

Fostering independent reading, discussions, and extended discourse around text.

1.6.

Using digital media in ways that foster fluency in understanding print text, hypertexts, and media texts (e.g., fluent use of nonlinear texts: web sites, media “spaces,” associated links, associated media)

1.7.

Acknowledging, showing respect for, incorporating, and supporting links to students’ language and culture.

2.

CREATING A CONTEXT FOR WRITING

2.1.

Making writing a vital and meaningful activity and providing the necessary writing tools, materials, technologies, and spaces (interactive and quiet)

2.2.

Creating a social context in which students have some sense of purpose and audience for their writing

2.3.

Using the internet and other technology production tools as resources for material for writing about topics; drawing on art work, visual stimuli, and other materials to foster writing activities

Page 34 of 63



3.

MOTIVATION WITHIN A LITERATE ENVIRONMENT

3.1.

Working within the authority and power dynamics of the classroom; specifically, understanding that traditional relationships between teachers and students, as well as among students, will have to be transformed as part of creating a more open, democratic classroom community

3.2.

Fostering reading practices that help students enhance their curiosity and interest in reading (inquiry projects, book talks)

3.3.

Supporting students’ choice: what to read, with whom to read, how to read, where to read; student selected inquiry projects Selecting materials with consideration for links to students’ home cultures and interests (e.g., conducting surveys to aid in selection)

4.

ORGANIZING AND MANAGING EFFECTIVE READING AND WRITING

INSTRUCTION

4.1.

Providing instruction appropriate across developmental levels, proficiency levels, and linguistic backgrounds.

4.2.

Developing common frameworks (e.g., reading/writing workshop, four blocks)

4.3.

Developing long and short range lessons and units

4.4.

Utilizing a variety of grouping strategies including individual, small group, and whole group instruction.

4.5.

Facilitating collaboration among students

4.6.

Collaborating with other teachers

4.7.

Working with requirements (district, state)

4.8.

Demonstrating “classroom choreography” AND “teaching with urgency”

4.9.

Creating an interesting and stimulating environment


1.

CREATING A PHYSICAL ENVIRONMENT APPROPRIATE FOR READING

AND WRITING INSTRUCTION.

1.1.

Developing a classroom library with a wide variety of reading materials

(genres, formats, topics, authors, age and reading levels)

1.2.

Developing a writing center with a wide variety of writing materials

1.3.

Creating displays for and with students related to literacy

1.4.

Including materials from a variety of cultures and representing a variety of languages

1.5.

Providing role models demonstrating literate behaviors and attitudes

(teacher, older students, community members)

2.

STRATEGIES FOR PLANNING AND MANAGEMENT

2.1.

Aligning lesson plans with standards

2.2.

Planning instruction in reading

2.2.1.

Using a theoretical basis to plan instruction

2.2.2.

Identifying practices appropriate for learning to read and reading to learn, including content area reading

Page 35 of 63



2.2.3.

Developing frameworks (vague) for literacy instruction

2.2.4.

Creating and working with flexible groups for reading instruction while managing the rest of the class

2.2.5.

Selecting and adapting curriculum materials based on student needs


At their intended licensure level preservice teachers will be able to:

Elementary:

Describe and provide a rationale for aspects of an effective literate classroom environment.


1) Identify and analyze the literate environment of a middle school/secondary language arts classroom.

2) Describe and provide a rationale for aspects of an effective literate classroom environment.

Role of teachers and students

Affective environment

Intellectual environment

Physical environment (organization and use of space, furnishings, and materials)

Classroom structures, routines, and activities

Middle school/secondary (other licensure areas):

Describe a classroom in which literacy practices are effectively integrated into the teaching and learning of various content disciplines in ways that engage students in both literacy and content learning.

Page 36 of 63



REFERENCES

Principles

Linek, W. M., Fleener, C., Fazio, M., Raine, I. L, & Klakamp, K. (2003). The impact of shifting from “How teachers teach” to “How children learn”. Journal of

Educational Research, 97(2), 78-89.

Nierstheimer, S. L., Hopkins, C. J., & Dillon, D. R. (1998). Perceptions of self as teacher: Case studies of three preservice literacy teachers. In D. J. McIntyre

& D. M. Byrd (Eds.), Strategies for career-long teacher education: Teacher

education yearbook VI (pp. 11-25). Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.

Nierstheimer, S. L., Hopkins, C. J., Dillon, D. R., & Schmitt, M. C. (2000). Preservice teachers' shifting beliefs about struggling literacy learners. Reading Research

and Instruction, 39(4), 347-361.

Professionalism

Bailey, K., Curtis, A., & Nunan, D. (2001). Pursuing professional development: The

self as source. Boston: Heinle & Heinle.

Barringer, M. D. (1993). How the National Board builds professionalism.

Educational Leadership, 50(6), 18-22.

Bartlett, S., & Burton, D. (2006). Practitioner research or description of classroom practice? A discussion of teachers investigating their classrooms. Educational

Action Research, 14(3), 395-405.

Christensen, L. (2006). Keeping a social justice vision in the land of scripted literacy.

Language Arts, 83(5), 393-394.

Conway, P. F., & Clark, C. M. (2003). The journey inward and outward: A reexamination of Fuller’s concerns-based model of teacher development.

Teaching and Teacher Education, 19(5), 465-482.

Duffy, G. G. (2002). Visioning and the development of outstanding teachers. Reading

Research and Instruction, 41(4), 331-344.

Franzak, J. K. (2006). Zoom: A review of the literature on marginalized adolescent readers, literacy theory, and policy implications. Review of Educational

Research, 76(2), 209-248.

Page 37 of 63



Gonzáles, J., & Darling-Hammond, L. (Eds.). (1997). New concepts for new

challenges: Professional development for teachers of immigrant youth. Center for Applied Linguistics and Delta Systems, Inc.

Johnson, K. E., Golombek, P. R., & Richards, J. C. (2002). Teachers' narrative

inquiry as professional development. Cambridge: Cambridge University

Press.

McDaniels, C. (2004). Critical literacy: A questioning stance and the possibility for change. The Reading Teacher, 57(5), 472-481.

Stoll Dalton, S., & Tharpe, R. G. (2002). How do pre-service teachers acquire and use professional knowledge? In L. Minaya-Rowe (Ed.), Teacher training and

effective pedagogy in the context of student diversity (pp. 93-117). Greenwich,

CT: Information Age Publishing Inc.

Learning, Reading, and Writing Theories

Allington, R. L., & Cunningham, P. M. (1996). Schools that work: Where all children

read and write. New York: Harper Collins.

Beach, R., Appleman, D., Hynds, S., & Wilhelm, J. (2006). Teaching literature to

adolescents. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Behrman, E. H. (2006). Teaching about language, power, and text: A review of classroom practices that support critical literacy. Journal of Adolescent and

Adult Literacy, 49(6), 490-498.

Bloomfield, L., & Barnhart, C. (1961). Let’s read: A linguistic approach. Detroit:

Wayne State University Press.

Bruner, J. (1960). The process of education. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University

Press.

Cambourne, B. (1995). Towards an educationally relevant theory of literacy learning:

Twenty years of inquiry. The Reading Teacher, 49(3), 182-190.

Carrell, P. L. (2001). Influence of purpose for reading on second language reading:

Reading procedural texts in ESL. Reading in a Foreign Language, 13(2), 567-

591.

Carrell, P., & Eisterhold, J. C. (1983). Schema theory and ESL reading pedagogy.

TESOL Quarterly, 18(1), 441-469.

