David Yellin

Beverly A. DeVries

ESSENTIALS
Integrating the LanguageOF
Arts
FIFTH EDITION
Library of Congress Control Number: 2014959903

eResources are available at the following location: www.routledge.com/9781621590309

Photo Credits:
Front cover, clockwise from upper left: Sergey
Novikov/123RF, Anek Suwanna-phoom/123RF,
Wavebreak Media Ltd/123RF, Syda Produc-
tions/123RF, Mikael Damkier/123RF. Back cover,
top to bottom: Hongqi Zhang/123RF, Ilka Erika
Please note: The authors and publisher have made every effort to provide current
Szasz-Fabian/123RF, Cathy Yeulet/123RF,
website addresses in this book. However, because web addresses change constantly,
Franck Boston/123RF. Page i, Dmitriy Shiro-
it is inevitable that some of the URLs listed here will change following publication
nosov/ 123RF; p. iii, Graham Oliver/123RF;
of this book.
p. ix, Cathy Yeulet/123RF; p. 1, Wavebreak
Media Ltd/123RF; p. 20, Panom Pensawang/
123RF; p. 25, Wavebreak Media Ltd/123RF;
First published 2015 by Holcomb Hathaway, Publishers, Inc.
p. 38, Wavebreak Media Ltd/123RF; p. 59,
Wavebreak Media Ltd/123RF; p. 69, Dmitriy
Published 2017 by Routledge Shironosov/123RF; p. 79, Wavebreak Media
2 Park Square, Milton Park, Abingdon, Oxon OX14 4RN Ltd/123RF; p. 81, Cathy Yeulet Media Ltd/
711 Third Avenue, New York, NY 10017, USA 123RF; p. 87, Ilka Erika Szasz-Fabian/123RF;
p. 92, Dmitriy Shironosov/123RF; p. 125,
Routledge is an imprint of the Taylor & Francis Group, an informa business Tyler Olson/123RF; p. 161, Wavebreak Media
Ltd/123RF; p. 169, Wavebreak Media Ltd/
Copyright © 2015 by Taylor & Francis 123RF; p. 179, Cathy Yeulet/123RF; p. 205,
Cathy Yeulet/123RF; p. 213, Dmitriy Shirono-
sov/123RF; p. 237, pictrough/123RF; p. 239,
All rights reserved. No part of this book may be reprinted or reproduced or utilised viewstock/123RF; p. 270, tan4ikk/123RF;
in any form or by any electronic, mechanical, or other means, now known or
p. 277, Visions of America LLC/123RF; p. 287,
hereafter invented, including photocopying and recording, or in any information
Cathy Yeulet/123RF; p. 306, Panom Pensawang/
storage or retrieval system, without permission in writing from the publishers.
123RF; p. 315, Hongqi Zhang/123RF; p. 321,
Lisa Young/123RF; p. 349, Inspirestock Inter-
Notice:
national/123RF; p. 353, Tyler Olson/123RF;
Product or corporate names may be trademarks or registered trademarks, and are
p. 369, Cathy Yeulet/123RF; p. 373, Inspire-
used only for identification and explanation without intent to infringe.
stock International/123RF; p. 405, Millan/
Dreamstime; p. 407, Wavebreak Media Ltd/
Print ISBN: 978-1-62159-030-9 (pbk) 123RF.
Contents

PREFACE ix

Language Arts Integration

for All Students 25
Introduction to OBJECTIVES 26
the Language Arts 1
INTRODUCTION 26
OBJECTIVES 2 CAREGIVER INFLUENCE ON LITERACY
INTRODUCTION 2 DEVELOPMENT 26
DEVELOPING A PHILOSOPHY OF EDUCATION 3 Caregivers and Language 27
LEARNING THEORIES RELATED TO TEACHING Caregivers and Reading 27
THE LANGUAGE ARTS 4 Caregivers and Writing 27
Lev Vygotsky 4 The Importance of Play in the Home 29
Jerome Bruner 4 Teachers and Caregivers: A Team Approach 30
Jean Piaget 6 DIVERSITY IN THE CLASSROOM 35
IN THE CLASSROOM: Ralph learns about plants by Cultural Factors 36
balancing assimilation and accommodation 7 English Learners 39
Brian Cambourne 8 IN THE CLASSROOM: Mr. Decker creates a language learning
APPROACHES TO TEACHING THE LANGUAGE ARTS 9 experience . . . 44
Separate Skills Approach 9 Students at Risk 44
Whole Language Approach 10 Students with Disabilities 46
Integrated Approach 11 Students Who Are Academically Gifted 49
Comprehensive Approach 12
IN THE CLASSROOM: Ms. Adams’ Quest activity inspires
TEACHERS AND SCHOOLS UNDERGO CHANGE 15 curiosity . . . 52
Standards 15 TEACHING ACTIVITIES 53
IN THE CLASSROOM: Mr. Wallace uses the CCSS to guide TECHNOLOGY IN THE CLASSROOM 56
his teaching 17
SUMMARY 57
English Learners 19
FIELD AND PRACTICUM ACTIVITIES 57
Inclusion 20
Differentiation 21
TECHNOLOGY IN THE CLASSROOM 22
SUMMARY 22
FIELD AND PRACTICUM ACTIVITIES 23

iii
iv CONTENTS

CHILDREN’S AND YOUNG ADULT LITERATURE

DEFINED 81
IN THE CLASSROOM: Ms. Carton introduces historical studies
through literature 82
Planning and Delivering Effective BOOK CATEGORIES 82
Language Arts Instruction 59 Picture Books 82
OBJECTIVES 60 Traditional Literature (Folklore) 84
Modern Fantasy/Science Fiction 86
INTRODUCTION 60
Graphic Novels 87
GENERAL PRINCIPLES ABOUT LEARNING 60
Contemporary Realistic Fiction 87
LEARNING DOMAINS 63
Historical Fiction 88
LEARNING STYLES 64
Biographies and Autobiographies 90
IN THE CLASSROOM: Fling and skim: Ms. Sparks’ minilesson Informational or Nonfiction Books 91
exemplifies vivid word choices . . . 65
Poetry 93
Global–Analytic 65
Series Books 93
Impulsive–Reflective 66
Multicultural Books 94
Visual–Auditory–Kinesthetic 66
CHOOSING MATERIALS FOR THE CLASSROOM 96
MULTIPLE INTELLIGENCES THEORY 67
Resources 96
IN THE CLASSROOM: From toothpicks to rap songs:
Guidelines for Evaluating Books 96
Encouraging creativity . . . 68
Books to Reflect Special Needs 97
TEACHING STRATEGIES 68
LITERATURE AND LANGUAGE LEARNING 100
Direct Lecture 69
Books as Language Models 100
Inquiry-Based Instruction 69
Text Structure 101
IN THE CLASSROOM: “Copy this down”: Mr. Garrey combats
student passivity . . . 70 INVOLVING STUDENTS WITH BOOKS 102

Learning Centers 70 Environment 103

Modeling 103
IN THE CLASSROOM: Toy vs. toy: Inquiry-based
learning . . . 72 Book Talks 103
Units 73 Reading Aloud 103
Shared Book Experiences 105
IN THE CLASSROOM: Ms. Timberlake livens her lessons
with learning centers 74 Independent Reading 105
IN THE CLASSROOM: A simple discussion about fear becomes
Teacher Storytelling 106
a memorable month-long learning experience 75 STUDENTS’ RESPONSES TO LITERATURE 106
Minilessons 75 IN THE CLASSROOM: A story about dachshunds:
TECHNOLOGY IN THE CLASSROOM 77 How storytelling aids language development 107

SUMMARY 78 Discussions 108

Literature Circles 109
FIELD AND PRACTICUM ACTIVITIES 78
Student Storytelling 109
Story Grammars, Charts, and Maps 110
Book Publishing 112
IN THE CLASSROOM: Mr. Funk demonstrates how story
maps can help his students remember the structure
of a folktale 113
Children’s and Poetry Units 113
Young Adult Literature Sharing Books 116
THE CORNERSTONE OF THE TEACHING ACTIVITIES 119
LANGUAGE ARTS PROGRAM 79 TECHNOLOGY IN THE CLASSROOM 121
OBJECTIVES 80 SUMMARY 122
INTRODUCTION 80 FIELD AND PRACTICUM ACTIVITIES 122
 CONTENTS v

Reading 125 The Process of Writing 169

OBJECTIVES 126 OBJECTIVES 170
INTRODUCTION 126 INTRODUCTION 170
READING EXPLORED 126 BRIEF HISTORY OF WRITING INSTRUCTION 170
PRACTICAL MODELS OF READING 127 THE PROCESS APPROACH MODEL 171
Bottom-Up Model 127 Prewriting 172
Top-Down Model 128 IN THE CLASSROOM: Mrs. Guen utilizes interactive
Interactive Model 129 literature activities . . . 175
Constructive Approach 130 Drafting 175
READING AND THE COMMON CORE Revising 175
STATE STANDARDS 131 Editing 176
Complexity of Texts 131 Publishing 176
Vocabulary Building 132 WRITING WORKSHOP 178
Emphasis on Informational Texts 133 Status of the Class 179
Close Reading 135 Minilessons 180
IN THE CLASSROOM: Mr. Banks shows students how Writing Time 180
to read closely to deduce meaning from context 136 Sharing 180
Citing Specific Textual Evidence 137 IN THE CLASSROOM: A minilesson helps solidify Tommy’s
PEDAGOGICAL APPROACHES TO READING 138 understanding: Rereading as a revision strategy 181
Cognitive Approach 138 WRITING AND THE COMMON CORE STATE
Cultural Approach 139 STANDARDS 181
Linguistic Approach 139 TEACHING ACTIVITIES 182
Sociocultural Approach 139 ASSESSMENT/EVALUATION OF WRITING 198
INSTRUCTIONAL STRATEGIES FOR READING 140 Teacher Observations 198
4-Blocks Literacy Model 140 Anecdotal Records 199
Guided Reading 140 Teacher–Pupil Conferences 199
Connecting Reading and Writing Through Student Self-Evaluation 199
Reading–Writing Workshops 141 Portfolios 199
Questioning the Author (QtA) 142 The 6 + 1 Trait® Writing Assessment 200
Book Sharing 143 Teacher-Made Rubrics 201
Literature Response Charts 143 TECHNOLOGY IN THE CLASSROOM 202
TEACHING ACTIVITIES 144 SUMMARY 202
ASSESSING READING 160 FIELD AND PRACTICUM ACTIVITIES 202
Informal Reading Inventories 160
Running Records 161
Other Informal Assessment Techniques 161
Standardized Tests 164
IN THE CLASSROOM: Weighing the importance of Mark’s
struggle with phonemic awareness 165 The Tools of Writing 205
TECHNOLOGY IN THE CLASSROOM 166 OBJECTIVES 206
SUMMARY 168
INTRODUCTION 206
FIELD AND PRACTICUM ACTIVITIES 168 REASONS FOR WRITING: THE BEGINNINGS 206
HANDWRITING: AN INDIVIDUALISTIC TOOL 208
vi CONTENTS

Handwriting Elements 210 Presentations 260

Readiness Skills for Handwriting 210 IN THE CLASSROOM: Mrs. Majors demonstrates the value
Instruction in Handwriting 211 of both listening and speaking in her classroom 261
SPELLING: A DEVELOPMENTAL PROCESS 215 TEACHING ACTIVITIES 261
Developmental Stages of Spelling 215 Speaking Assessment 271
IN THE CLASSROOM: Brittany’s spelling development 217 VOCABULARY BUILDING 272
Approaches to Spelling Instruction 219 TECHNOLOGY IN THE CLASSROOM 273
Spelling, Proofreading, and Dictionary Use 222 SUMMARY 273
Three Plans for Teaching and Testing Spelling 222 FIELD AND PRACTICUM ACTIVITIES 274
TEACHING ACTIVITIES 224
GRAMMAR: MEANING, NOT MEMORIZING 225
Forms of Grammar and Which Should Be
Taught 226
TEACHING ACTIVITIES 229
TECHNOLOGY IN THE CLASSROOM 234
Integrating the Visual
SUMMARY 235
and Performing Arts 277
FIELD AND PRACTICUM ACTIVITIES 235
OBJECTIVES 278
INTRODUCTION 278
MULTIMODAL COMMUNICATION 279
VISUAL AND PERFORMING ARTS AS SIGN
SYSTEMS 279
Visual Art 280
Listening and Speaking 237 IN THE CLASSROOM: Ms. Furnish’s picture-book
OBJECTIVES 238 detectives 288
INTRODUCTION 238 Drama 288
DEVELOPING LISTENING SKILLS 238 Dance 291
Listening Defined 238 Music 295
Background Information on Listening 239 IN THE CLASSROOM: Ms. Chambers expands the curriculum
with classical music 298
Listening as Process 239
Creating a Positive Environment for Listening 240 TEACHING ACTIVITIES 300
Types of Listening 240 TRANSMEDIATION 307
IN THE CLASSROOM: Linda’s reminder to listen 241 IN THE CLASSROOM: Sara’s students expand a lesson with
drama, art, and music 308
Integrating Listening into the Curriculum 242
Teacher Questioning for Listening THE INTERNET AND MULTIMODAL
COMMUNICATION 309
Development 243
Teaching Listening 245 Skills Unique to Using the Internet 309
Characteristics of Sites Appropriate for Elementary
TEACHING ACTIVITIES 247
Students 310
IN THE CLASSROOM: Teaching students to pantomime
TEACHING ACTIVITIES 310
builds their listening skills 250
ASSESSMENT OF VISUAL AND PERFORMING ARTS
IN THE CLASSROOM: Mrs. Lopez engages the class in
AND MULTIMODAL COMMUNICATION 311
a structured listening activity 254
TECHNOLOGY IN THE CLASSROOM 313
Listening Assessment 256
SUMMARY 313
DEVELOPING SPEAKING SKILLS 257
FIELD AND PRACTICUM ACTIVITIES 314
Classroom Academic Conversations (Collaborative
Discussions) 257
 CONTENTS vii

A Purpose for Real Reading and Writing 320

Constructing Content Knowledge 320
TEXT CONSIDERATIONS 321
Organizational Patterns 321
Integrating the Language Arts Readability 323
in the Content Areas 315 Text and Reader Interaction 325
OBJECTIVES 316 TEACHING ACTIVITIES 326
INTRODUCTION 316 ASSESSMENT OF THE INTEGRATED APPROACH
TO LITERACY AND THE CONTENT AREAS 344
WHY THE LANGUAGE ARTS IN THE CONTENT
AREAS? 316 TECHNOLOGY IN THE CLASSROOM 345
IN THE CLASSROOM: Mrs. Castleberry’s caterpillar unit Websites 345
integrates content and process learning 317 SUMMARY 347
Supportive Research 318 FIELD AND PRACTICUM ACTIVITIES 347

A P P
APPENDICES E N D I C E S

B.11 Sports Books 362

B.12 Historical Fiction 362
B.13 Biographies and Autobiographies 363

Teacher Resources 349 B.14 Informational Books 363

B.15 Poetry Anthologies 364
A.1 Websites for Teachers 350
B.16 Books for Pantomime, Improvisation,
A.2 Websites to Use with Students 351 or Script Writing 364
A.3 Resources for Finding Magazines and Books B.17 Books with Music, Art, Drama, or
for Classroom Use 352 Dance Themes 366
B.18 Series Books 368

Children’s and
Young Adult Literature 353 Self-Diagnostic Instrument 369
B.1 Children’s and Young Adult Author
Websites 354
B.2 Multicultural Books 356
B.3 Books to Meet Special Needs 357
B.4 Predictable Pattern Books 357
B.5 Picture Books 358 Assessment Devices 373
B.6 Folk Tales 359 D.1 Sample Interest Inventory 374
B.7 Modern Fantasy 359 D.2 Rubistar Storytelling Rubric 376
B.8 Graphic Novels 360 D.3 Modified Rubric for Storytelling 378
B.9 Realistic Fiction 361 D.4 Storytelling Rubric Emphasizing Voice
B.10 Mysteries 361 Inflection 379
viii CONTENTS

D.5 Reading Conference Checklist 380 D.23 Rubric for Assessing Visual Arts:
D.6 Sample Reading Rubric 381 Fifth–Sixth Grade 400
D.7 Portfolio Form for Student’s Self- D.24 Rubric for Assessing Drama:
Assessment 382 Fifth–Sixth Grade 401
D.8 Teacher’s Quarterly Evaluation Form 383 D.25 Rubric for Assessing Music:
Fifth–Sixth Grade 402
D.9 Teacher’s Portfolio Assessment Rubric 384
D.10 6 + 1 Trait Writing Assessment
®
385 D.26 Cooperative Learning Self-Assessment
Form 403
D.11 Writing Rubric: Holistic Scoring and
Student Self-Evaluation 387 D.27 Teacher’s Evaluation Form 404

D.12 Rubric for Story Writing 388

D.13 Rubric for Middle Grades Writing Portfolio
Assignment 389
D.14 Research Report Rubric for Grades 5–6 390
D.15 Rubric for a “Musical Poem” 392
D.16 Rubric for Listening to an Advertisement 393 Readers Theater Sample Script 405
D.17 Rubric for Indicating Growth in Listening
Skills 394 REFERENCES 407
D.18 Rubistar Puppet Show Rubric 395 AUTHOR INDEX 421
D.19 Modified Rubric for a Puppet Show 396 TITLE INDEX 427
D.20 Rubric for a Newscast 397 SUBJECT INDEX 433
D.21 Rubric for a Propaganda Activity 398
D.22 Rubric for Assessment of Presentation
Skills 399
Preface

E ssentials of Integrating the Language Arts, Fifth Edition, presents a compre-

hensive view of teaching the language arts. It offers a balanced approach
between direct instruction in the communication arts and integrating the language
arts with other content areas such as mathematics, social studies, science, music,
and art. It explores the important topics of community and parental involvement
in education and offers thoughtful coverage of diversity in the schools. Practical
teaching ideas are found throughout each chapter.
The fifth edition has been updated to reflect current teaching practices, field
knowledge, and research. Significant features and changes in this edition include the
following:
● A more streamlined approach to allow readers to move quickly from learning
chapter concepts and related theory and research to understanding how they
are applied in classroom practices, activities, and strategies.
● Discussion of standards, including the Common Core State Standards (CCSS),
with the goal of showing readers how they can apply standards in the class-
room to help meet their students’ needs.
● New teaching activities that support the chapter topics and that align with
the CCSS.
● Additional material to make the book more inclusive of the middle grades.
● To supplement the book’s discussions of assessment, inclusion of an appendix
offering over 25 classroom assessment tools.
● Discussion of current, quality children’s and young adult literature, includ-
ing informational texts, supported by an appendix offering lists of books
by genre.
Essentials of Integrating the Language Arts offers these additional special features:
● “In the Classroom” vignettes, describing real teachers as they implement the
book’s processes and strategies in the classroom.
● “RRP” (Read Research Practice) boxes offering ideas for activities and projects
to enhance and deepen reader understanding.
● In-chapter “Teaching Activities”—evidence-based strategies and activities that
future teachers can use in their own classrooms.
● End-of-chapter “Field and Practicum Activities”—brief activities that provide
practical application of the chapter concepts your students can use in field and
practicum settings.
● Inspirational teaching-related quotations in the book’s margins to stimulate
class discussions.
ix
x PREFACE

● Updated discussions of technology and websites at the end of each chapter

to get your students using online resources and creating slide presentations,
videos, photo journals, and other multimodal materials as they prepare to
integrate technology in their own classrooms.
Whether your students will teach all subjects (self-contained primary/elemen-
tary grades) or specialize in the language arts exclusively (departmentalized middle
grades), this textbook will help them succeed. Take a moment to review the table
of contents to familiarize yourself with the newly organized chapters and their
subtopics. The table of contents also lists the helpful resources and tools avail-
able in the book’s appendices.
We hope readers will use this textbook in an interactive manner, as we have
designed it to be used. Encourage your students to discuss each chapter in class
and to complete as many of the “RRP” suggestions as possible. Have them access
websites and conduct field observations of children and teachers in order to learn
from others in the field. Encourage students to keep a journal of reflections about
their readings, their observation experiences in classrooms, and other field experi-
ences. Have them share journal reflections with you and with their peers. Each
person gets something different out of a textbook and a college course. Teaching is
truly a collaborative undertaking—through sharing with others, we all grow in our
understanding of how to teach.

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

W egestions
would like to thank the following reviewers, who offered constructive sug-
for improving this book, for this and for earlier editions. The book
is better as a result of their efforts.

For this edition: Kathleen Bukowski, Mercyhurst University; Lauren Edmondson,

Drury University; Ingrid Frenna, Sierra Nevada College; Sharon Jackson, New Jer-
sey City University; Kimberly Miller, Ohio Dominican University; Natalie Precise,
Drury University; Donna Rhinesmith, Truman State University; and Debra Wein-
garth, Jacksonville State University.
For previous editions: Elizabeth Day, Gail J. Gerlach, Missy Hopper, Rachael Hunger-
ford, Richard Ingram, Linda Kleeman, Sallie J. Launius, Fannye E. Love, Charles
E. Matthews, Mark D. McCann, Rolland Menk, M. Priscilla Myers, Martha Olsen,
Deborah Pellegrino, Margaret Policastro, Sherron Killingsworth Roberts, Bobbie
Smothers-Jones, Pamela A. Solvie, Carol Taylor, Miriam Ward, Gary L. Willhite,
and Penelope Wong.

In addition, we would like to offer individual acknowledgments:

David Yellin: I would like to thank my wife, Pamm Yellin, and daughters Lindsay
and Aubree for all their support in this project. In addition I would like to thank
my colleague and friend Kouider Mokhtari for stimulating professional discussions.
Finally, I thank graduate assistants Abdullah Modhesh and Tamara Roman for help
in completing this textbook.
Beverly DeVries: I wish to thank my husband for his support in this project and my
students, who willingly become partners in action research.
 R
E
Introduction to the
T
Language Arts
P
A
H
C

1
 After reading this chapter, you should be able to accomplish the following objectives:
1. Name the six components of language arts.
2. Explain what the acronym IRA represents and its role in guiding the teaching of the lan-
guage arts.
3. Explain what the acronym NCTE represents and its role in guiding the teaching of the
language arts.
4. Discuss the levels of the Learning Experiences Ladder.
5. Discuss characteristics of learning activities that engage students so they develop a love
of learning.
6. Discuss the four ways to teach the language arts.
7. Discuss the initiatives that have changed education.

INTRODUCTION

E ach semester, to start the first session of my class on teaching language arts,
I (author Beverly DeVries) ask my students: “If you were interviewing with
a principal for a fourth-grade teaching position, and he told you that his school is
departmentalized and you would be teaching language arts, would you know what
you had to teach?” Inevitably, I get answers such as, “grammar, spelling, literature,
penmanship, reading, and writing.” When I tell them there is much more they would
need to teach, they ask, “Like what?” They are surprised to hear that they also would
be expected to teach speaking, listening, viewing, and visual representing.
In kindergarten through grade 8, the term language arts is defined in terms
of its six components—reading, writing, speaking, listening, viewing, and visual
representing. In this text we share with you learning theories, research, and back-
ground information on each component and provide teaching activities related to
the six components that are appropriate for primary grades (K–2), intermediate
grades (3–5), and middle school (6–8).
If you examine the six language arts components closely, you may realize that
three of the components are receptive—reading, listening, and viewing—while the
other three are expressive—writing, speaking, and visual representing (see Figure 1.1).
When people write, they are expressing their ideas, thoughts, and feelings; others read
their stories, poems, letters, or other forms of writing. When people speak, others lis-
ten to them; when they visually represent, others view their work. When people read,
listen, or view, however, they receive the messages other people have expressed in
books, speeches, videos, or other works. In today’s society, students read and write in

“
formats beyond traditional print, they listen to and speak beyond simple class reports,
and they view and visually represent beyond traditional pictures. We will share with
you many different types of activities involving many different formats for each of the
components of the language arts. We stress throughout the text that the components
of language arts should be integrated in all subject areas.
Thus, students read, write, listen, speak, view, and visually
A great teacher makes hard things represent in literature, math, science, social studies, music,
easy. art, and health and physical education classes.
The two major professional organizations concerned
RALPH WALDO EMERSON with teaching the language arts, the International Reading

2
 Introduction to the Language Arts 3

Integrated language arts wheel. FIGURE 1.1

ES TAKING
V ITI PL
C TI A
C
A E

spe

g n
eni
aki

list
ng
visually representing meaning viewing

rea
ting

din
wri

g
TH Y
RO
UG DA
E
HOUT TH

Association (IRA) and the National Council of Teachers of English (NCTE), together
created the Standards for the English Language Arts (1996). Subsequently, these two
organizations with other major educational organizations were active in writing the
Common Core State Standards (CCSS) that are discussed later in this chapter.

DEVELOPING A PHILOSOPHY OF EDUCATION

W hen classroom teachers formulated the Standards for the English Language
Arts, they were not only pooling their wisdom based on experience, but were
also articulating their philosophies regarding child development, their experience
with the content and materials of language arts, and their understanding of the
teaching/learning process. Successful teachers are also guided by a personal teach-
ing philosophy, a set of beliefs that informs their practices with students.
Throughout this text, you will gradually begin to shape your own philosophy
of education, particularly as it relates to how you will teach students about the
language arts. You will adopt a philosophy that allows you to make decisions each
day—from how you will arrange the furniture in the classroom, to how you will
evaluate your students’ skills in reading or writing, to which methods and mate-
rials you will use to teach spelling and handwriting, to how you will maintain
classroom control and discipline. In short, all of the choices regarding how, when,
and what you teach will be ultimately dependent on your personal philosophy.
Acquiring such a philosophy is a slow and sometimes arduous process; it requires
that you be open to the views of others but strong enough in your own convic-
tions to resist being led by others. In the classic sociological study The Lonely Crowd
(1961), David Riesman describes two types of individuals: The other- or outer-directed
person conforms, follows, and looks for the approval of others before acting; the
inner-directed person follows an inner set of beliefs and values that guide his or her
decision making. Psychologist Jerome Bruner (1962) saw individual mental growth
and development in terms of how people move from a state of outer-directedness to
 4 CHAPTER 1

read RESEARCH practice

one of inner-directedness. As you become a more inner-
directed person, your personal philosophy as a teacher

R
will become more evident. Eventually, you will see your-
Examine the following approaches to viewing the self as a decision maker and others will look to you for
language arts critically. Compare them to your own advice and guidance.

R
To help you in this process, the next section of this
experiences and observations in the classroom. Your
chapter describes some learning theories that affect teach-
ability to analyze this text, other research literature in ers and discusses a number of different ways of viewing

P
the language arts, other learning theories, and your the language arts. Each language arts approach has its
observations in the classroom is part of the process own strengths and weaknesses. Analyze and reflect on
of becoming a reflective teacher with your own per- them in conjunction with other learning theories that
you have studied. Because every student is different and
sonal philosophy of education. As you reflect critically
every student also possesses unique strengths and weak-
on what you see, hear, and read, you will become a nesses, no one approach will be suitable for all students
more responsible decision maker in the classroom, all of the time. For that reason, you will want to choose
which is the hallmark of a professional educator. the best from the many options at your disposal to find
your own way.