Chall, J. S. (1996). Learning to read: The great debate (3 rd ed.). Orlando, FL:

Harcourt Brace.

Page 38 of 63



Clay, M. M. (1991). Becoming literate: The construction of inner control. Portsmouth,

NH: Heinemann.

Coady, J. (1979). A psycholinguistic model of the ESL reader. In R. Mackay & B.

Barkman & R. R. Jordan (Eds.), Reading in a second language: Hypothesis,

organization and practice (pp. 5-12). Rowley, MA: Newbury House.

Daniels, H., Zemelman, S., & Bizar, M. (1999). Whole language works: Sixty years of

research. Educational Leadership, 57(2), 32-46.

Dewey, J. (1938). Experience in education. New York: Collier.

Fitzgerald, J. (2003). Multilingual reading theory. Reading Research Quarterly,

38(1), 118-124.

Frey, B. B., Lee, S. W., Tollefson, N., Pass, L., & Massengill, D. (2005). Balanced literacy in an urban school district. Journal of Educational Research, 98(5),

272-280.

Flesch, R. (1955). Why Johnny can’t read. New York: Harper and Row.

Goodman, K. (1986). What’s whole in whole language? Portsmouth, NH:

Heinemann.

Harris, R. (2004). Encouraging emergent moments: The personal, critical, and rhetorical in the writing classroom. Pedagogy, 4(3), 401-418.

Henry, L. A. (2006). SEARCHing for an answer: The critical role of new literacies while reading on the internet. The Reading Teacher, 59(7), 614-627.

Indrisano, R., & Paratore, J. R. (2005). Learning to write, writing to learn: Theory

and research into practice. Newark, DE: International Reading Association.

Jean Piaget Archives Foundation (1989). The Jean Piaget Bibliography. Geneva:

Jean Piaget Archives Foundation. ISBN:288288012X

Jiménez, R. T. (2003). Literacy and Latino students in the United States: Some considerations, questions, and new directions. Reading Research Quarterly,

38(1), 122-130.

Luke, A. (2003). Literacy and the other: A sociological approach to literacy research and policy in multilingual societies. Reading Research Quarterly, 38(1), 132-

143.

Page 39 of 63



Muter, V., & Snowling, M. (1998). Concurrent and longitudinal predictors of reading:

The role of metalinguistic and short-term memory skills. Reading Research

Quarterly, 33(3), 320-337.

Pantaleo, S. (2006). Readers and writers as intertexts: Exploring the intertextualities in student writing. Australian Journal of Language and

Literacy, 29(2), 163-187.

Ruddell, R. B., & Unrau, N. J. (2004). Theoretical models and processes of reading

(5 th ed). Newark, DE: International Reading Association.

Serafini, F. (2003). Informing our practice: Modernist, transactional, and critical perspectives on children’s literature and reading instruction. Retrieved

January 6, 2005, from www.readingonline.org

Sheehey, M. (2002). Illuminating constructivism: Structure, discourse, and subjectivity in a middle school classroom. Reading Research Quarterly, 37(3),

278-308.

Skinner, B. F. (1976). About Behaviorism. New York: Vintage Books.

Turbill, J. (2002). The four ages of reading philosophy and pedagogy: A framework for examining theory and practice. Reading Online, 5(6). Retrieved January

6, 2005, from www.readingonline.org

Van Manen, M. (1977). Linking ways of knowing with ways of being practical.

Curriculum Inquiry, 6(3), 205-228.

Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). Mind in society. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

Waters, G. S., & Caplan, D. (1996). The measurement of verbal working memory capacity and its relation to reading comprehension. The Quarterly Journal of

Experimental Psychology, 49A(1), 51-79.

Zemelman, S., Daniels, H., & Hyde, A. (1998). Best practice: New standards for

teaching and learning in America’s schools (2 nd ed.). Portsmouth, NH:

Heinemann.

Language and the Development of Oral Language and Literacy

Allington, R. (2001). Teaching children to read: What really matters. In B. Sornson

(Ed.), Preventing early learning failure (pp. 5-15). Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.

Page 40 of 63



Alvermann, D. E., Dillon, D. R., & O'Brien, D. G. (1987). Using discussion to promote

reading comprehension. Newark, DE: International Reading Association.

Avalos, M. A. (2003). Effective second-language reading transition: From learnerspecific to generic instructional model. Bilingual Research Journal, 27(2),

171-205.

Bernhardt, E. B. (1991). Reading development in a second language: Theoretical,

empirical, and classroom perspectives. Norwood, NJ: Ablex Publishing

Corporation.

Buly, M. R., & Valencia, S. (2003). Meeting the needs of failing readers: Cautions and considerations for state policy. Document O-03-1. University of

Washington: Center for the Study of Teaching and Policy.

Carlisle, J. F., & Stone, C. A. (2005). Exploring the role of morphemes in word reading. Reading Research Quarterly, 40(4), 428-449.

Compton-Lilly, C. (2006). Identity, childhood culture, and literacy learning: A case study. Journal of Childhood Literacy, 6(1), 57-76.

Craig, H. K., Connor, C. M., & Washington, J. A. (2003). Early positive predictors of later reading comprehension for African American students: A preliminary investigation. Language, Speech, and Hearing Services in Schools, 34(1), 31-

43.

Darling, S. (2005). Strategies for engaging parents in home support of reading acquisition. The Reading Teacher, 58(5), 476-479.

Denton, K., West, J., & Walston, J. (2003). Reading—Young children’s achievement and classroom experiences. NCES 2003-070. Washington, D.C.: National

Center for Educational Statistics.

Doyle, B. G., & Bramwell, W. (2006). Promoting emergent literacy and socialemotional learning through dialogic reading. The Reading Teacher, 59(6),

554-565.

Droop, M., & Verhoeven, L. (2003). Language proficiency and reading ability in first- and second-language learners. Reading Research Quarterly, 38(1), 78-115.

Ehri, L. C. (2005). Learning to read words: Theory, findings, and issues. Scientific

Studies of Reading, 9(2), 167-188.

Farstrup, A. E., & Samuels, S. J. (Eds). (2002). What research has to say about

reading instruction (3 rd ed). Newark, DE: International Reading Association.

Page 41 of 63



Fishman, J. A., Riedler-Berger, C., Koling, P., & Steele, J. M. (1985). Ethnocultural dimensions in the acquisition and retention of biliteracy: A comparative ethnography of four New York City schools. In J. Fishman, M. H. Gertner, E.

G. Lowy, & W. G. Milan (Eds.), The rise and fall of the ethnic revival:

Perspectives on language and ethnicity (pp. 377-441). New York: Mouton.

Fitzgerald, J. (1995). English-as-a-second-language learners' cognitive reading processes: A review of reading in the United States. Review of Educational

Research, 65(2), 145-190.

Fitzgerald, J., & Noblit, G. W. (1999). About hopes, aspirations, and uncertainty:

First-grade English-language learners' emergent reading. Journal of Literacy

Research, 31(2), 133-182.

Gee, J. P. (1986). Orality and literacy: From “the savage mind” to “ways with words”.


Gersten, R., & Baker, S. (2000). What we know about effective instructional practices for English-language learners. Exceptional Children, 66(4), 454-470.

Geva, E., & Verhoeven, L. (2000). Introduction: The development of second language reading in primary children: Research, issues and trends. Scientific Studies

of Reading, 4, 261-266.

Grant, R.A., & Wong, S.D. (2003). Barriers to literacy for language-minority learners: An argument for change in the literacy education profession.

Journal of Adolescent and Adult Literacy, 46(5), 386-394.