LEARNING THEORIES RELATED TO TEACHING THE LANGUAGE ARTS

B efore examining the various approaches to teaching the language arts, con-
sider four learning theories that greatly affect teaching in general, and thus
teaching of the language arts. The research and theories of four psychologists and
educators—Lev Vygotsky, Jerome Bruner, Jean Piaget, and Brian Cambourne—
have contributed to knowledge about language and thought, which in turn has
greatly affected the latest developments in language arts instruction.

Lev Vygotsky (1896–1934)

Lev Vygotsky (1986) observed young children in Russia as they used language in
play and other social situations. Based on his observations, Vygotsky concluded that
adults greatly influence children’s cognitive growth. His observations led him to con-
clude that children’s interactions with adults not only shape their language patterns
but also their thought patterns. At first children can understand adult language but
cannot reproduce it or generate complex ideas. Later, as speech is internalized, it
is used to control thinking. In this sense Vygotsky believed that verbal interactions
between children and adults help children “learn how to mean.” Meaningful social
interactions with adults spur cognitive as well as verbal development in the child.
This theory, called the social interaction theory of development, has greatly influenced
the classroom instruction.
Another key concept of Vygotsky’s theory is the notion of the zone of proximal
development. This refers to the gap between what the child knows and can express
on her or his own and what the adult must provide in terms of information and
language structures. Children need adults to help them grow linguistically and
cognitively. In a sense, the child is always one step behind the adult, straining to
keep up. With the proper adult role models, the child’s language and thought con-
tinue to develop; without them, the child’s thought processes are severely limited
(Wertsch & Sohmer, 1995).

Jerome Bruner (b. 1915)

Jerome Bruner (1961b, 1962, 1978) was influenced by Vygotsky. According to
Bruner, one role of language is to activate thought and concept development. Con-
cept development involves the creation of schemata, or models in the brain, which
 Introduction to the Language Arts 5

store information necessary for higher-level thinking. The older the child, the
greater the role language plays in the creation of these schemata. In one experiment,
children were asked to sort pictures into categories. The experimenter noted that
children ages 2 to 6 categorize only on the basis of color, shape, or size. Around age
7, children shift from a reliance on perceptual appearances to a reliance on symbolic
representation. Consequently, older children can explain their grouping strategy by
saying, “They’re all tools.” The term tools permits a form of classification higher than
color, shape, or size, all of which are grounded on physical perception.
Bruner also believed in the importance of social interaction for a child’s lin-
guistic and cognitive growth. Building on Vygotsky’s earlier work, Bruner argued
that the child uses the language of adults to move from one stage of language
development to another; thus, the child’s language builds upon the adult’s. Bruner
called this process scaffolding (1978, 1987). The linguistic scaffold, or structure
provided by the adult, allows the child to construct language and internalize the
rules of language through experience.
Bruner’s theories on thought development and schema formation can be seen in
the classroom when teachers use schematic diagrams, semantic maps, and web dia-
grams. Though these terms are used slightly differently, the processes they represent
include similar steps: A verbal brainstorming session leads to a visual representation,
which eventually creates a mental picture that the student uses to store information
suitable for later problem solving. In the K–8 classroom, students use diagramming,
mapping, and webbing to help them comprehend text structures they have read,
lectures they will hear, and written work they wish to produce (Pearson & Johnson,
1985; Bruner, 1997).
While researching children, Bruner (1966) also found that they learn best from
personal experiences and learn least from verbal explanations. See Figure 1.2 for

Bruner’s Learning Experiences Ladder. FIGURE 1.2

Hearing lectures
VERBAL
VERBAL EXPERIENCES
EXPERIENCES

Viewing pictures,
charts, and so on
VISUAL
VISUAL EXPERIENCES
EXPERIENCES

Viewing videos,
computer programs
VICARIOUS
VICARIOUS EXPERIENCES
EXPERIENCES

Role-plays, simulated
games, model making
SIMULATED
SIMULATED EXPERIENCES
EXPERIENCES

Field trips, science

experiments
DIRECT
DIRECT EXPERIENCES
EXPERIENCES

Source: Adapted from Bruner

(1966), as cited in Kellough &
Roberts (1991).
6    CHAPTER 1

Bruner’s Learning Experiences Ladder. Just as the first rung of a ladder is the easi-
est to climb, the easiest way for students to learn is through direct experiences.
Because this is the most effective way a student learns, a teacher should provide as
many direct experiences as possible. Obviously, not all teaching takes place through
direct experiences; therefore, you should provide many simulated experiences that
demand students use more than one sense. These experiences may include playing
simulated games, constructing models, or role-playing. If direct or simulated experi-
ences are not available, the next experience, though not as effective because it does
not engage as many senses, is the vicarious experience. Many of these experiences,
such as computer apps, programs, and videos, are readily available today. Visual
experiences are better than a verbal explanation, which is the least effective way to
learn. Many textbooks provide pictures, charts, and graphs to explain a concept.
An example of a teacher putting Bruner’s theory into practice is Mr. Lopez, a
second grade teacher at a large urban school. When preparing to study popular chil-
dren’s author Tomie dePaola with his second graders, Mr. Lopez knew from Bruner’s
Learning Experiences Ladder that the least effective way for his students to learn
about dePaola’s life and books would be to lecture them about the author. Therefore,
Mr. Lopez decided to read and discuss dePaola’s books with his students and view
a video of the author working in his studio that explains how he gets his ideas. Mr.
Lopez also planned for his students to draw scenes from their favorite dePaola book
and act out some of their favorite stories. The last learning experience he planned
for his students was for Tomie dePaola to visit the classroom, read some of his books
out loud, and draw a picture while the students watched. After the visit, Mr. Lopez
encouraged his students to write thank-you notes to dePaola. Mr. Lopez not only put
Bruner’s theory into practice but also integrated the six components of the language
arts with technology. Although not every teacher will be fortunate enough to have
well-known authors visit the classroom, they can still arrange a “visit” with an author
by browsing his or her website with their class. Many sites now offer webcasts of the
authors, and Tomie dePaola and his books are featured in many YouTube videos.

Jean Piaget (1896–1980)

Jean Piaget (1952, 1959, 1964, 1965, 1967) observed children in Geneva, Switzer-
land, over a period of many years, during which time he formulated his theories on
learning and development. Piaget took a developmental view of cognitive growth
and language development. He observed that mental growth occurred in tandem
with physical growth. It begins with the newborn infant listening to the sounds of
the environment and continues as the child imitates sounds of those around her
and creates new sounds while exploring language. With increased age also comes
vocabulary growth. Joan Tough (1984) found that on average children use about 3
words at 12 months, 20 words at 18 months, 300 words at 24 months, 900 to 1,000
words at 36 months, at least 2,000 words by age 5, and 4,000 words by age 7.
The three terms associated with Piaget’s view of language and cognitive devel-
opment are assimilation, accommodation, and equilibrium. Assimilation occurs
when new information and perceptions are organized into already existing sche-
mata. Assimilation is therefore a continuous process through which an individual
integrates new information into older or established patterns of thought. But what
happens when the child encounters a new piece of information or engages in a new
experience unrelated to previous ones? Because this new information cannot be
structured into an existing pattern, a new pattern must be created. Piaget called this
process accommodation, which is a continuous process through which new infor-
mational patterns are created in the mind to store and utilize new objects, facts, or
experiences. Equilibrium is a continuous process involving the harmonious interplay
between assimilation and accommodation.
 I N T H E CLASS R O O M
Introduction to the Language Arts 7

Ralph learns about plants by balancing assimilation and accommodation

Ralph, a fifth grader, is studying about plants and flowers. tion, which he will later use in assimilating higher-level
He comes across a new word, chrysanthemum, which he information about the physical properties of matter.
cannot pronounce. His teacher helps him with the pronuncia- Thus, Ralph maintains a healthy balance between
tion; together they look up the word in the dictionary. Ralph assimilation and accommodation. However, if Ralph had an
discovers that a chrysanthemum is a type of brightly colored imbalance in favor of assimilation, he would know only a
flower. He is already familiar with roses, so he can easily few broad categories that would be so crammed with facts
assimilate this new piece of information into his existing con- they would be virtually useless. If he had an imbalance in
cept of flowers. In a later science lesson about the root system favor of accommodation, he would know too many narrow
of plants, Ralph is confused about how water and minerals categories and never establish a clear relationship among
travel through a plant. His teacher takes time to briefly explain them, which would also inhibit problem solving. The key, in
the concept of plant vessels. Ralph must develop a new Piaget’s terms, is to maintain equilibrium between assimila-
schema in his cognitive system to accommodate this informa- tion and accommodation.

Piaget is most remembered by educators for his work in the area of children’s
cognitive development; he demonstrated that through assimilation and accom-
modation, children’s mental capacities adapt and grow. In this sense, Piaget is a
cognitive constructivist similar to Vygotsky and Bruner. Adaptation to environmen-
tal changes leads children through a series of distinct mental stages that correspond
to the children’s language development (Huitt & Hummel, 2003). Figure 1.3 sum-
marizes Piaget’s stages of mental growth.

Piaget’s stages of cognitive development. FIGURE 1.3

STAGE CHARACTERISTICS

Sensorimotor Children act upon real objects to learn about the world. By learning through the five
(birth to 18 months) senses, concepts of cause and effect and of object permanence develop.
Preoperational Children use words as symbols to represent objects and ideas. Learning through
(18 months to play becomes more important; real and imaginary objects are incorporated into
7 years plus) activities. As the concept of “word” develops, the power of egocentrism declines.
Egocentrism must again be overcome when learning to read and write in school.
Concrete operations Children begin to use logical reasoning and are able to classify and perform simple
(7 to 11 years plus) operations. Concrete, manipulable objects are important for learning abstract
concepts. Mental processes, in addition to trial and error, are utilized in problem
solving. Learning becomes internalized.
Formal operations Children’s verbal and logical reasoning is not restricted to physical objects or concrete
(12 years plus) situations. As language abilities develop, abstract reasoning becomes easier. Wide
reading, extensive writing, and small-group oral language activities expand children’s
cognitive growth.

Sources: Adapted from J. Piaget (1965), The Language and Thought of the Child; E. Sarafino & J. Armstrong (1986), Child and Adolescent Development; J. Tough (1984),
“How Young Children Develop and Use Language”; L. Calkins (1983), Lessons from a Child.

7
8 CHAPTER 1

Piaget’s theory of mental development and its relationship to language can be

useful to you if viewed judiciously. Piaget never suggested that the age levels are
fixed and absolute. For example, the concrete operations stage of learning persists
long into adulthood as the primary way of learning new things. Imagine trying to
understand the workings of an automobile engine without having an actual engine
to study and greasy parts to handle!

Brian Cambourne
Another theory that emphasizes the importance of students’ direct involvement
for effective learning is Brian Cambourne’s learning theory. Cambourne (1988)
posits that eight conditions are necessary for learning to take place: immersion,
demonstration, expectation, response, employment, responsibility, approximation,
and engagement. Figure 1.4 shows how the eight conditions are interrelated, with
student engagement at the center of the learning process.
Immersion, demonstration, expectation, and response are led by the teacher. Your
goal is to set up a classroom that immerses students in worthwhile, authentic learn-
ing tasks. This is accomplished by providing (1) numerous opportunities to read
about topics that interest the individual student; (2) varied opportunities to learn
how to effectively articulate information, stories, poems, and so on, either ver-
bally or in written communication; and (3) many opportunities for students to
express themselves through the visual or performing arts. The teacher’s job is to
demonstrate new concepts to the students and model how to use that information
in real-life settings. Next, you must set high but realistic standards for all students
and expect all students to be successful in learning the concept or task. Finally,
you need to respond to the students with encouraging feedback that praises their
approximations and attempts and does not criticize them. Whenever possible, pro-
vide this feedback verbally while students are engaged in the task.

FIGURE 1.4 Cambourne’s conditions necessary for learning.

Demonstration Expectation

Immersion Response

ENGAGEMENT

Approximation Employment

Responsibility
 “ ”
Introduction to the Language Arts 9

Students bring employment, responsibility, and approx-

imation to the learning process. Students need to employ Education is not filling a pail, but
themselves actively when given opportunities to immerse
themselves in reading, writing, and other learning activi- the lighting of a fire.
ties; they should not be mere spectators. Students also WILLIAM BUTLER YEATS
must assume responsibility for their learning; therefore, they need to be willing to
spend more time on tasks that are difficult for them. They also need to assume
responsibility for the final results of their learning. Throughout the learning pro-
cess, there will be times when students may only be able to approximate their best
work; the learning process does not always result in perfect understanding the first
or second time students encounter a new idea or task. However, during this process
students should be encouraged to take risks and experiment with new ideas because
that is when growth takes place.
After eight years of studies conducted in grades 1 through 5, Cambourne (2001)
found that no matter how great the learning activity, if students are not engaged
deeply in the activity, little learning occurs. He concluded that the following eight
characteristics make learning come alive for students:
1. The activity is explicitly linked to other parts of learning. In other words, the
activity is not based on an isolated skill.
2. The teacher explains to students the importance of participating in the activity
and helps them discover how the material is personally relevant to them.
3. The activity encourages interaction and collaboration.
4. The activity encourages the integration of more than one mode of language
(e.g., speaking, reading, writing, listening, viewing, and visually representing).
5. The activity encourages students to use more than one subsystem of language
(e.g., semantics [meaning], syntax [sentence grammar], and graphophonic
[letter–sound relationship]).
6. The activity encourages students to integrate meaning across different semiotic
systems (e.g., oral language, art, music, dance, drama, and pantomime).
7. The activity involves higher-level thinking that allows more than one accept-
able response.
8. The activities are developmentally appropriate and do not require a lot of time
or money to create.

APPROACHES TO TEACHING THE LANGUAGE ARTS

T here are many ways of looking at the entire curriculum area of the language
arts. In this section, we present four different approaches to teaching the
language arts for you to reflect on and discuss in your class: the separate skills
approach, the whole language approach, the integrated approach, and the compre-
hensive approach. By clarifying some of the similarities and differences among
these approaches, we hope to avoid the confusion that arises from using similar
terms interchangeably or without clear definitions. As we introduce each of these
approaches, we will explain the ideology on which each approach is based.

Separate Skills Approach

The separate skills approach, based on the functional literacy ideology, is one of the
approaches observed in the elementary grades due to the way most schools are pres-
ently organized. Functional literacy encourages students to learn to read and write
so they can function in society rather than encouraging them to read critically or to
10 CHAPTER 1

relate reading passages to their lives. In the separate skills approach, each language arts
subskill area (reading, spelling, handwriting, grammar) is viewed as a unique entity,
separate from other subject areas. Often these separate skills are taught during differ-
ent times of the day. Within these time periods, each subject is further broken down
into smaller subskills, such as a lesson on the long vowel sound of /a/ in reading, add-
ing “ing” to words in spelling, and contrasting nouns and pronouns in grammar. Such
an approach is based on behaviorist principles of part-to-whole learning (Goodman,
1986). Figure 1.5 shows the separate skills approach in diagram fashion.
In this diagram each language arts subject area and the subskills within each
area are isolated from one another. This is a major characteristic of the separate skills
approach. Learning is compartmentalized; course content in one area is taught sepa-
rately from all other areas. Because a pre-determined amount of subject matter must
be covered within a specific time block, the class tends to be teacher-dominated,
relying on whole-group lecture. Direct, intensive, systematic instruction controlled
by the teacher is another characteristic of this approach (Allington, 2002a). As is
evident from this discussion, this approach emphasizes covering content by learn-
ing separate skills.

Whole Language Approach

The whole language approach stands in contrast to the separate skills approach and is
based on the progressive literacy ideology. Progressive literacy focuses on a student-
centered curriculum that is based on students’ interests, needs, and personal back-
grounds. This ideology is based on constructivism (the theory based on the premise
that students construct knowledge based on what they already know) and on demo-
cratic ideals that embrace free interchange of ideas between teachers and students.
Advocates of the whole language approach, such as Ken Goodman and Yetta
Goodman (1992, 1996), Carol Edelsky (Edelsky, Altwerger, & Flores, 1991),
and Constance Weaver (2002), contend, first, that it is a philosophy of language
education that looks at the whole student learning language within the natural
environment of the home, community, and school. Second, it is a student-centered
philosophy that favors giving students choices as to what they will read and write.
Third, language arts subjects, such as reading and writing, are not taught separately,
but instead are inextricably linked. Finally, whole language advocates argue that

FIGURE 1.5 Separate skills approach charts.

Subskills of WRITING
LIS

ING
TEN

Spe
AK

lling
ING

SPE

Grammar
WRITING VIEWING
oking
ng/keystr
Handwriti
REP

ing
pos
G

VIS ENTIN
RES

Com
DIN

UA G
REA

LLY
 Introduction to the Language Arts 11

language arts skills are best learned through indirect means by authentic reading,
writing, listening, speaking, viewing, and visually representing activities, based on
students’ interests (Goodman, 1996; Veatch, 1992; Watson, 1989).
Teachers who embrace the whole language approach generally encourage stu-
dents to choose entire books to read, to write complete stories, and to discuss their
reading and writing with the teacher and their peers. Figure 1.6 represents the
whole language approach. Note that a slice from the whole language “pie” includes
all aspects of the language arts.
In the whole language classroom, students use language to learn about lan-
guage. This means that the teacher begins at whatever point in learning the student
feels comfortable. For most young students, this means starting with listening and
speaking activities. Listening to the teacher read books aloud or at the listening
center, engaging in discussions about picture books, chatting with one another over
their drawings at the art center, and conducting puppet shows give young students
confidence in using language they will apply later as they learn to read and write.
Whole language classrooms look different from separate skills classrooms in
that much in-class time is devoted to free reading and writing. Whole language
teachers believe that only by reading and writing can students become readers and
writers. Children’s literature books rather than basal readers are at the heart of
these classrooms. The students are treated as authors themselves and encouraged
to talk about books they have read and share stories they have written.

Integrated Approach
The integrated curriculum or integrated approach is also based on the progressive
literacy ideology. The focus of an integrated approach is on content; it attempts to
combine or integrate various subject areas within a single class period. As such, it
views all subject matter disciplines (listening, speaking, reading, writing, viewing, and
visually representing as well as math, literature, science, social studies, art, music,
physical education, etc.) as related in terms of the way students approach learning.
The term integration appeared in the 1980s when literacy scholars began link-
ing reading and writing instruction (Tierney & Pearson, 1983). This in turn led
to the linking of oral language with reading and writing (Au, Mason, & Scheu,

The whole language “pie.” FIGURE 1.6

N
LISTE ING

AKING
SPE

DING
REA

EXPERIENCES &
CONTENT AREAS

(Math, Science,
Social Studies)

WR
ITING

VIEWING
VI G
SU
ALL TIN
Y REPRESEN
12 CHAPTER 1

1995). This integration of the communication arts reflects the social constructiv-
ist perspective toward language. This view holds that learners use language as a
primary means to construct their knowledge of the world. Learning to read and
write involves higher mental processes than mere skill memorization and cuts
across all subject content areas. Teachers integrate subject matter content across
the various disciplines through the notion of reading and writing across the cur-
riculum. This is the use of reading, writing, speaking, listening, viewing, and visual
representing activities in subject discipline areas (such as history, math, earth sci-
ence, art, music, and physical education) to help the student learn the content of
that subject. Good teachers realize that the components of language arts are used
in every aspect of learning. For example, they expand students’ reading beyond the
textbook in science by encouraging them to read a biography of Thomas Edison
and then write a poem about him using information they learned from the book.
Or, they have students in a middle-grade American history class read a book about
Meriwether Lewis and then write a diary entry from his point of view. Teachers
may also incorporate reading and writing across the curriculum by having students
write in their learning logs after a math or science lesson. Figure 1.7 depicts the
integrated approach and demonstrates how the six components of the language
arts are woven into the study of all subject areas during the study of one theme.

Comprehensive Approach
The comprehensive approach, also based on the progressive literacy ideology, is
broad and flexible to accommodate the needs of individual learners who benefit
from both holistic teaching and the teaching of skills (Callahan & King, 2011;
Kaufman, Moss, & Osborn, 2003). Teachers who use the comprehensive approach
stress holistic teaching of the language arts and teach skills explicitly when stu-
dents need them. For example, these teachers use reading and writing workshops,
which allow students to read and write authentic texts of their choice. Within
each workshop, teachers demonstrate relevant skills to the whole class during the
daily minilessons and teach needed skills to individual students during confer-

In the integrated approach, the six components of the language arts

FIGURE 1.7 are woven into the study of all subject areas.

Listening
Viewing Reading

SOCIAL STUDIES

ART
SCIENCE

MATH

Speaking

Writing HEALTH & PHYSICAL

LITERATURE
EDUCATION
Visually Representing DRAMA MUSIC
 Introduction to the Language Arts 13

ences. Within each workshop, students also share favorite books as well as their
compositions, poems, essays, and other writings with classmates. Figure 1.8 gives
an overview of classroom strategies, with a description of their purpose and activi-
ties, used by teachers who embrace the comprehensive approach. Figure 1.9 is a
graphic depiction of the comprehensive approach.

Classroom strategies used in the comprehensive approach. FIGURE 1.8

READING
BUDDY READING
n Older students share love of books with younger students.

INDEPENDENT READING
n All students in school read book of their choice for 15 to 30 minutes.

EBOOKS
n Students follow along as computer reads books.

n Students hear fluent reading.

n Students are introduced to new vocabulary words.

GUIDED READING
n Teachers work with homogeneous groups to teach reading skills.

n Teachers teach phonics, word analysis, vocabulary, etc.

n Students read under teacher’s supervision.

n Students read graded books on their instructional level.

LANGUAGE EXPERIENCE APPROACH (LEA)

n Students express themselves while teacher acts as scribe.

n Students recognize words in print they use in their speech.

LITERACY CLUB
n Students who share interest in same book/author read and discuss books.

READING WORKSHOP
n Students choose genre and topics.

n Students share favorite books with peers.

Minilessons
n Teachers share with class information about authors and genres.

n Teachers instruct class on reading skills.

Conferences
n Peers read to each other.

n Teachers give explicit instruction on skills to individuals.

Share time
n Students share favorite sections or passages.

n Students share new vocabulary words.

SHARED READING
n Teachers share good literature that is at higher reading level.

n Students hear advanced vocabulary.

n Teachers and students discuss elements of stories.

n Teachers and students discuss information given in passage.

THINK-ALOUDS
n Teachers model reading strategies.

n Teachers teach metacognition skills.

(continued)
14 CHAPTER 1

FIGURE 1.8 Continued.

WORD WALLS
n Teachers display words in categories to help students automatically
recognize words.
n Students learn patterns within words.

n Students increase their vocabulary.

WRITING

COLLABORATIVE PROJECTS
n Students do authentic research and writing with other students in the classroom, the
United States, and the world.
E-PALS
n Students do authentic writing to form new friends around the world.

ONLINE RESEARCH PROJECT

n Students share research projects with other students around the world.

GUIDED WRITING
n Teachers work with homogeneous groups to teach writing skills.

n Teachers teach phonics, word analysis, vocabulary, etc.

n Students practice skills under teacher’s supervision.

INTERACTIVE WRITING
n Teachers do majority of writing, and students “share the pen” when they know letters/
words.
n Teachers explicitly teach phonics, word patterns, and other spelling skills.

JOURNAL WRITING
n Students express themselves personally.

n Students write for authentic purposes.

WRITING WORKSHOP
n Students choose genre and topics.

n Students share writing with peers.

Minilessons
n Teachers give explicit instruction on writing skills to class.

n Teachers share types of writing with class.

Conferences
n Peers help with revising and editing.

n Teachers give explicit instruction on writing skills to individuals.

Share Time
n Students share finished product with class.

VISUALLY REPRESENTING AND VIEWING

PUPPET SHOW
n Students work in small groups.

n Students improve expression and fluency.

n Students perform for audience.

READERS THEATER
n Students work in small groups.

n Students improve expression and fluency.

n Students perform for audience.

 Introduction to the Language Arts 15

Comprehensive approach model. FIGURE 1.9

lls
rd W a , L E A, B u d
, Wo d
yR
d in g E-pals, O ea
ea ry,
R p pet nl i n d
P u e

in
, C ol

d
re

g
tu d e nt –Te
ar e
l
s, S ac h

t
e

ea
c

ab
Sh e
en r

Th

or
Read
ls , Think-Alouds,

a ti
i ng

er

Co
ders

f
EH

ve
eer Co n
PR EN

n fe
W

P ro jects, I n
a

COM

SIV

re n c e s , G ui d e d
o rk
R e

shop, Wr
,

ns, P
in g

P
A PR

H
OAC
r i t

o
W
rn a

d e pe
e s

i ti
e

l ng
ni
v
ou

ti

i Wo
ac

rk s h o p, M

nd
Re
J

er
,

ad
s

en
I nt
ub

in g
,

t
Cl ,G
u id e d Wr i t i n g Re
y c ad
er a , Bo Li t
in g
o k P u bli s hi ng,

Obviously, the approaches to teaching the language arts have changed over time.
If you were to visit classrooms throughout the United States, you would probably
encounter every conceivable approach. Some teachers are slow to embrace change
and may still use the same method they learned in college. Other teachers embrace
new trends quickly, making frequent changes without really understanding the
theories behind new approaches. However, all teachers benefit from studying theo-
ries and becoming reflective and flexible in their methods. Remember that you are
teaching students, not a particular method. One approach to teaching language arts
may work with some students; another group may need a different approach. A
good teacher always meets the needs of individual students and understands why
he or she uses a particular approach.

TEACHERS AND SCHOOLS UNDERGO CHANGE

S chools are always experiencing change. Changes affecting the language arts are
the result of ongoing educational research, the growing population of students
whose native language is not English, and the increasing diversity in classrooms,
which requires inclusive and differentiated teaching practices. Additionally, changing
standards have also affected teaching the language arts. The prudent teacher becomes
knowledgeable about these changes and adapts her methods to reflect them.