Harrington, M., & Sawyer, M. (1992). L2 working memory capacity and L2 reading skill. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 14(1), 25-38.

Hart, B., & Risley, T. R. (1995). Meaningful differences in the everyday lives of young

American children. Baltimore, MD: Paul H. Brooks Publishing.

Hiebert, E. H., & Taylor, B. M. (2000). Beginning reading instruction: Research on early interventions. In M. L. Kamil, P. Mosenthal, P. D. Pearson, & R. Barr

(Eds.), Handbook of reading research (Vol. 3) (pp. 455-482). Mahwah, NJ:

Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Kirkland, L. D., & Patterson, J. (2005). Developing oral language in primary classrooms.

Early Childhood Education Journal, 32(6), 391-395.

Mather, N., Bos, C., & Babur, N. (2001). Perceptions and knowledge of preservice and inservice teachers about early literacy instruction. Journal of Learning

Disabilities, 34(5), 472-482.

Page 42 of 63



Moje, E. B., & Hinchman, K. (2004). Culturally responsive practices for youth literacy learning. In T. L. Jetton & J. A. Dole (Eds.), Adolescent literacy

research and practice (pp. 320-350). New York: Guilford Press.

Nation, K., & Snowling, M. J. (2004). Beyond phonological skills: Broader language skills contribute to the development of reading. Journal of Research in

Reading, 27(4), 342-356.

National Institute of Child Health and Human Development Early Child Care

Research Network. (2005). Pathways to reading: The role of oral language in the transition to reading. Developmental Psychology, 41, 428-442.

National Reading Panel. (2000). Report of the National Reading Panel: Teaching

children to read. Rockville, MD: NICHD Clearinghouse.

Neuman, S. B., & Dickinson, D. K. (2006). Handbook of early literacy research (2 nd

ed.). New York: Guilford Press.

Parisse, C. (2005). New perspectives on language development and the innateness of grammatical knowledge. Language Sciences, 27(4), 383-401.

Snow, C. E., Burns, M. S., & Griffin, P. (Eds.). (1998). Preventing reading difficulties

in young children. Washington, D.C.: National Academy Press.

Sonnenschein, S., Brody, G., & Munsterman, K. (1996). The influence of family beliefs and practices on children's early reading development. In L. Baker, P.

Afflerbach, & D. Reinking (Eds.), Developing engaged readers in school and

home communities (pp. 3-20). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Souto-Manning, M. (2006). A Latina teacher’s journal: Reflections on language, culture, literacy, and discourse practices. Journal of Latinos and Education,

5(4), 293-304.

Strickland, D. & Snow, C. (2002). Preparing our teachers: Opportunities for better

reading instruction. Washington. D.C.: Joseph Henry Press.

Ventriglia, L. (1982). Conversations of Miguel and Maria. How children learn a

second language. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.

Verhoeven, L. T. (1990). Acquisition of reading in a second language. Reading

Research Quarterly, 25(2), 90-114.

Whitehurst, G. J., Arnold, D. S., Epstein, J. N., Angell, A. L., Smith, M., & Fischel,

J. E. (1994). A picture book reading intervention in day care and home for children from low-income families. Developmental Psychology, 30(5), 697-689.

Page 43 of 63



Yaden, Jr., D. B., Rowe, D. W., & MacGillivray, L. (2000). Emergent literacy: A matter (polyphony) of perspectives. In M. L. Kamil, P. Mosenthal, P. D.

Pearson, & R. Barr (Eds.), Handbook of reading research (Vol. 3) (pp. 425-

254). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Reading

Auerbach, E. R., & Paxton, D. (1997). "It's not the English thing": Bringing reading research into the ESL classroom. TESOL Quarterly, 31(2), 237-261.

Barry, S., & Lazarte, A. A. (1998). Evidence for mental models: How do prior knowledge, syntactic complexity, and reading topic affect inference generation in a recall task for nonnative readers of Spanish? Modern

Language Journal, 82(2), 176-193.

Bernhardt, E. B. (2003). Challenges to reading research from a multilingual world.

Reading Research Quarterly, 38(1), 112-117.

Bernhardt, E. B., & Kamil, M. L. (1995). Interpreting relationships between L1 and

L2 reading: Consolidating the linguistic threshold and the linguistic interdependence hypothesis. Applied Linguistics, 16(1), 15-34.

Carrell, P. L. (1991). Second language reading: reading ability or language proficiency? Applied Linguistics, 12(2), 159-179.

Carrell, P. L., & Wise, T. E. (1998). The relationship between prior knowledge and topic interest in second language reading. Studies in Second Language

Acquisition, 20(3), 285-309.

Clarke, M. (1980). The "short circuit" hypothesis of ESL reading -- or when language competence interferes with reading performance. Modern Language Journal,

64(2), 203-209.

Cummins, J. (2003). Reading and the bilingual student: Fact and friction. In G. G.

García (Ed.), English learners: Reaching the highest level of English literacy

(pp. 2-33). Newark, DE: International Reading Association.

Davis, J., & Bistodeau, L. (1993). How do L1 and L2 reading differ? Evidence from think aloud protocols. Modern Language Journal, 77(4), 459-472.

Day, R. R., & Bamford, J. (1998). Extensive reading in the second language

classroom. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Elley, W. B. (1991). Acquiring literacy in a second language: The effect of book-based programs. Language Learning, 41(3), 375-411.

Page 44 of 63



Elley, W. B., & Mangubhai, F. (1983). The impact of reading on second language learning. Reading Research Quarterly, 19(1), 53-67.

Fitzgerald, J. (1995a). English-as-a-second-language learners' cognitive reading processes: A review of research in the United States. Review of Educational

Research, 65(2), 145-190.

Fitzgerald, J. (1995b). English-as-a-second-language reading instruction in the

United States: A research review. Journal of Reading Behavior, 27(2), 115-

152.

Fitzgerald, J., & Graves, M. F. (2004/2005). Reading supports for all. Educational

Leadership, 62(4), 68-71.

Garcia, G. G. (Ed.). (2003). English learners: Reaching the highest level of English

literacy. Newark, DE: International Reading Association.

Grabe, W. (1991). Current development in second language reading research.


Howe, M. E., Grierson, S. T., & Richmond, M. G. (1997). A comparison of teachers’ knowledge and use of content reading strategies in the primary grades.

Reading Research and Instruction, 36(4), 305-324.

Lee, J.-W., & Schallert, D. L. (1997). The relative contribution of L2 language proficiency and L1 reading ability to L2 reading performance: A test of the threshold hypothesis in an EFL context. TESOL Quarterly, 31(4), 713-739.

Leong, C. K., & Joshi, R. M. (1997). Cross-language studies of learning to read and

spell: Phonologic and orthographic processing. Dordrecht; Boston: Kluwer

Academic.

Farstrup, A. E., & Samuels, S. J. (2002). What research has to say about reading

instruction (3 rd ed). Newark, DE: International Reading Association.

Moats, L. C. (1999). Teaching reading is rocket science: What expert teachers of

reading should know and be able to do. Washington, D.C.: American

Federation of Teachers.



Pressley, M., Roehrig, A., Bogner, K., Raphael, L. M., & Dolezal, S. (2002). Balanced literacy instruction. Focus on Exceptional Children, 34(5), 1-14.

Page 45 of 63



Short, D. J. (1997). Reading and 'riting and...social studies: Research on integrated language and content in secondary classrooms. In M. A. Snow & D. Brinton

(Eds.), The content-based classroom: Perspectives on integrating language and

content (pp. 213-232). White Plains, NY: Longman.