Standards
No matter which approach to teaching language arts teachers embrace, they are
challenged to meet the demands of national and/or state standards in an inclusive
classroom. Standards, also called benchmarks or competencies, are skills and concepts
that students must master by the end of each grade level in each subject area. State
standards are written by and issued from each state’s Department of Education, and
16    CHAPTER 1

you will find there is great variance among them. For this reason, the Council of
Chief State School Officers (CCSSO) and the National Governors Association Center
for Best Practices (NGACBP) studied the state standards and developed one set of
standards so that when students move from one state to another, they will remain on
a similar trajectory as their new classmates and be able to adapt to the curriculum
with relative ease. The CCSSO and NGACBP developed the Common Core State
Standards for English language arts and literacy in history/social studies, science,
and technical subjects. The main purpose of these K–12 CCSS is to ensure that all
students are prepared for college or career training by the end of high school.
The IRA and many other professional groups provided feedback to the CCSSO and
NGACBP as the standards were being developed (Long, 2010). The CCSS have had an
impact on all levels of language arts teaching, especially as teachers have implemented
them. If you compare your state standards regarding the language arts to the CCSS, you
will likely notice some variations. Some state standards, for example, have specific direc-
tions for certain subgroups such as English learners, while the CCSS do not address any
specific subgroup. When analyzing and comparing the CCSS with state standards devel-
oped prior to the CCSS, you may find that the CCSS emphasize informational reading
and writing and higher-level thinking more than some state standards.
As with any change, both veteran and new teachers will need guidance put-
ting the standards into practice. You can find the entire list of the CCSS at www.
corestandards.org/assets/CCSSI_ELA%20Standards.pdf.
If you are looking at the CCSS for the first time, notice the beginning of each
category (e.g., Reading, Writing, Speak/Listening, Language, Foundational, and so
on) includes a page titled “College and Career Readiness Anchor.” These anchor
standards are the overarching standards for all grades. The standards following the
anchor standards define the standards for that subject area by grade levels and are
numbered so that they align with the anchor standards. You will also notice that
there are two sets of reading standards: one for literature and one for informational
texts. Those who wrote the standards understand that reading literature requires
skills different from those needed for reading informational text.
Because school principals require teachers to align their lesson objectives with
standards, you should become familiar with the formal way to document what
standard(s) your lesson is supporting. Imagine that your state has adopted the
CCSS, and you are aligning your reading lesson with the first reading anchor stan-
dard. Here are a few guidelines about CCSS citations:
n To cite the standard formally, you would write it like this: CCSS.ELA-Literacy.
CCRA.R.1. You read this as Common Core State Standard, English Language
Arts, Literacy, College and Career Readiness Anchor, reading, first standard.
n If you are working with the first reading literature standard for kindergarten,
you would write it like this: CCSS.ELA-Literacy.RL.K.1. This reads: Common
Core State Standards, English Language Arts, Literacy, Reading Literature, kin-
dergarten, first standard.
n If you want to align your sixth-grade objective to the third speaking/listening
standard, you would write it like this: CCSS.ELA-Literacy.SL.6.3.
n For less formal citations, you may choose to use a shortened version such as
CCRA.W.# (writing) or CCSS W.#.# (writing) that identify whether it is an
anchor or grade level standard, the strand, the grade level where appropriate,
and the standard number. For readability in this text, we will use the short-
ened format.
Become familiar with your state standards or the CCSS if your state has adopted
them so you know what you will be required to teach. Following is a classroom
vignette that shows how one teacher used the CCSS to guide his teaching.
 I N T H E CLASS R O O M
Mr. Wallace uses the CCSS to guide his teaching

Mr. Wallace, a fifth-grade teacher in Michigan, realizes that he Paulsen. Figure 1.10 is the assignment and graphic organizer
needs to engage his students in higher-level thinking activities that he gives to his students after they have read and dis-
reflected in the CCSS. One of the fifth-grade Reading Litera- cussed the two novels as a class. Mr. Wallace first gives time
ture standards (CCSS RL.5.9) states: “Compare and contrast for the students to complete the assignment individually,
stories in the same genre (e.g., mysteries and adventure then they discuss the assignment and graphic organizer as
stories) or their approaches to similar themes and topics” students add or delete any necessary information. Mr. Wallace
(NGACBP & CCSSO, 2010, p. 12). Mr. Wallace understands monitors the students as they work individually. They eagerly
that this standard requires his students to be able to identify search online for information concerning the natural settings
different themes in stories and then to compare and contrast of the two novels. At the end of the project, Mr. Wallace
the different themes, giving evidence for their statements. He realizes that this type of comparison assignment engages
constructs a graphic organizer to assist his students in com- the students more than when they merely discuss the literal
paring and contrasting two of their favorite novels by Gary setting, characters, and plot of a single novel.

Assignment and graphic organizer for comparing and contrasting two texts. FIGURE 1.10

We have read and discussed in class Hatchet (1999) and Haymeadow (1994), two adventure stories by Gary Paulsen.
Now compare and contrast the two novels by examining (a) the characters and their personalities, (b) the settings of
each novel by searching online to compare the fictional setting of each novel to the actual terrain of each setting, (c) the
plots, and (d) the themes. Provide examples of specific ways Paulsen creates suspense, giving direct quotes and refer-
ences. As a way of brainstorming, first complete the graphic organizer. Be sure to use explicit quotes (with page numbers)
to support your stance in each of the four areas.

Hatchet Haymeadow
SIMILARITIES
Both adventure novels about 14-year-old boys left alone to survive in nature.

DIFFERENCES
Theme
Learns about self as he studies the harmony in nature His goal is to earn acceptance from his father

Characters
Brian: John:
“Panic came then. He had been afraid, had been stopped “I was fourteen yesterday and nothing changed.” (p. 1).
with the terror of what was happening, but now panic “. . . sometimes the thought came then: The old man (John’s
came and he began to scream into the microphone, father] would have spent more time with his son.” (p. 14)
scream over and over. ‘Help! Somebody help me! I’m in
”He was going to be alone with the sheep for the rest of
this plane and don’t know . . . don’t know . . . don’t know
June, July, and August, until the first week in September.
. . .’ And he started crying with the screams, crying and
I’ll go crazy he thought. Nuts. I don’t even know what to
slamming his hands against the wheel of the plane…his
do, how to do anything.” (p. 24)
own screams mocking him, coming back into his ears.”
(p. 18) “John didn’t want his father to leave. There was some
new thing between them, from the talk all night, and he
At the end of the novel: “It was a strange feeling, holding the
didn’t want him to leave and he finally said it, ‘I don’t
rifle. It somehow removed him from everything around him.
want you to leave.’” (p. 194)
Without the rifle he had to fit in, to be part of it [nature] all,
to understand it and use—the woods, all of it . . . The rifle “He [John] thought: Ain’t it funny what makes a person glad?
changed him, the minute he picked it up, and he wasn’t Just to see that little figure ([his dad] riding back with the
sure he liked the change very much . . . .” (p. 190) packhorse in back of it and you could feel all glad.” (p. 195)

(continued)

17
18 CHAPTER 1

FIGURE 1.10 Continued.

Roadblocks
As Brian attempts to stay safe from wild animals, he is As John attempts to survive the attacks from coyotes,
able to make observations about elements of nature. skunks, rattlesnakes, and bears, his main focus is keeping
He observes that animals are only vicious when they the sheep safe instead of his personal survival.
feel they are being attacked, and that there is a cycle
in nature.

Settings
Canadian Wilderness Wyoming
“It is a vast, remote and largely empty land” (www.lawlibrary. Rugged terrain, valleys, large, flat plains. Treeless. Several
unm.edu) sparsely populated. Home to grizzly bears, thousands of ranches of sheep and cattle. 50% of land is
caribou, and wolverines (www.pc.gc.ca). used for grazing. Sparsely populated. Because of lack of
Paulsen mentioned moose, but these sources did not rain, when it does rain, it CAN result in flashfloods (www.
mention moose. sheppardsoftware.com).
“…at the endless green northern wilderness below” (p. 1) “It was early summer and summers in Wyoming were
hot.” (p. 1)
“…the horizon, spread with lakes, swamps, and
wandering streams and rivers.” (p. 2) The covered wagon that John had to live in for 3 months:
“They had to restretch and retie the canvas top to the
“…ocean of trees and lakes.” (p. 5)
wagon and clean the stove—a small wood-burning stove
in the corner of the trailer . . . It [wagon] was tiny—six feet
wide, twelve feet long, with a bunk and wooden boxes
nailed sideways to the wooden side to make shelves . . .”
(p. 71)
The haymeadow where John spent the 3 months: “It
was more than a meadow. More than just hay. It was
a wide, shallow valley between two rows of peaks. The
haymeadow itself was four sections, but the whole valley
was close to four miles across and nearly eight miles long
and so beautiful, John thought, that it almost took his
breath away.” (p. 71)

Sequence of Plot
Brian in plane to visit father Tink is ill so John needs to herd sheep for summer
Pilot has heart attack Skunks, rattlesnake come
Plane crashes; Brian survives His dog is wounded
Builds shelter Stampede comes
Eats berries and turtle eggs Flash flood comes
Porcupine attacks Pack of coyotes attack, he is injured, and only a few
Rescue plane flies over but he did not have fire signal sheep are lost
ready Discovers labels from food cans were washed away in
Attempts to kill self with hatchet flood
Moose attacks Attack by bear
Tornado comes After 47 days father and Tink come
Finds survival bag in plane John has first real conversation with Father and decides
to stay with Tink
Uses emergency transmitter to get rescued

CONCLUDING THOUGHTS
Both books are filled with suspense as the two characters need to use their minds and few available items to survive.
Both learned a lesson about themselves: Brian learns to live his life in tune with the harmony in nature; John had to
earn his father’s respect by proving he can do man’s work and that he can endure major upsets by himself.
 Introduction to the Language Arts 19

English Learners
According to the National Center for Education Statistics (NCES), “the percentage
of public school students in the United States who were English learners was higher
in school year 2011–12 (9.1 percent, or an estimated 4.4 million students) than in
2002–03 (8.7 percent, or an estimated 4.1 million students)” (NCES, 2014). Thus,
you must be prepared to meet these students’ needs.
The World Class Instructional Design and Assessment (WIDA) consortium
provides helpful information for teachers needing to identify the levels of language
development of English learners. The six levels of development in the areas of speak-
ing, listening, reading, and writing are (1) entering, (2) beginning, (3) developing,
(4) expanding, (5) bridging, and (6) reaching. WIDA provides a table of descriptors
for what English learners at each level can do. WIDA calls it the “Can Do” list. For
example, Kim, a first grader at the beginning level in reading, can be expected to sort
words into word families, while Jose, also a first grader, at the bridging level in reading
would be able to identify main ideas when reading a passage (see Figure 1.11). You can
access the table at WIDA’s download library at www.wida.us/downloadLibrary.aspx.

WIDA Can Do descriptors: Grade level cluster 1–2. FIGURE 1.11

For the given level of English language proficiency and with visual, graphic, or interactive support through Level 4, English
language learners can process or produce the language needed to:

Level 1 Level 2 Level 3 Level 4 Level 5

Entering Beginning Developing Expanding Bridging
n Identify symbols, n Search for pictures n Make text-to-self n Put words in order n Begin using features
icons, and environ- associated with word connections with to form sentences of non-fiction text to
mental print patterns prompting n Identify basic ele- aid comprehension
n Connect print to n Identify and interpret n Select titles to match ments of fictional n Use learning strate-
visuals pretaught labeled a series of pictures stories (e.g., title, gies (e.g., context
READING

n Match real-life diagrams n Sort illustrated setting, characters) clues)

familiar objects n Match voice to print content words into n Follow sentence- n Identify main ideas
to labels by pointing to icons, categories level directions n Match figurative lan-

LEVEL 6 – REACHING
n Follow directions letters, or illustrated n Match phrases and n Distinguish between guage to illustrations
using diagrams or words sentences to pic- general and specific (e.g., “as big as a
pictures n Sort words into word tures language (e.g., flower house”)
families v. rose) in context

n Copy written lan- n Provide information n Engage in prewriting n Produce original n Create a related
guage using graphic orga- strategies (e.g., use sentences series of sentences
n Use first language nizers of graphic organizers) n Create messages in response to
(L1, when L1 is a n Generate lists of n Form simple sen- for social purposes prompts
medium of instruc- words/phrases from tences using word/ (e.g., get well cards) n Produce content-
tion) to help form banks or walls phrase banks Compose journal related sentences
WRITING

n
words in English n Complete modeled n Participate in interac- entries about per- n Compose stories
n Communicate sentence starters tive journal writing sonal experiences n Explain processes
through drawings (e.g., “I like ____.”) n Give content-based n Use classroom or procedures
n Label familiar n Describe people, information using resources (e.g., using connected
objects or pictures places, or objects visuals or graphics picture dictionaries) sentences
from illustrated exam- to compose sen-
ples and models tences

The Can Do descriptors work in conjunction with the WIDA Performance Definitions of the English language proficiency stan-
dards. The Performance Definitions use three criteria (1. linguistic complexity; 2. vocabulary usage; and 3. language control) to
describe the increasing quality and quantity of students’ language processing and use across the levels of language proficiency.

Source: WIDA ELP Standards © 2007, 2012, Board of Regents of the University of Wisconsin System. WIDA is a trademark of the Board of Regents of the University of
Wisconsin System. For more information on using the WIDA ELP Standards please visit the WIDA website at www.wida.us.
20 CHAPTER 1

Teachers who use WIDA may need to make connections between the
WIDA “Can Do” statements and their state standards or the CCSS if
their state has adopted them. In our example, Kim’s “Can Do” aligns
with CCSS RF.1.3b: “Decode regularly spelled one-syllable words”
(p. 16), while Jose’s “Can Do” aligns with CCSS RL.1.2: “Retell
stories, including key details, and demonstrate understanding
of their central message or lesson” (NGACBP & CCSSO,
2010, p. 11). As you work with the WIDA “Can Do”
lists and the CCSS or state standards, making con-
nections between them will become easier.

Inclusion
Inclusion is a term that evolved from the
Individuals with Disabilities Education Act
(IDEA) of 1997. Inclusion is a social and educa-
tional practice that supports placing students with
disabilities in classes with their same-age peers with
proper support and accommodations. When IDEA was
signed into law in 1997, it was intended to give a free, appro-
priate public education in the least restrictive environment for
individuals with disabilities identified by the Act. The categories of
disabilities include autism, deaf-blindness, deafness, developmental
delay, emotional disturbance, hearing impairment, intellectual disabil-
ity, multiple disabilities, orthopedic impairment, other health impairment,
specific learning disability, speech or language impairment, traumatic brain
injury, and visual impairment including blindness (National Dissemination
Center for Children with Disabilities, 2012). This Act requires all students with
disabilities who are eligible for placement within the general education setting to
receive an individualized education program (IEP). IEPs must be prepared for any
student who is eligible for services as identified by IDEA. The plans are agreed upon
by parents, classroom teachers, special education teachers, and administrators who
set long-term goals and short-term objectives for the student with a plan of action
that will help the student reach state content standards.
The updated IDEA 2004 was signed into law that year. The purposes of this
version of IDEA are to ensure that
1. all students with identified disabilities, regardless of severity, receive a free
appropriate public education;
2. the identification and evaluation of these students are nondiscriminatory;
3. the rights of students with disabilities and their parents’ rights are protected,
including due process;
4. students with disabilities are not discriminated against in discipline issues;

“
5. infants and toddlers with disabilities receive early identification and interven-
tion; and
6. schools and parents receive the tools necessary to assist students with dis-
abilities.
IDEA 2004 also states that “a learning disability may
Who dares to teach must never be present when a student’s performance is not adequate to
meet grade-level standards when provided with appropri-
cease to learn. ate instruction and research-based interventions” (Mesmer
JOHN COTTON DANA & Mesmer, 2009, p. 281). Eight areas are used as the cri-
 “
Introduction to the Language Arts 21

teria for determining the existence of a specific learning

disability as defined in IDEA. The six areas that focus on Teaching means helping
the language arts are oral expression, written expression,

”
basic reading skills, fluency, listening comprehension, and a child reach his [or her]
reading comprehension. potential.
IDEA 2004 requires schools to have a Response to
Intervention (RTI) plan, a framework for identifying students with learning dis- ERICH FROMM
abilities and providing them with instructional services. An RTI plan requires
schools to provide appropriate intervention for students who are not perform-
ing at grade level in the eight areas. Although the specific approaches vary, the
method should involve a cyclical process that begins with assessment, followed
by intervention, more assessment, and more intense intervention until students
are either performing at grade level or receiving special services for a specific
learning disability. Each school district has its own RTI plan, so make sure you
understand your district’s plan when you begin teaching.

Differentiation
As teachers prepare daily lessons, they need to differentiate the learning experience
in order to meet the needs of all students. Differentiation is the use of a variety of
teaching and learning strategies to meet the range of needs evident in a given class-
room (Friend & Bursuck, 2009). The content, the process by which the content is
taught, and the product that students produce can all be differentiated. Differentia-
tion, however, “is not a recipe for teaching. It is not an instructional strategy. It is
not what a teacher does when he or she has time. . . . It is a philosophy” (Tom-
linson, 2000, p. 6). According to Tomlinson, teachers who practice differentiation
believe that students
n have varying abilities, including the academically gifted.
n have varying interests, including those interested in the visual and perform-
ing arts.
n have a variety of learning styles.
n have different background experiences.
n learn at different paces.
n learn best in a community of learners who support them.
n learn best when they can connect school learning to their personal lives.
n need accommodations in order to reach their potential.
Differentiation creates a student-centered classroom because it provides mate-
rials and tasks at various levels of difficulty and with varying levels of instructional
support. The needs of every student are addressed for each lesson. Some students
may have IEPs, whereas others do not. For example, in Mr. Green’s classroom,
one student needs additional time to complete assignments, while another student
needs an adult to sit alongside him so that he remains focused. The student who
is blind needs all texts in audio format, large print, or in Braille, and the student
with a hearing loss needs to sit close to Mr. Green so that she can hear him and
read his lips. The student who is deaf needs someone to sign during instructional
times. Mr. Green’s students who have been identified as academically gifted need
projects that challenge them. Their products may take on different formats than
the products of other students. For example, these students may choose to write
and produce a play about an assigned novel instead of completing a written book
report assigned to other students. All the differentiations are necessary in order for
Mr. Green’s students to complete lessons successfully.
22 CHAPTER 1

As you read this text and learn about different activities to use while teaching the
language arts, reflect on how you can differentiate your teaching to meet the needs
of students who face various challenges, including those who have limited English
skills, those who have sensory disabilities, and those who require more challenging,
higher-level thinking projects.

TECHNOLOGY I N T H E C L A S S R O O M

Each chapter in this book includes a “Technology in the Classroom” section, and
Appendices A.1 and A.2 include lists of additional sites for teachers and students.
Fast-paced technology changes over the past two decades have influenced the edu-
cational paradigm, making the Internet a useful tool for teachers and students. The
following sites offer information about recent research.
www.education-world.com This site offers a wide range of articles for teachers
and administrators regarding many education issues.
http://nces.ed.gov/pubsearch The National Center for Education Statistics,
part of the U.S. Department of Education, releases the statistical reports for
education in the United States. They include such topics as academic achieve-
ment and assessment, elementary education, parental involvement, students
at risk, and technology.
www.ncte.org This National Council of Teachers of English site includes
resources divided into elementary, middle school, high school, and college
levels.
www.reading.org The International Reading Association’s site includes many
free resources in addition to a members-only section.
www.corestandards.org This site lists the Common Core State Standards by
subject (Reading: Literature; Reading: Informational Text; Reading: Founda-
tional Skills; Writing; Speaking and Listening; and Language) and grade level.

SUMMARY

G ood teaching involves constant and continuous decision making. This is the
heart of what it means to be a reflective teacher. To achieve this, you must
develop a philosophy of education as it relates to students, teaching, and learning,
and you must apply this philosophy specifically to teaching language arts.
There are four main approaches to teaching the language arts. In the separate
skills approach the language arts curriculum is broken down into many sepa-
rate subskills, which are taught in isolation from one another. This is more of a
managerial system than an instructional approach, with the teacher as the prime
manager and students assuming passive roles. The whole language approach is
more student-centered because, for example, students are given a choice of which
books to read and genres to write in. The whole language approach integrates all
six of the language arts areas. It focuses on the needs, experiences, and interests
of the individual student; it uses authentic texts to develop literacy awareness;
and it tries to make learning language a natural extension of using language. The
integrated approach, as its title suggests, integrates use of the six language arts
across the curriculum. The comprehensive approach focuses on reading and writ-
ing authentic texts and providing a balance of teacher-taught skills as needed by
individual students.
 “ ”
Introduction to the Language Arts 23

The primary focus of this textbook is a comprehen-

sive, integrated approach. We advocate not only the Teaching is the art of assisting
integration of the six communication arts areas but also
believe that these areas serve as the foundation for other discovery.
content areas such as math, social studies, and science. MARK VAN DOREN
We also stress the accommodation of individual learner needs through both holis-
tic teaching and the teaching of skills explicitly when students need them.
As you embark on your teaching career, you will make many decisions: How
will you include all the components of the language arts? What learning theories
do you embrace? How do you believe the language arts should be taught? What
new policies do you need to consider? What activities will be best for your class?
How will you meet the needs of all your students, including those with learning
disabilities and those who are academically gifted? This chapter has introduced
you to several learning theories, approaches to teaching the language arts, and cur-
rent policies. The following section includes activities you can use with students in
a field placement or tutoring setting. We hope you will evaluate your effectiveness
after each lesson. We have also included a Self-Diagnostic Instrument in Appendix
C, which you can use to determine your preparedness for teaching various skills
of the language arts.

field AND practicum ACTIVITIES

At the end of each chapter, we share integrated activities you can use in your class-
room. Some of the ideas are for a specific grade level, but many can be modified
to use in a variety of grade levels. We encourage you to keep a collection of these
ideas in order to grow your own repertoire.

1. COMPARE APPROACHES TO TEACHING THE LANGUAGE ARTS. This activity gives

you an opportunity to experiment with two different approaches to teaching the
language arts while working with students. Reflect on which approach you think
is more effective for the group of students you taught and why.
For one lesson with one group of students, explicitly teach the rules for using
quotation marks in dialogue and follow it with a worksheet of sentences in which
the students practice applying the rule. Collect and grade the papers. A week later,
give a writing assignment that you know requires the students to use quotation
marks in the way you explicitly taught, but do not review the rule with the stu-
dents. Collect and grade those papers, analyzing in particular how well the students
applied the rule.
On another day, share a story with another group of students and talk about
how an author uses quotation marks when she wants to show the readers that
a person is talking. Give ample time for students to find quotation marks in
the story and to discuss how direct quotations make a story come alive. Then
invite the students to write their own story, encouraging them to use direct quo-
tations. Collect those stories and analyze whether the students correctly used
quotation marks. About a week later, invite the students to write another story
using quotations, but do not review the quotation mark rules. Collect and ana-
lyze those stories.
Finally, analyze the two lessons to determine whether (1) the students trans-
ferred their learning from one lesson to the other, and (2) whether they did better
in transferring their learning when you explicitly taught the punctuation rules or
when you used the other approach.
24 CHAPTER 1

FIGURE 1.12 Venn diagram comparing two versions of The Mitten.

by by
Alvin Jan
Tresselt Brett

mitten, made of leather with boys live by mitten, made of white wool,
red lining and fur cuffs grandma knitted by Baba
frog mouse mole
wolf owl hedgehog
boar rabbit badger
cricket fox Bear sneezes when mouse sits
Cricket’s entry breaks mitten bear on his nose
Boy notices pieces of broken all animals Nicki found “big” mitten
mitten scatter
Grandma will knit new one

Source: DeVries, B. A. (2015). Literacy Assessment and Intervention for Classroom Teachers. Scottsdale, AZ: Holcomb Hathaway.

2. COMPARE AND CONTRAST TWO VERSIONS OF THE MITTEN. CCSS RL.2.9 states that
students be able to “compare and contrast two or more versions of the same stories
by different authors or from different cultures” (NGACBP & CCSSO, 2010, p. 11).
After sharing two versions of The Mitten, one by Jan Brett (1999) and the other by
Alvin Tresselt (1964), invite a group of second graders to complete the graphic
organizer shown in Figure 1.12. Recommended for primary grades.
References

Ajayi, L. (2009, April). English as a second language Anderson, N. A. (2010). The value of children’s literature.
learners’ exploration of multimodal texts in a junior Retrieved from www.education.com/reference/article/
high school. Journal of Adolescent & Adult Literacy, value-childrens-literature/.
52(7), 585–595. Anderson, R. C. (2013). Role of the reader’s schema in
Akhavan, N. (2004). How to align literacy instruction, assess- comprehension, learning, and memory. In D. Alver-
ment, and standards. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann. mann, N. Unrau, & R. Ruddell (Eds.), Theoretical
ALA. 2014. The Coretta Scott King Book Awards. Retrieved models and processes of reading (pp. 476–488). New-
from www.ala.org/emiert/cskbookawards. ark, DE: International Reading Association.
Albers, P., Dooley, C., Flint, A., Holbrook, P., & May, L. Anderson, R. C., Hiebert, E. H., Scott, J. A., & Wilkinson,
(2012, Jan.). Writing the image, writing the world. I. (1985). Becoming a nation of readers: The report of the
Language Arts, 89(3), 163–165. Commission on Reading. Washington, DC: National
Alderman, G., & Green, S. (2011). Fostering lifelong spell- Institute of Education, the National Academy of
ers through meaningful experiences. The Reading Education.
Teacher, 64(8), 599–605. Applebee, A., & Langer, J. (2011, July). A snapshot of
Allington, R. (2002a). Big brother and the national reading writing instruction in middle school and high school.
curriculum: How ideology trumped evidence. Portsmouth, English Journal, 100(6), 14–27.
NH: Heinemann. Atwell, N. (1998). In the middle: New understandings about
Allington, R. (2002b, June). What I’ve learned about effec- writing, reading and learning (2nd ed.). Portsmouth,
tive reading instruction. Phi Delta Kappan. NH: Boynton/Cook.
Allington, R. (2013). What really matters when working Au, K. H., Mason, J. M., & Scheu, J. A. (1995). Literacy
with struggling readers. The Reading Teacher, 66(7), instruction today. New York: HarperCollins.
520–230. Balch, B. (2008). Little Miss Matched’s the writer in me:
Alvermann, D., Phelps, S.,& Ridgeway, V. (2007). Content How to write like nobody else. New York: Workman
area reading and literacy: Succeeding in today’s diverse Publishing.
classrooms. Boston: Pearson. Ballew, J. (2012). A literate life: The writer’s notebook.
Alvermann, D., Unrau, N., & Ruddell, R. (Eds.). (2013). New York: Teacher’s College, National Writing
Theoretical models and processes of reading. Newark, Project.
DE: International Reading Association. Barnett, C. G., & Roberson, S. (2005, Oct. 6–9). Teacher
Amaral, O. M., Garrison, L., & Klentschy, M. (2002, Sum- book clubs: A tool for collaboration. Paper presented
mer). Helping English learners increase achievement at the annual meeting of the American Association of
through inquiry-based science instruction. Bilingual School Librarians Conference, Pittsburgh.
Research Journal, 26(2), 213–239. Bartholomew, B. (2012). Where’s literature in the Common
Ancona, G. (1999). Carnival. Illus. G. Ancona. Orlando, Core? Educational Leadership, 69(7), 82–85.
FL: Harcourt. Bauer, E., and Arazi, J. (2011). Promoting literacy devel-
Anderson, J. (2005). Mechanically inclined: Building gram- opment for beginning English learners. The Reading
mar, usage and style into writer’s workshop. Portland, Teacher, 64(5), 383–386.
ME: Stenhouse. Bauerlein, V. (2013, Jan. 30). The new script for teaching
Anderson, L. H. (2010). Chains. New York: Atheneum. handwriting is no script. Wall Street Journal.