Slavin, R. E., & Cheung, A. (2003). Effective reading programs for English language

learners: A best-evidence synthesis (Report No. 66). Baltimore, MD: Johns

Hopkins University.

Thompson, R., Mixon, G., & Serpell, R. (1996). Engaging minority students in reading: Focus on the urban learner. In L. Baker, P. Afflerbach, & D.

Reinking (Eds.), Developing engaged readers in school and home communities

(pp. 43-63). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Vardell, S. M., Hadaway, S. L., & Young, T. A. (2006). Matching books and readers:

Selecting literature for English learners. The Reading Teacher, 59(8), 734-

741.

Walqui, A. (2006). Scaffolding instruction for English language learners: A conceptual approach. International Journal of Bilingual Education and

Bilingualism, 9(2), 159-180.

Wenglinsky, H. (2003). Using large-scale research to gauge the impact of instructional practices on student reading comprehension: An exploratory study. Educational Policy Analysis Archives, 11(19). Retrieved May 30, 2004, from http://epaa.asu.edu/epaa/v11n19

Decoding

Blachman, B. A. (2000). Phonological awareness. In M. L. Kamil, P. B. Mosenthal,

P. D. Pearson, & R. Barr (Eds.), Handbook of reading research (Vol. 3) (pp.

483-502). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Carlisle, J. F., & Stone, C. A. (2005). Exploring the role of morphemes in word reading. Reading Research Quarterly, 40(4), 428-447.

Cunningham, P. M. (2003). What research says about teaching phonics. In L. M.

Morrow, L. B. Gambrell, & M. Pressley (Eds.), Best practices in literacy

instruction (2 nd ed.) (pp. 65-86). New York: Guilford Press.

Duncan, L. G., & Seymour, P. H. K. (2003). How to children read multisyllabic words? Some preliminary observations. Journal of Research in Reading,

26(2), 101-120.

Page 46 of 63



Goswami, U. (2000). Phonological and lexical processes. In M. L. Kamil, P. B.

Mosenthal, P. D. Pearson, & R. Barr (Eds.), Handbook of reading research

(Vol. 3) (pp. 251-268). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

International Reading Association. 1997). The role of phonics in reading instruction:

A position statement of the International Reading Association. Newark, DE:

International Reading Association.

Mason, J. M., Stahl, S. A., Au, K. A., & Herman, P. A. (2003). Reading: Children’s developing knowledge of words. In J. Flood, D. Lapp, J. R. Squire, & J. M.

Jensen (Eds.), Handbook of research on teaching the English language arts

(2 nd ed) (pp. 914-930). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Mesmer, H. A. E., & Griffith, P. L. (2005/2006). Everybody’s selling it-but just what is explicit, systematic phonics instruction? The Reading Teacher, 59(4), 366-

376.



Snow, C. E., Burns, S., & Griffin, P. (1998). Preventing reading difficulties in young

children. Washington, D.C.: National Academy Press.

Stahl, S. A., Duffy-Hester, A. M., & Stahl, K. A. D. (1998). Everything you wanted to know about phonics (but were afraid to ask). Reading Research Quarterly,

33(3), 338-355.

Strickland, D., Snow, C., Griffin, P., Burns, M. S., & McNamara, P. (2002).

Preparing our teachers: Opportunities for better reading instruction.

Washington, D.C.: Joseph Henry Press.

Templeton, S. (2003). Spelling. In J. Flood, D. Lapp, J. R. Squire, & J. M. Jensen

(Eds.), Handbook of research on teaching the English language arts (2 nd ed.)

(pp. 738-751). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Fluency/Automaticity

Clay, M. M. (2001). Change over time in children's literacy development. Auckland,

New Zealand: Heinemann.

Eldredge, J. L. (2005). Foundations of fluency: An exploration. Reading Psychology,

26(2), 161-187.

Hudson, R. F., Lane, H. B., & Pullen, P. C. (2005). Reading fluency assessment and instruction: What, why and how? The Reading Teacher, 58(8), 702-714.

Page 47 of 63



Kuhn, M. R., & Stahl, S. A. (2000). Fluency: A review of developmental and remedial

practices. Ann Arbor, MI: Center for the Improvement of Early Reading

Instruction.

Linderholm, T., Everson, M. G., Broek, P. van den, Mischinski, M., Crittenden, A.,

& Samuels, S. J. (2000). Effects of causal text revisions on more and less skilled reader's comprehension of easy and difficult texts. Cognition and

Instruction, 18(4), 525-556.



Rasinski, T. (2006). Reading fluency instruction: Moving beyond accuracy, automaticity, and prosody. The Reading Teacher, 59(7), 704-706.

Rasinski, T. V., Padak, N. D., McKoen, C. A., Wilfong, L. G., Friedauer, J. A., &

Heinor, P. (2005). Is reading fluency a key for successful high school reading?

Journal of Adolescent and Adult Literacy, 49(1), 29-27.

Samuels, S. J. (1995/96). Keynote address: An unusual analysis of highly effective teachers: What makes them great? Journal of the College Reading

and Learning Association, 26(2), 7-14.

Samuels, S. J. (1997). The method of repeated readings. The Reading Teacher

50(5), 376-382.

Samuels, S. J., & Farstrup, A. E. (2006). What research has to say about fluency

instruction. Newark, DE: International Reading Association.

Samuels, S. J., & Flor, R. (1997). The importance of automaticity for developing expertise in reading. Reading and Writing Quarterly, 13(2), 107-121.

Whaley, K., & Hansen, J. (2006). The role of prosodic sensitivity in children’s reading development. Journal of Research in Reading, 29(3), 288-303.

Worthy, J., & Broaddus, K. (2001/2002). Fluency beyond the primary grades: From group performance to silent, independent reading. The Reading Teacher,

55(4), 334-344.

Vocabulary

Baumann, J. F., Edwards, E. C., Font, G., Tereshinski, C. A., Kaméenui, E. J., &

Olejnik, S. (2002). Teaching morphemic and contextual analysis to fifth-grade students. Reading Research Quarterly, 37(2), 150-176.

Page 48 of 63



Baumann, J. F., & Kame'enui, E. J. (Eds.). (2003). Vocabulary instruction: Research

to practice. New York: Guilford Press.

Beck, I. L., Perfetti, C. A., & McKeown, M. G. (1982). The effects of long-term vocabulary instruction on lexical access and reading comprehension. Journal

of Educational Psychology, 74, 506-521.

Beck, I. L., McKeown, M. G., & Kucan, L. (2002). Bringing words to life: Robust

vocabulary instruction. New York: Guilford Press.

Biemiller, A. (2003). Vocabulary: Needed if more children are to read well. Reading

Psychology, 24, 323-335.

Carlo, M. S., August, D., McLaughlin, B., Snow, C. E., Dressler, C., Lippman, D. N.,

Lively, T. J., & White, C. E. (2004). Closing the gap: Addressing the vocabulary needs of English language learners in bilingual and mainstream classrooms. Reading Research Quarterly, 39(2), 188-215.

Duin, A. H., & Graves, M. F. (1987). The effects of intensive vocabulary instruction on expository writing. Reading Research Quarterly, 22, 311-330.

Graves, M. F. (2000). A vocabulary program to complement and bolster a middle- grade comprehension program. In B. M. Taylor, M. F. Graves, & P. van den

Broek (Eds.), Reading for meaning: Fostering comprehension in the middle

grades (pp. 116-135). New York: Teachers College Press.

Graves, M. F. (2006). The vocabulary book: Learning and instruction. Newark, DE:

International Reading Association.

Stahl, S. A., & Fairbanks, M. M. (1986). The effects of vocabulary instruction: A model-based meta-analysis. Review of Research in Education, 56(1), 72-110.

Comprehension

Bimmel, P. E., Bergh, H. van den, & Oostdam, R. J. (2001). Effects of strategy training on reading comprehension in first and foreign language. European

Journal of Psychology, 16(4), 509-529.

Brown, R., Pressley, M., Van Meter, P., & Schuder, T. (1996). A quasi-experimental validation of transactional strategies instruction with low-achieving second grade readers. Journal of Educational Psychology, 88(1), 18-37.

Cartwright, K. B. (2006). Fostering flexibility and comprehension in elementary students. The Reading Teacher, 59(7), 628-635.

Page 49 of 63



Duffy, G. G., Roehler, L. R., Sivan, E., Rackliffe, G., Book, C., Meloth, M. S., Vavrus,

L. G., Wesselman, R., Putnam, J., & Bassiri, D. (1987). Effects of explaining the reasoning associated with using reading strategies. Reading Research

Quarterly, 22(3), 347-368.

Flood, J., Lapp, D., & Fischer, D. (2003). Reading comprehension instruction. In J.

Flood, D. Lapp, J. R. Squire, & J. M. Jensen (Eds.), Handbook of research on

teaching the English language arts (2 nd ed.) (pp. 738-751). Mahwah, NJ:

Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Frey, B. B., Lev, S. W., Tollefson, K. V., Pass, L., & Massengill, D. (2005). Balanced literacy in an urban school district. Journal of Educational Research, 98(5),

272-280.

Fournier, D. N. E., & Graves, M. F. (2002). Scaffolding adolescents' comprehension of short stories. Journal of Adolescent and Adult Literacy, 40, 30-39.

Fountas, I. C., & Pinnell, G. S. (1996). Guided reading: Good first teaching for all

students. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.

Graves, M. F. & Graves, B. (2003). Scaffolding reading experiences for student

success (2 nd ed.). Norwood, MA: Christopher-Gordon.

Graves, M. F., Cooke, C. L., & LaBerge, M. J. (1983). Effects of previewing difficult short stories on low ability junior high school students' comprehension, recall, and attitudes. Reading Research Quarterly, 18(3), 262-277.

Hall, L. A. (2005). Teachers and content area reading: Attitudes, beliefs and change.

Teaching and Teacher Education, 21(4), 403-414.

Jenkins, J. J. (1976). Four points to remember: A tetrahedral model of memory experiments. In L. S. Cermak & F. I. M.Craik (Eds.), Levels of processing in

human memory (pp. 5-8). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Liang, L. A., & Dole, J. A. (2006). Help with teaching reading comprehension:

Comprehension instructional frameworks. The Reading Teacher, 59(8), 742-

753.

McIntyre, E., Kyle, D. W., & Moore, J. H. (2006). A primary grade teacher’s guidance toward small-group dialogue. Reading Research Quarterly, 41(1), 36-63.

McLaughlin, M., & DeVoogd, G. (2004). Critical literacy as comprehension:

Expanding reader response. Journal of Adolescent and Adult Literacy, 48(1),

52-82.

Neufeld, P. (2005/2006). Comprehension instruction in content area classes. The

Reading Teacher, 59(4), 302-312.

Page 50 of 63



Nokes, J. D., & Dole, J. A. (2004). Helping adolescent readers through explicit strategy instruction. In T. L. Jetton & J. A. Dole (Eds.) Adolescent literacy

research and practice: Solving problems in teaching of literacy (pp. 162-182).

New York: Guilford Press.

Paziotopoulos, A., & Kroll, M. (2004). Hooked on thinking. The Reading Teacher,

57(7), 672-677.

Pearson, P. D., Roehler, L. R., Dole, J. A., & Duffy, G G. (1992). Developing expertise in reading comprehension. In A. E. Farstrup, & S. J. Samuels (Eds.), What

research has to say about reading instruction (2 nd ed.) (pp. 145-199). Newark,

DE: International Reading Association.

Pressley, M., Johnson, C. J., Symons, S., McGoldrick, J. A., & Kurita, J. A. (1989).

Strategies that improve children’s memory and comprehension of text. The

Elementary School Journal, 90(1), 3-32.

RAND Reading Study Group. (2002). Reading for understanding: Toward an R&D

program in reading comprehension. Santa Monica, CA: Rand Education.

Rubinstein-Ávila, E. (December2003/January 2004). Conversing with Miguel: An adolescent English language learner struggling with later literacy development: A student’s views of the multiple literacies in his life provide insight for teachers of struggling readers. Journal of Adolescent & Adult

Literacy, 47(4), 290-301.

Stevens, K. C. (1982). Can we improve reading by teaching background information.

Journal of Reading, 25(4), 326-329.

Whitehead, D. (2002). “The story means more to me now”: Teaching thinking through guided reading. Reading: Literacy and Language, 36(1), 33-37.

Writing

Anson, C. M. (1989). Introduction. In C. M. Anson (Ed.), Writing and response:

Theory,

practice and research (pp. 1-11). Urbana, IL: NCTE.

Berlin, J. (1987). Rhetoric and reality: Writing instruction in American colleges 1900-

1985. Carbondale, IL: Southern Illinois University Press.

Bizzel, P. (1996). What is composing? In A. Petrosky & D. Bartholomae (Eds.)

The teaching of writing: Eighty-fifth yearbook of the National Society for the

Study of Education Part 2 (pp. 49-69). Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Page 51 of 63



Bougere, (1980). Growing into writing. In G. S. Pinnell (Ed.), Discovering language

with children (pp. 67-70). Urbana, IL: NCTE

Campbell, C. (1987). Writing with others' words: Using background reading text in academic compositions. In B. Kroll (Ed.), Second language writing: Research

insights for the classroom (pp. 211-230). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge

University Press.

Carson, J. E., Carreell, P. L., Silberstein, S., Kroll, B., & Kuehn, P. A. (1990).

Reading-writing relationships in first and second language. TESOL

Quarterly, 24(2), 245-266.

Carson, J. E., & Leki, I. (Eds.). (1993). Reading in the composition classroom: Second

language perspectives. Boston: Heinle & Heinle.

D’Angelo, F. J. (1987). Process and thought in composition. Boston: Winthrop

Publishers.

Dewey, J. (1916). Democracy in education. New York: The Free Press.

Dix, S. (2006). I’ll do it my way: Three writers and their revision practices.

The Reading Teacher, 59(6), 566-575.

Fisher, B. (2000). Writing as a social act: Social influences on the writing of Marion

Dane Bauer and Katherine Paterson. Lewiston, NY: Mellen Press.

Fisher, R. (2006). Whose writing is it anyway? Issues of control in the teaching of writing. Cambridge Journal of Education, 36(2), 193-206.

Flower, L. (1994). The construction of negotiated meaning: A social cognitive theory

of writing. Carbondale, IL: Southern Illinois University Press.

Freire, P. (1970). Pedagogy of the oppressed. New York: Continuum

Garcia, G. G. (Ed.). (2003). English learners: Reaching the highest level of English

literacy. Newark, DE: International Reading Association.

Gorman, D. (1989). The wordly test: Writing as social action, reading as historical reconstruction. In J. P. Natoli (Ed.), Literary theory’s future (pp. 181-220).

Urbana, IL: The University of Illinois Press.

Grabe, W. (2003). Reading and writing relations: Second language perspectives on research and practice. In B. Kroll (Ed.), Exploring the dynamics of second

language writing (pp. 242-262). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Heath, S. B. (1983). Ways with words: Language, life and work in communities and

classrooms. New York: Cambridge Press.