407
408    REFErENCES

Beach, R. (2011, May). Issues in analyzing alignment of Borelli, F. (2001). The school–home connection. Media
Language Arts Common Core Standards with State & Methods, 37(5), 34–37.
Standards. Education Researcher, 40(4), 179–182. Bormuth, J.R. (1968). Cloze test readability: Criterion
Beall, P. C., & Nipp, S. H. (1979). Wee sing: Children’s referenced scores. Journal of Educational Measure-
songs and fingerplays. New York: Price Stern Sloan. ment, 5(3), 189–196.
Bear, D., Invernizzi, M., Templeton, S., & Johnston, F. Borrero, N., and Yeh, C. (2010, Nov.). Ecological English
(2007). Words their way: Word study for phonics, language learning among ethnic-minority youth. Edu-
vocabulary, and spelling instruction (4th ed.). Upper cation Researcher, 39(8), 571–581.
Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall/Merrill. Boyer, T. A. (2006, July/August). Writing to learn in social
Beck, I. L., McKeown, M. G., Hamilton, R. L., & Kucan, studies. The Social Studies, 158–160.
L. (1997). Questioning the author: An approach for Braiker, B. (2011, Jan. 24). Tossing the script: The end of
enhancing student engagement with text. Newark, DE: the line for cursive? ABC News. Retrieved from http://
International Reading Association. abcnews.go.com/US/end-cursive/story?id=12749517.
Becker, A. (2013). Journey, Illus. A. Becker. New York: Brett, J. (1988). The mitten. Illus. J.Brett. New York: G.P.
Candlewick. Putnam’s Sons.
Bell, L. I. (2002/2003). Strategies that close the gap. Edu- Brett, J. (2004). The umbrella. Illus. J.Brett. New York: G.P.
cational Leadership, 60(4), 32–34. Putnam’s Sons.
Bemelmans, L. (1939). Madeline. Illus. L. Bemelmans. Britton, A. (2012). Crocodilian Biology database. Online:
Penguin Group. http://crocodilian.com/cnhc/cbd-faq-q1.htm
Benson, B., & Barnett, S. (2005). Student-led conferencing, Britton, J. (1986). Language and learning. New York: Pen-
using showcase portfolios (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, guin.
CA: Corwin Press. Bromley, K. (1988). Language arts: Exploring connections.
Berger, M. (1999). Growl! A book about bears. New York: Boston: Allyn & Bacon.
Scholastic. Bromley, K. (2003). Building a sound writing program. In
Berkley, T. (2010, Nov.). Sparking innovation in U.S. L. M. Morrow, L. B. Gambrell, & M. Pressley (Eds.),
communities and school districts. Phi Delta Kappan, Best practices in literacy instruction (pp. 143–165). New
92(3), 29–31. York: Guilford Press.
Bernice, N. (2007). Extreme makeover: Classroom edition: Brookhart, S. M. (2008). Portfolio assessment. In T. L.
Changing the environment to match students’ learn- Good (Ed.), 21st century education: A reference hand-
ing styles. Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision book. Tucson, AZ: Sage.
& Curriculum Development. Retrieved from www. Bruner, J. S. (1961a). The process of education. Cambridge,
ascd.org/ascd-express/vol1/118-bernice.aspx. MA: Harvard University Press.
Bettelheim, B. (1976). The uses of enchantment: The Bruner, J. S. (1961b). A study of thinking. New York: Wiley
meaning and importance of fairy tales. New York: & Sons.
Random House. Bruner, J. S. (1962). On knowing. Cambridge, MA: Harvard
Bickers, J. (2007). The young and graphic novels. Publishers University Press.
Weekly. Retrieved from www.publishersweekly.com. Bruner, J. S. (1966). Toward a theory of instruction. Cam-
Bigelow, B. (1989). Discovering Columbus: Rereading the bridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
past. Language Arts, 66(6), 635–643. Bruner, J. S. (1978). The role of dialogue in language
Birckmayer, J., Kennedy, A., & Stonehouse, A. (2010). acquisition. In A. Sinclair, R. J. Jarvella, & W. M. Lev-
Sharing spoken language: Sounds, conversations, and elt (Eds.), The child’s conception of language. New York:
told stories. Young Children, 65(1), 34–39. Springer-Verlag.
Blachowicz, C. L., Fisher, P. J., & Watts-Taffe, S. (2011). Bruner, J. S. (1983). Child’s talk: Learning to use language.
Teaching vocabulary: Leading edge research and New York: W. W. Norton.
practice. In T. Rasinski (Ed.), Rebuilding the founda- Bruner, J. S. (1987). Making sense: The child’s construction
tion: Effective reading instruction for 21st century liter- of the world. London: Metheun Publishing Company.
acy (pp. 203–222). Bloomington, IN: Solution Tree.
Bruner, J. S. (1997). The culture of education. Cambridge,
Blamey, K., & Beauchat, K. (2011). Word walk: vocabu- MA: Harvard University Press.
lary instruction for young children. The Reading Bryan, G., Fawson, P., & Reutzel, D. R. (2003). Sustained
Teacher, 65(1), 71–75. silent reading: Exploring the value of literature discus-
Bloom, B. S. (1956). Taxonomy of educational objectives: sion with three non-engaged readers. Reading Research
The classification of educational goals. Handbook 1: and Instruction,43(1), 47–73.
Cognitive domain. New York: David McKay. Bryce, N. (2011). Meeting the reading challenges of sci-
Boodt, G. (1984). Critical listening. The Reading Teacher, ence textbooks in the primary grades. The Reading
37(4), 390–394. Teacher, 64(7), 474–485.
 REFErENCES     409

Bryce, N. (2012). Mano a mano: Arts based non-fiction Center for Public Education (2010). Face of our chang-
literacy and content area learning. Language Arts, 89(3), ing nation. Retrieved from www.centerforpublicedu-
179–193. cation.org.
Burgess, S. (2003). Shared reading correlates of early reading Chase, M. (2012). Revision process ad practice: A kinder-
skills. Reading Online. Retrieved from ww.readingonline. garten experience. Language Arts, 89(3), 166–178.
org/articles/burgess/index.html Checkley, K. (1997). The seventh . . . and eighth. Educa-
Burleigh, R. (2007). Stealing home: Jackie Robinson: tional Leadership, 55(1), 8–13.
Against the odds. Illus. M. Wimmer. New York: Cheek, A., Hunter Nix, L., & Foxfire Students (Eds.)
Simon & Schuster. (2006). The Foxfire 40th anniversary book: Faith, fam-
Bus, A. G., Verhallen, M. J. A. J., & de Jong, M. T. ily and the land. New York: Anchor.
(2009). How onscreen storybooks contribute to early Chertoff, E. (2013, January 17). Reggio Emilia: From post-
literacy. In A. G. Bus & S. B. Neuman (Eds.), Multi- war Italy to NYC’s toniest preschools. The Atlantic.
media and Literacy Development: Improving Achieve-
Chiang, M., Crane, C., Hamalainen, K., & Jones, L.
ment for Young Learners (pp. 153–167). New York:
(2010). Oil spill: Disaster in the gulf. New York:
Routledge.
Scholastic.
Cabell, S. Q., Tortorelli, L. S., & Gerde, H. K. (2013) How
Choate, J., & Rakes, T. (1987). The structured listening
do I write . . . ? Scaffolding preschoolers’ early writing
activity: A model for improving listening comprehen-
skills. The Reading Teacher, 66(8), 650–659.
sion. The Reading Teacher, 41(2), 194–200.
Calkins, L. (1983). Lessons from a child: On the teaching
Chomsky, N. (1974). Aspects of the theory of syntax.
and learning of writing. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.
Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Calkins, L. (1994). The art of teaching writing (2nd ed.).
Christelow, E. (2010). The desperate dog writes again. New
Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.
York: Clarion Press.
Calkins, L. (2001). The art of teaching reading. New York:
Christie, J., Enz, B., & Vukelich, C. (2003). Teaching lan-
Longman.
guage and literacy (2nd ed.). Boston: Allyn & Bacon.
Callahan, M., & King, J. (2011). Classroom remix:
Chun, C. (2009, Oct.). Critical literacies and graphic nov-
Patterns of pedagogy in a techno-literacies poetry
els for English-language learners: Teaching Maus. Jour-
unit. Journal of Adolescent & Adult Literacy, 55(2),
nal of Adolescent and Adult Literacy, 53(2), 144–153.
134–144.
Clay, M. (1975). What did I write? Portsmouth, NH: Hei-
Callahan, R. B. (2009). Perceptions and use of graphic
nemann.
novels in the classroom. Unpublished Master’s The-
sis. Ohio University. Clay, M. (1979). Reading: The patterning of complex behav-
ior (2nd ed.). Auckland, New Zealand: Heinemann.
Cambourne, B. (1988). The whole story: Natural learning
and the acquisition of literacy in the classroom. Jeffer- Clay, M. (1985). The early detection of reading difficulties
son City, MO: Scholastic. (3rd ed.). Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.
Cambourne, B. (2001). What do I do with the rest of the Clay, M. (1991). Becoming literate: The construction of inner
class? The nature of teaching-learning activities. Lan- control. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.
guage Arts, 79(2), 124–135. Clay, M. (1993). Reading Recovery. Portsmouth, NH: Hei-
Cambourne, B. (2002). Holistic, integrated approaches to nemann.
reading and language arts instruction: The construc- Clay, M. (2000). Running records for classroom teachers.
tivist framework of an instructional theory. In A. E. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.
Farstrup & S. J. Samuels (Eds.), What research has Cohen, V. L., & Cowen, J. E. (2008). Literacy for chil-
to say about reading instruction (pp. 25–47). Newark, dren in an information age. Belmont, CA: Thompson
DE: International Reading Association. Wadsworth.
Carbo, M. (1997). Reading styles times twenty. Educa- Coil, Carolyn. (2008). Keys to successful differentiation:
tional Leadership, 54(6), 38–42. Training, time practice and sharing. E-zine, 2(3).
Carnegie Council for Advancing Adolescent Literacy Retrieved from www.carolyncoil.com/ezine23.htm.
(2010). Time to act: An agenda for advancing ado- Coleman, E. (1996). White sock only. Illus. by T. Geter.
lescent literacy for college and career success. New New York: Albert Whiteman.
York: Author. Coleman, J.,Golson-Bradley, L.,& Donovan, C. (2012).
Castek, J., & Beach, R. (2013). Using apps to support Visual representation in second graders’ informa-
disciplinary literacy and science. Journal of Adolescent tional book composition. The Reading Teacher,
and Adult Literacy 56(7), 554–564. 66(1), 31–46.
Cecil, N. L. (2015). Striking a balance: A comprehensive Collier, L. (Sept. 2011). Keeping students at the center
approach to early literacy (5th ed.). Scottsdale, AZ: of the Common Core classroom. NCTE Council
Holcomb Hathaway. Chronicle, 21(1), 6–9.
410    REFErENCES

Colwell, J., Hutchinson, A., and Reinking, D. (2012, strategies versus traditional instruction. Journal of
March). Using blogs to promote literary response Direct Instruction, 6(1), 1–16.
during professional development. Language Arts, Day, A. (1991). Carl’s afternoon in the park. New York:
89(4), 232–243. Farrar, Straus & Giroux.
Communities in Schools of North Carolina (2011). CISNC de Jong, M. T., & Bus A. G. (2003). How well suited are
website. Retrieved from www.cisnc.org. electronic books to supporting literacy? Journal of
Compton-Lilly, C. (2009, July). Listening to families over Early Childhood Literacy, 3(2), 147–164.
time: Seven lessons learned about literacy in families. De Pass, R. (2011). Dialogue journals in the classroom. Edu-
Language Arts, 86(6), 449–457. cation Planet. Retrieved from www.lessonplanet.com/
Cooper, P., & Morreale, S. (2003). Creating competent article/writing/dialogue-journals-in-the-classroom.
communicators. Scottsdale, AZ: Holcomb Hathaway. Deasy, R. (Ed.). (2002). Critical link: Learning in the arts
Cornett, C. (2010). Creating meaning through literature and and student academic and social development. Wash-
the arts: An integration resource for classroom teachers ington, DC: Arts Education Partnership.
(4th ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson/Merrill/ DeFelice, C. (2003). Under the same sky. New York: Far-
Prentice Hall. rar, Straus, & Giroux.
Cornett, C. E. (2007). Creating meaning through literature
DeFord, D., Mills, H., & Donnelly, A. (2012). Toward a
and the arts: An integration resource for classroom
different kind of writing instruction. Language Arts,
teachers (3rd ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson/
89(3), 194–203.
Merrill/Prentice Hall.
dePaola, T. (1978). Pancakes for breakfast. New York:
Cornett, C. E., & Smithrim, K. L. (2001). The arts as
HMH Books.
meaning makers: Integrating literature and the arts
throughout the curriculum. Toronto, ONT: Pearson dePaola, T. (2005). Stagestruck. New York: G. P. Putnam’s
Education Canada. Sons.
Cowan, K., & Albers, P. (2006). Semiotic representa- Dettmer, P. (2006, Winter). New Blooms in established
tions: Building complex literacy practices through fields: Four domains of learning and doing. Roeper
the arts. The Reading Teacher, 60(2), 124–137. Review, 28(2), 70–78.
Cox, D. J. ( 2014) What are Polar Bears? Online: www. Devine, T. (1982). Listening skills schoolwide: Activities
polarbearsinternational.org/about-polar-bears/essen- and progress. Urbana, IL: National Council of Teach-
tials/what-are-polar-bears. ers of English.
Crepeau, J., & Richards, M. (2003) A show of hands: Using DeVries, B. A. (2015). Literacy assessment & intervention
puppets with children. St. Paul, MN: Redleaf Press. for classroom teachers (4th ed.). Scottsdale, AZ: Hol-
Croninger, R., & Lee, V. (2001). Social capital and drop- comb Hathaway.
ping out of high school: Benefits to at-risk students Dickinson, D., & McCabe, A. (2001). Bringing it all together:
of teachers’ support and guidance. Teachers College The multiple origins, skills, and environmental supports
Record, 86(4), 548–581. of early literacy. Disabilities Research and Practice, 16(4),
Cudd, E. T.,& Roberts, L. (1989). Using writing to enhance 186–202.
content area learning in the primary grades. The Read- Doner, K. (2008). On a road in Africa. Illus. K. Diner. Tri-
ing Teacher, 42(6), 392–404. cycle Press.
Cullinan, B., & Wooten, D. (Eds.). (2010). Another jar of Doyne, S., & Ojalvo, H. E. (2010, Nov.). Going into
tiny stars: Poems by more NCTE award-winning poets. detail: Developing proofreading skills. New York
New York: Wordsong. Times. Retrieved from http://learning.blogs.nytimes.
Cunningham, P., Hall, D., & Defee, M. (1991). Nonabil- com/2010/11/08/going-into-detail-developing-proof-
ity-grouped, multilevel instruction: A year in a first reading-skills/.
grade classroom. The Reading Teacher, 44, 566–571. Dragonwagon, L. (1986). Alligator arrived with apples: A
D’Angelo, K. (1982). Developing legibility and unique- potluck alphabet book. New York: MacMillan.
ness in handwriting with calligraphy. Language Arts Dubois, K., Erickson, K., & Jacobs, M. (2007). Improving
Journal, 59(1), 23–27. spelling of high frequency words for transfer to writ-
Daly, N. (2006). Pretty Salma: A Little Red Riding Hood ten work. Unpublished master’s thesis, Saint Xavier
story from Africa. New York: Clarion Books. University, Chicago, IL.
Daniels, H. (2002). Recent research on literature circles. Duke, N. K., Purcell-Gates, V., Hall, L., & Tower, C.
In literature circles: Voices and choices in book clubs (2006). Authentic literacy activities for developing
and reading groups. Portland, ME: Stenhouse. comprehension and writing. The Reading Teacher,
Darch, C., Eaves, R., Crowe, D., Simmons, K., & Con- 60(4), 344–355.
niff, A. (2006). Teaching spelling to students with Duke, N. K., & Tower, C. (2004). Nonfiction texts for
learning disabilities: A comparison of rule–based young readers. In J. V. Hoffman & D. L. Schallert
 REFErENCES     411