Page 52 of 63



Knoblauch , C. H. & Brannon, L. (1993). Critical teaching and the idea of literacy.

Portsmouth, NH: Boynton/Cook Publishers.

Lassonde, C. (2006). “You oughtta have my life”: The story of Jamie, a resistant

writer. Support for Learning, 21(3), 135-140.

LeFevre, K. (1986). Invention as a social act (studies in writing and rhetoric).

Carbondale, IL: Southern Illinois University Press.

Nystrand, M. (1989). A social-interactive model of writing. Written Communication,

6(1), 66-85.

Pardo, L. S. (2006). The role of context in learning to teach writing. Journal of

Teacher Education, 57(4), 378-394.

Thralls, C. & Blyler, N. R. (1993). The social perspective and pedagogy in technical communication. Technical Communication Quarterly, 2(3), 249-270.

Vincent, J. (2006). Children writing: Multimodality and assessment in the writing classroom. Literacy, 40(1), 51-57.

Vygotsky, L. S. (1984). Thought and language. Cambridge, MA: M.I.T. Press.

Woodward, V. A., Harste, J. C., & Burke, C. L. (1984). Language stories and literacy

lessons. Portsmouth, NH: Heineman.

Motivation

Baker, L., Afflerbach, P., & Reinking, D. (Eds.). (1995). Developing engaged readers

in school and home communities. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum

Associates.

Curran, M. J., & Smith, E. C. (2005). The imposter: A motivational strategy to encourage reading in adolescents. Journal of Adolescent and Adult Literacy,

49(3), 186-190.

Dillon, D. R. (2000). Kids InSight: Reconsidering how to meet the literacy needs of all

students. Newark, DE: International Reading Association.

Dillon, D. R., O'Brien, D. G., Wellinski, S. A., Springs, R., & Stith, D. (1996).

Engaging "at-risk" high school students: The creation of an innovative program. In D. J. Leu, C. K. Kinzer, & K. A. Hinchman (Eds.), Literacy for the

21st century: Research and practice. Forty-fifth yearbook of the national

reading conference (pp. 232-244). Chicago, IL: National Reading Conference,

Inc.

Page 53 of 63



Dillon, D. R. (1989). Showing them that I want them to learn and that I care about who they are: A microethnography of the social organization of a secondary low-track English-reading classroom. American Educational Research

Journal, 26(2), 227-259.

Edmunds, K. M., & Bausermen, K. L. (2006). What teachers can learn about reading motivation through conversations with children. The Reading Teacher, 59(5),

414-424.

Edmunds, K. M., & Tancock, S. M. (2003). Incentives: The effects on the reading motivation of fourth-grade students. Reading Research and Instruction, 42(2),

17-38.

Gambrell, L. B., Palmer, B. M., Codling, R. M., & Mazzoni, S. A. (1996). Assessing motivation to read. The Reading Teacher, 49(7), 518-533.

Guthrie, J. T., & Wigfield, A. (Eds.). (1997). Reading engagement: Motivating readers

through integrated instruction. Newark, DE: International Reading

Association.

Guthrie, J. T., Wigfield, A., Humenick, N. M., Perencevich, K. C., Taboada, A.,

Barbosa, P. (2006). Influences of stimulating tasks on reading motivation and comprehension. Journal of Educational Research, 99(4), 232-245.

Lenters, K. (2006). Resistance, struggle and the adolescent reader. Journal of

Adolescent and Adult Literacy, 50(2), 136-146.

Linnenbrink, E. A., & Pintrich, P. R. (2003). The role of self-efficacy beliefs in student engagement and learning in the classroom. Reading and Writing

Quarterly, 19(2), 119-137.

Lewis, C., & Fabos, B. (2005). Instant messaging, literacies, and social identities.


Lutz, S. L., Guthrie, J. T., & Davis, M. H. (2006). Scaffolding for engagement in elementary school reading instruction. Journal of Educational Research,

100(1), 3-20.

McCarthey, S. J. (2001). Identity construction in elementary readers and writers.


McCarthey, S. J., & Moje, E. J. (2002). Identity matters. Reading Research

Quarterly, 37(2), 228-238.

Page 54 of 63



O'Brien, D. G., & Dillon, D. R. (2002). Motivation and engagement in reading.

Module prepared for the Minnesota Reading Excellence Act Grant and the

Minnesota Reading First Grant). Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota and the Minnesota State Department of Education.

Pachtman, A. B., & Wilson, K. A. (2006). What do the kids think? The Reading

Teacher, 59(7), 680-684.

Texts and Contexts

Agee, J. (2004). Negotiating a teaching identity: An African American teacher’s struggle to teach in test-driven contexts. Teachers College Record, 106(4),

747-774.

Alvermann, D. E., Hinchman, K. A., Moore, D. W., Phelps, S. F., & Waff, D. R.

(Eds.).(2006). Reconceptualizing the literacies in adolescents’ lives. (2 nd ed.).

Mahwah,NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Au, K. (1995). Multicultural perspectives on literacy research. Journal of Reading

Behavior, 27, 85-100.

Brevig, L. (2006). Engaging in retrospective reflection. The Reading Teacher, 59(6),

522-531.

Cunningham, J. W., Spadorcia, S. A., Koppenhaver, D. A., Sturn, J. M., & Yoder, D.

E. (2005). Investigating the instructional supportiveness of leveled texts.


Galda, L., Ash, G. E., & Cullinan, B. E. (2000). Children’s literature. In M. L. Kamil,

P. B. Mosenthal, P. D. Pearson, & R. Barr (Eds.), Handbook of reading

research (Vol. 3) (pp.361-379). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Galda, L., & Cullinan, B. E. (2003). Literature for literacy: What research says about the benefits of using trade books in the classroom. In J. Flood, D. Lapp, J.R.

Squire, & J.M. Jensen (Eds.), Handbook of research on teaching the English

language arts (2 nd ed.) (pp. 640-648). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum

Associates.

Gambrell, L. B. (2005). Reading literature, reading text, reading the internet: The times they are a’changing. The Reading Teacher, 58(6), 588-591.

Goatley, V. J., Brock, C. H., & Raphael, T. E. (1995). Diverse learners participating in regular education “Book Clubs”. Reading Research Quarterly, 30(3), 352-

380.

Page 55 of 63



Guthrie, J. T., & Wigfield, A. (2000). Engagement and motivation in reading. In M.L.

Kamil, P. B. Mosenthal, P. D. Pearson, & R. Barr (Eds.), Handbook of reading

research (Vol. 3) (pp. 403-422). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Kragler, S., Walker, C. A., & Martin, L. E. (2005). Strategy instruction in primary content textbooks. The Reading Teacher, 59(3), 254-261.

Langer, J. (1990). The process of understanding: Reading for literary and informative purposes. Research in the Teaching of English, 24, 229-260.

Martinez, M., & Roser, N. L. (2002). Children’s responses to literature. In J. Flood,

D. Lapp, J.R. Squire, & J.M. Jensen (Eds.), Handbook of research on teaching

the English language arts (2 nd ed.) (pp. 799-813). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence

Erlbaum Associates.

McGinley, W., & Kamberelis, G. (1996). Maniac Magee and Ragtime Tumpie:

Children negotiating self and world through reading and writing. Research in

the Teaching of English, 30, 75-113.

Moje, E. B., Dillon, D. R., & O'Brien, D. G. (2000). Re-examining roles of learner, text, and context in secondary literacy. Journal of Educational Research,

93(3), 165-180.

Morrow, L.M. (2002). Motivating lifelong voluntary readers. In J. Flood, D. Lapp, J.

R. Squire, & J. M. Jensen (Eds.), Handbook of research on teaching the

English language arts (2 nd ed.) (pp. 857-867). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence

Erlbaum Associates.

Morrow, L. M., & Gambrell, L. B. (2000). Literature-based reading instruction. In M.

L. Kamil, P. B. Mosenthal, P. D. Pearson, & R. Barr (Eds.), Handbook of

reading research (Vol. 3) (pp. 563-586). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum

Associates.

Morrow, L.M., Pressley, M., Smith, J.K., & Smith, M. (1997). The effect of a literature-based program integrated into literacy and science instruction with children from diverse backgrounds. Reading Research Quarterly, 32(1), 54-76.

Moss, G. (1996). Negotiated literacies: How children enact what counts as reading in

different social settings. Unpublished Dissertation, The Open University,

Milton Keynes, England.

Pierce, B. N., & Stein, P. (1995). Why the "monkeys passage" bombed: Tests, genres, and teaching. Harvard Educational Review, 65(1), 50-65.

Probst, R.E. (2003). Response to literature. In J. Flood, D. Lapp, J. R. Squire, & J.

M. Jensen (Eds.), Handbook of research on teaching the English language arts

(2 nd ed.) (pp. 814-824). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Page 56 of 63



Assessment and Evaluation

Afflerbach, P. (2004). Assessing adolescent reading. In T. J. Jetton & J. A. Dole

(Eds.), Adolescent literacy research and practice: Solving problems in teaching

of literacy (pp. 369-391). New York: Guilford Press.

Briggs, C., Tully, B., & Stiefer, T. (1998). Direct informed assessment: Frequency of use in preservice teacher education programs within a five-state region.

Action in Teacher Education, 20(3), 30-38.

Bulterman-Bos, J., Terwel, J., Verloop, N., & Wardekker, W. (2002). Observations in teaching: Toward a practice of objectivity. Teachers College Record, 104(6),

1069-1100.

Fisher, D., Lapp, D., Flood, J., Moore, K. (2006). Linking literacy teaching with assessment: A continuing professional development initiative for secondary schools. Literacy, 40(2), 115-122.

Jetton, T. L, & Alexander, P. A. (2001). Interest assessment and the content area literacy environment: Challenges for research and practice. Educational

Psychology Review, 13(3), 303-318.

Johnston, P. (2005). Assessment conversations. In S. J. Barrentine & S. M. Stokes

(Eds.), Reading assessment (pp. 74-76). Newark, DE: International Reading

Association.

Johnston, P., & Costello, P. (2005). Principles for literacy assessment. Reading

Research Quarterly, 40(2), 256-267.

Mallette, M. H., Kile, R. S., Smith, M. M., McKinney, M., & Readence, J. E. (2000).

Constructing meaning about literacy difficulties: Preservice teachers beginning to think about pedagogy. Teaching and Teacher Education, 16(5-6),

593-612.

Mora, J. K, & Grisham, D. L (2001). !What deliches tortillas!: Preparing teachers for literacy instruction in linguistically diverse classrooms. Teacher Education

Quarterly, 28(4), 51-70.

Ross, J. A. (2004). Effects of running records assessment on early literacy achievement. Journal of Educational Research, 97(4), 186-94.

Sudweeks, R. R., Glissmeyer, C. B., Morrison, T. G., Wilcox, B. R., & Tanner, M. W.

(2004). Establishing reliable procedures for rating ELL students' reading comprehension using oral retellings. Reading Research and Instruction, 43(2),

65-86.

Page 57 of 63



Winograd, P., Flores-Dueñas, L. Arlington, H. (2003). Best practices in literacy assessment. In L. M. Morrow, L. B. Gambrell, & M. Pressley (Eds.), Best

practices in literacy instruction (2 nd ed.) (pp. 201-240). New York: Guilford

Press.

Literate Environment

Coelho, E. (1994). Social integration of immigrant and refugee children. In F.

Genesee (Ed.), Educating second language children: The whole child, the

whole curriculum, the whole community (pp. 301-327). New York: Cambridge

University Press.

Dickinson, D. K. (2002). Shifting images of developmentally appropriate practice as seen through different lenses. Educational Researcher, 31(1), 26-32.

Duke, N. K. (2000). For the rich it’s richer: Print experiences and environments offered to children in very low- and very high-socioeconomic status first-grade classrooms. American Educational Research Journal, 37(2), 441-478.

Guthrie, J. T., Schafer, W. D., Von Secker, C., & Alban, T. (2000). Contributions of instructional practices to reading achievement in a statewide improvement program. Journal of Educational Research, 93(4), 211-225.

Hoffman, J. V., Sailors, M., Duffy, G. R., & Beretvas, S. N. (2004). The effective elementary classroom literacy environment: Examining the validity of the

TEX-IN3 Observation System. Journal of Literacy Research, 36(3), 303-334.

Jones, J. A. (2006). Student-involved classroom libraries. The Reading Teacher,

59(6), 576-580.

Kimbell-Lopez, K. (2003). Just think of the possibilities: Formats for reading instruction in the elementary classroom. Reading Online, 6(6). Retrieved

January 6, 2005, from www.readingonline.org


Research Network. (2005). A day in third grade: A large-scale study of classroom quality and teacher and student behavior. The Elementary School

Journal, 105(3), 305-323.


Research Network. (2002). The relation of global first-grade classroom environment to structural classroom features and teacher and student behaviors. The Elementary School Journal, 102(5), 367-387.

Neuman, S. B. (1999). Books make a difference: A study of access to literacy.

Reading Research Quarterly, 34, 286-311.

Page 58 of 63



Neuman, S. B. (2004). The effect of print-rich classroom environments on early literacy growth. The Reading Teacher, 58(1), 89-91.

Wolfersberger, M. E., Reutzel, D. R., Sudweeks, R., & Fawson, P. C. (2004).

Developing and validating the Classroom Literacy Environmental Profile

(CLEP): A tool for examining the “print richness” of early childhood and elementary classrooms. Journal of Literacy Research, 36(2), 211-272.

Practicum

Benton, C. J., & Schillo, J. M. (2004). School and university collaboration partners: A model for collegial support of literacy and professional development. Action in

Teacher Education, 25(4), 30-37.

Carroll, D. M. (2006). Developing joint accountability in university-school teacher education partnerships. Action in Teacher Education, 27(4), 3-11.

Grisham, D. L., Laguardia, A., & Brink, B. (2000). Partners in professionalism:

Creating a quality field experience for preservice teachers. Action in Teacher

Education, 21(4), 27-40.

Whitney, L., Golez, F., Nagel, G. & Nieto, C. (2002). Listening to voices of practicing teachers to examine the effectiveness of a teacher education program. Action

in Teacher Education, 23(4), 69-75.

Teacher Education

Allington, R. (2002). What I’ve learned about effective reading instruction from a decade of studying elementary classroom teachers, Phi Delta Kappan, 83(10),

740-747.

American Association of Colleges for Teacher Education. (2002). Research-based

literacy instruction: Implications for teacher education. Washington, D. C.:

Author.

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. Mosenthal, P. D. Pearson, & R. Barr (Eds.), Handbook of reading

research (Vol. 3) (pp. 719-742). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Baker, E. A. and Wedman, J. M. (2000). Lessons learned while using case-based instruction with preservice literacy teachers. NRC Yearbook, 49, 122-136.

Page 59 of 63



Ball, D. L., & Cohen, D. K. (1999). Developing practice, developing practitioners:

Toward a practice-based theory of professional education. In L. Darling-

Hammond & G. Sykes (Eds.) Teaching as the learning profession: Handbook of

policy and practice (pp. 3-32). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

Bean, T. W., & Harper, H. J. (2004). Teacher education and adolescent literacy. In T.

L. Jetton & J. A. Dole (Eds.), Adolescent literacy research and practice (pp.

392-414). New York: Guilford Press.

Block, C. C., & Mangieri, J. N. (2003). Exemplary literacy teachers: Promoting

success for all children in grades K-5. New York: Guilford Press.

Cox, B. E., Fang, Z., Carriveau, R., Dillon, D. R., Hopkins, C. J., & Nierstheimer, S.

L. (1998). Preservice teachers' learning about literacy instruction. In T.

Shanahan & F. V. Rodriguez-Brown (Eds.), Forty-seventh yearbook of the

national reading conference (pp. 508-516). Chicago, IL: National Reading

Conference, Inc.

Darling-Hammond, L. (1998) Teacher learning that supports student learning.

Educational Leadership, 55(5), 6-11.

Dillon, D. R., Dixey, B., Hall, V., Nierstheimer, S., & Younts, T. (1996). Authentic assessment in a university preservice literacy course. In M. Collins & B. Moss

(Eds.), Literacy assessment for today's schools (pp. 95-109). Harrisonburg, VA:

The College Reading Association.

Duffy, A. M., & Atkinson, T. S. (2001). Learning to teach struggling (and non- struggling) elementary school readers: An analysis of preservice teachers’ knowledges. Reading Research and Instruction, 41(1), 83-102.

Feiman-Nemser, S. (2003). What new teachers need to learn. Educational

Leadership, 60(8), 25-29.

Feiman-Nemser, S. (2001). From preparation to practice: Designing a continuum to strengthen and sustain teaching. Teachers College Record, 103(6), 1013-1055.

Haycock, K. (2004). The real value of teachers: If good teachers matter, why don't we act like it? Thinking K-16: A Publication of The Education Trust, 8(1), 1-2.

Heydon, R., Hibbert, K., & Iannacci, L. (2004). Strategies to support balanced literacy approaches in pre- and inservice teacher education. Journal of

Adolescent and Adult Literacy, 48(4) 312-319.

Page 60 of 63



Hoffman, J. V., Roller, C., Maloch, B., Sailors, M., Duffy, G., & Beretvas, S. N.

(2005). Teachers’ preparation to teach reading and their experiences and practices in the first three years of teaching. The Elementary School Journal,

105(3), 267-287.

International Reading Association. (2003). Prepared to make a difference: Research evidence on how some of America’s best college programs prepare teachers of

reading. Newark, DE: International Reading Association.

Lassonde, C., Stearns, K., & Dengler, K. (2005). What are you reading in book groups?: Developing reading lives in teacher candidates. Action in teacher

education, 27(2), 43-53.

Lenski, S. D., Grisham, D. L., & Wold, L. S. (2005). Literacy teacher preparation: Ten

truths teacher educators need to know. Newark, DE: International Reading

Association.

Lieberman, A., & Miller, L. (1999). Teachers—Transforming their world and their

work. New York: Teachers College Press.

Many, J. (1999). Assessment and instruction in a graduate literacy education class:

Reflecting what I’m learning in what I do. Journal of Adolescent and Adult

Literacy, 42(7), 566-579.

Mintrop, H. (2001). Educating students to teach in a constructivist way: Can it be done? Teachers College Record, 103(2), 207-239.

Munby, H., Russell, T., & Martin, A. K. (2001). Teachers’ knowledge and how it develops. In V. Richardson (Ed.), Handbook of Research on Teaching (4 th ed.)

(pp. 877-904). Washington, D.C.: American Educational Research

Association.

National Center for Research on Teaching and Learning. (1993). Findings on

learning to teach. East Lansing, MI: Michigan State University.

Risko, V. J., Vukelich, C., & Roskos, K. (2002). Preparing teachers for reflective practice: Intentions, contradictions, and possibilities. Language Arts, 80(2),

134-144.

Rogers, T. (2006). Dialogic narratives of literacy, teaching, and schooling: Preparing literacy teachers for diverse settings. Reading Research Quarterly, 41(2), 202-

224.

Steiner, D. (2003). Preparing teachers: Are American schools of education up to the

task? Washington, D.C.: American Enterprise Institute.

Page 61 of 63



Strickland, D., Snow, C., Griffin, P., Burns, M. S., & McNamara, P. (2002).

Preparing our teachers: Opportunities for better reading instruction.

Washington, D.C.: Joseph Henry Press.

Teaching Commission. (2004). Teaching at risk: A call to action. Retrieved April 1,

2004, from www.theteachingcommission.org

Topping, K., & Ferguson, N. (2005). Effective literacy teaching behaviors. Journal of

Research in Reading, 28(2), 125-143.

Vagle, M. D., Dillon, D. R., Davison-Jenkins, J. LaDuca, B., & Olson, V. (2006).

Redesigning literacy preservice education at four institutions: A three-year collaborative project. Fifty-fifth yearbook of the national reading conference

(pp. 324-340). Milwaukee, WI: The National Reading Conference.

Whitmore, K. F. & Goodman, Y. M. (1996). Whole language voices in teacher education. York, ME: Stenhouse.

Minnesota Reads: A Higher Education Partnership to Better Prepare Faculty and Future Teachers for

Literacy Instruction. This research was supported in part by the Bush Foundation, Agency, No. Bush Fed.

8303, Steven Yussen and Deborah R. Dillon, Co-PIs*, University of Minnesota, Twin Cities, College of

Education and Human Development & Department of Curriculum and Instruction. [*Collaborators include faculty members and research associates from the University of Minnesota-Twin Cities, Augsburg College, the College of St. Catherine, and St. Cloud State University].

Page 62 of 63

learning, reading, and writing theories

Minnesota Reads

LITERACY CONCEPTUAL FRAMEWORK (LCF)

Created in 2002-2005 and adopted by grant participants

Edited in 2006-2007

Current version: March 30, 2007

Please use the following information when citing the framework and other project materials:

Minnesota Reads

LITERACY CONCEPTUAL FRAMEWORK (LCF)

CONTENTS

INTRODUCTION

Teachers College Record, 103

PRINCIPLES

PROFESSIONALISM

DISPOSITIONS

BEGINNING REPERTOIRE

LEARNING, READING, AND WRITING THEORIES

LANGUAGE

AND THE DEVELOPMENT OF

ORAL LANGUAGE AND LITERACY

READING

FOUNDATIONAL KNOWLEDGE

PEDAGOGICAL CONTENT KNOWLEDGE

INSTRUCTIONAL PRACTICES AND MATERIALS

WRITING

MOTIVATION/ENGAGEMENT

FOUNDATIONAL KNOWLEDGE

PEDAGOGICAL CONTENT KNOWLEDGE

INSTRUCTIONAL PRACTICES AND MATERIALS

TEXTS AND CONTEXTS

ASSESSMENT AND EVALUATION

LITERATE ENVIRONMENT

REFERENCES

Principles

Professionalism

Learning, Reading, and Writing Theories

Language and the Development of Oral Language and Literacy

Reading

Decoding

Fluency/Automaticity

Vocabulary

Comprehension

Writing

Motivation

Texts and Contexts

Assessment and Evaluation

Literate Environment

Practicum

Teacher Education

Related documents

Add this document to collection(s)

Add this document to saved

Suggest us how to improve StudyLib