(Eds.). The texts in elementary classrooms (pp. 125–144). Enciso, P., Katz, L., Kiefer, B., Price-Dennis, D., & Wil-
Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum. son, M. (2006). Words, signs, and social relations.
Duke, N., Purcell-Gates, V., Hall, L., & Tower, C. (2006, Language Arts, 84(1), 8–9.
December). Authentic literacy activities for develop- English, K. (2010). Nikki & Deja: The newsy news news-
ing comprehension and writing. The Reading Teacher, letter. New York: Clarion Press.
60(4), 344–355. Evans, R. (2005). Reframing the achievement gap. Phi
Duke, N., & Roberts, K. L. (2010). The genre-specific Delta Kappan, 86(8), 582–589.
nature of reading comprehension and the case of Fang, Z. (2012). Approaches to developing content area
informational text. In D. Wase, R. Andrews, & literacies: A synthesis and a critique. Journal of Ado-
J.Hoffman (Eds.), The international handbook of Eng- lescent and Adult Literacy, 56(2), 103–108.
lish language and literacy teaching (pp. 74–86). Lon-
Feezel, G. (2012) Robust vocabulary instruction in a read-
don, UK: Routledge.
ers’ workshop. The Reading Teacher, 66(3), 233–237.
Dunn, R. (1996). How to implement and supervise a learn-
Ferriero, E., & Teberosky, A. (1983). Writing before
ing styles program. Alexandria, VA: Association of
schooling. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.
Supervision and Curriculum Development.
Finn, C. E. (2013). The Common Core State Standards
Dunn, R., Craig, M., Fevre, L., Markus, D., Pedota, P.,
initiative: Using Lexile measures to access college
Sookdeo, G., Stock, J., & Terry, B. (2010). No light
and career readiness. Retrieved from http://www.
at the end of the tunnel vision: Steps for improving
lexile.com/using-lexile/lexile-measures-and-the-ccssi/
lesson plans. The Clearing House, 85, 194-206. Online
text-complexity-grade-bands-and-lexile-ranges.
DOI: 101080/00098650903507 460.
Fisher, D., & Frey, N. (2012). Close reading in the elemen-
Dunning, S., Lueders, E., & Smith, H. (1974). Reflections
tary schools. The Reading Teacher, 66(3), 179–188.
on a gift of watermelon pickle . . . And other modern
verse. New York: Scholastic. Fiske, E. (Ed.). (1999). Champions of change: The impact
of the arts on learning. Washington, DC: The Arts
Dupont, S. (1992). The effectiveness of creative drama
Education Partnership and The President’s Commit-
as an instructional strategy to enhance reading com-
tee on the Arts.
prehension skills. Reading Research and Instruction,
31(3), 41–52. Flanigan, K., Templeton, S., & Hayes, L. (2012). What’s
in a word? Using content vocabulary to generate
Eaton, S. E. (2012). 27 great resources on using portfolio growth in general academic vocabulary. Journal of
for language learning and literacy. Online: http:// Adolescent & Adult Literacy, 56(2), 132–140.
drsaraheaton.wordpress.com/2011/06/10/resources-
on-using-portfolios-for-language-learning/ Fleming, G. A. (Ed.). (1990). Children’s dance. Reston,
VA: American Alliance for Health, Physical Educa-
Echevarria, J., Vogt, M. E., & Short, D. (2004). Making tion, Recreation and Dance.
content comprehensible to English learners: The SIOP
model. Boston: Allyn & Bacon. Fletcher, R. (1996). A writer’s notebook. New York: Harper
Collins.
Edelsky, C., Altwerger, B., & Flores, B. (1991). Whole
language: What’s new. In C. Edelsky (Ed.), Literacy: Fletcher, R., & Portalupi, J. (2001). Writing workshop:
Justice for all. London: Falnon. The essential guide. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.
Ediger, M. (2001). Cooperative learning versus competi- Fletcher, R., & Portalupi, J. (2007). Craft lessons: Teach-
tion: Which is better? Arlington, VA. (ERIC Docu- ing writing K–8 (2nd ed.). Portland, ME: Stenhouse.
ment Reproduction No. ED 461894). Floca, B. (2013). Locomotive. Illus. B. Floca. New York:
Edwards, L. (2003). Writing instruction in kindergarten: Atheneun/Richard Jackson.
Examining an emerging area of research for chil- Flower, L., & Hayes, J. R. (1981). A cognitive process
dren with writing and reading difficulties. Journal of theory of writing. College composition and communi-
Learning Disabilities, 36(2), 136–148. cation, 32, 365–387.
Elbaum, B.,Vaughn, S., Hughes, M. T., & Moody, S. W. Ford, M. P. (1989/1990). Maximizing literacy opportu-
(2000). How effective are one-to-one tutoring programs nities through cross-age groupings. Reading Today,
in reading for elementary students at risk for reading 7(3), 14.
failure? A Meta-analysis of the Intervention Research. Forehand, M. (2005). From emerging perspective on learn-
Journal of Educational Psychology, 92(4), 605–619. ing, teaching and technology. Online: http://epltt.coe.
Elder, L., & Paul, R. (2005). Critical thinking . . . and uga.edu/index.php?title=Bloom%27s_Taxonomy.
the art of substantive writing. Journal of Developmen- Fountas, I. C., & Pinnell, G. S. (1996). Guided Reading.
tal Education, 29(1), 40–1. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.
Elkeles, C. (2002). Listening skills. Articles for Educators. Fountas, I. C. & Pinnell, G. S. (2000). Guiding Readers and
Retrieved from www.articlesforeducators.com/mem- writers (Grades 3–6): Teaching comprehension, genres,
ber.asp?aid=4. and content literacy. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.
412    REFErENCES

Frasier, D. (2007). Miss Alaineus: A vocabulary disaster. New Goodman, K. S. (1996). Ken Goodman on reading: A com-
York: Sandpiper. mon-sense look at the nature of language and the science
Freshour, F., & Bartholomew, P. (1989). Let’s start improv- of reading. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.
ing our own listening. Florida Reading Quarterly, 25(4), Goodman, K. S., Bird, L. B., & Goodman, Y. M. (Eds.).
28–30. (1992). The whole language catalog: Supplement on
Friend, M., & Bursuck, W. (2009). Including students with authentic assessment. Santa Rosa, CA: American School
special needs: A practical guide for classroom teachers Publisher.
(6th ed.). New York: Pearson. Goodman, K. S., & Goodman, Y. (1989). A kidwatcher’s
Fry, E. (1977). Fry’s readability graph: Clarifications, valid- guide to spelling. In K. Goodman, Y. Goodman, &
ity, and extensions to level 17. Journal of Reading, W. Hood (Eds.), The whole language evaluation book.
21(93), 242–252. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.
Galda, L., & Cullinan, B. E. (2002). Literature and the Goodman, Y. M. (1978). Kidwatching: An alternative to test-
child (5th ed.). Belmont, CA: Wadsworth/Thompson ing. The National Elementary Principal, 57(2), 41–45.
Learning. Goodman, Y. M. (1989). Roots of the whole-language
Gambrell, L. (1983). The occurrence of think-time during movement. The Elementary School Journal, 90(2),
reading comprehension instruction. Journal of Educa- 113–127.
tional Research, 77(3), 77–80. Goodwin, A., Lipsky, M., & Ahn, S. (2012). Word detec-
Garan, E., & DeVoogd, D. (2008). The benefits of sus- tives: Using units of meaning to support literacy. The
tained silent reading: Scientific research and common Reading Teacher 65(7), 461–470.
sense converge. The Reading Teacher, 62(4), 336–344. Gough, P. B. (1972). One second of reading. In J. F.
Kavanagh & I. G. Mattingly (Eds.), Language by ear
Garcia, M., & Verville, K. (1994). Redesigning teach-
and by eye: The relationships between speech and reading
ing and learning: The Arizona student assessment
(pp. 331–358). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
program. In S. Valencia, E. Hiebert, & P. Afflerbach
(Eds.), Authentic reading assessment: Practices and Gourgey, A., Bousseau, J., & Delgado, J. (1985). The impact
possibilities. Newark, DE: International Reading of an improvisational dramatics program on student
Association. attitudes and achievement. Children’s Theater Review,
34(3), 9–14.
Gardiner, J. (1980). Stone Fox. New York: Crowell Junior.
Graham, S. (1999). Handwriting and spelling instruction
Gardner, H. (1983). Frames of mind: The theory of multiple
for students with learning disabilities: A review. Learn-
intelligences. London: Paladin Books.
ing Disabilities Quarterly, 22, 78–98.
Gee, J. (1990). Social linguistics and literacies: Ideology in
Graves, D. (1994). A fresh look at writing. Portsmouth, NH:
discourses. London: Falmer.
Heinemann.
Gee, J. (2001). Seminar presented at the Centre for Expan- Graves, M. F. & Watts-Taffe, S. (2008). For the love of
sion of Language and Thinking (CELT): Rejuvenation words: Fostering word consciousness in young read-
Conference. Chicago, IL. In B. Cambourne (2002), ers. The Reading Teacher, 62(3), 184–193.
The conditions of learning: Is learning natural? The
Gravett, E. (2007). Little mouse’s big book of fears. Illus
Reading Teacher, 55(8), 758–762.
E. Gravett. New York: Simon & Schuster Books for
Genesee, F., Lindholm-Leary, K., Saunders, B., & Chris- Young Readers.
tian, D. (2006). Educating English language learners.
Gregory, A., & Cahill, M. A. (2010). Kindergartners can
Cambridge, MA: Cambridge University Press.
do it too! Comprehension strategies for early readers.
Giangreco, M. (2007). Extending inclusive opportunities. The Reading Teacher, 63(6), 515–520.
Educational Leadership, 64(5), 34–38.
Grisham, D., and Wolsey, T. (2006, May). Recentering
Gibbons, G. (1993). Frog. Illus. by G. Gibbons. New York: the middle school classroom as a vibrant learning
Holiday House. community: Students, literacy and technology inter-
Gonzalez, D. (2000). Story grammar and oral fluency. sect. Journal of Adolescent and Adult Literacy, 49(8),
Journal of the Imagination in Language Learning and 648–660.
Teaching, 5. Retrieved from www.njcu.edu/cill/vol5/ Gruenert, S. (2000). Shaping a new school culture. Con-
gonzalez.html. temporary Education, 71(2), 14–18.
Goodman, K. S. (1967). On reading. Portsmouth, NH: Guccione, L. (2011). Integrating literacy and inquiry for
Heinemann. English Learners. The Reading Teacher, 64(8), 567–577.
Goodman, K. S. (1976). Behind the eye: What happens Guccione, L. (2011, May). Integrating literacy and inquiry
in reading. In H. Singer & R. Ruddell (Eds.), Theo- for English learners. The Reading Teacher, 64(8),
retical models and processes of reading (2nd ed.). New- 567–577.
ark, DE: International Reading Association. Guernsey, L. (2011, June 1). Are e-books any good?
Goodman, K. S. (1986b). What’s whole in whole language? Retrieved from www.slj.com/2011/06/books-media/
Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann. ebooks/are-ebooks-any-good/.
 REFErENCES     413

Gwynne, F. (1988a) A chocolate moose for dinner. Illus. F. Higgins, B., Miller, M., & Wegmann, S. (2006). Teaching
Gwynne. New York: Aladdin. to the test . . . not! Balancing best practices and test-
Gwynne, F. (1988b) The king who rained. Illus. F. Gwynne. ing requirements in writing. The Reading Teacher, 60,
New York: Aladdin. 310–319.
Gwynne, F. (1998) A little pigeon toad. Illus. F. Gwynne. Hinson, B. (Ed.) (2000). New directions in reading instruc-
New York: Aladdin. tion revised. Newark, DE: International Reading
Association.
Hagood, T. (2006). Values and voice in dance education:
The merit of fostering tradition, experiment, diversity, Ho, B. (2002). Application of participatory action research
and change in our pedagogy. Art Education Policy to family school intervention. School Psychology Review,
Review, 108(2), 33-37. 31(1), 106–122.
Hammerberg, D. (2001). Reading and writing “hypertex- Hodge, T., & Downie, J. (2004). Together we are heard:
tually”: Children’s literature, technology and early Effectiveness of daily language groups in a community
writing instruction. Language Arts, 78(3), 207–216. of preschool. Nursing and Health Science, 6, 101–107.
Hand, B., Wallace, C. W., & Yang, E. (2004). Using a Hodges, R. (1991). The conventions of writing. In J.
science writing heuristic to enhance learning out- Flood, J. M. Jensen, D. Lapp, & J. R. Squire (Eds.),
comes from laboratory activities in seventh-grade Handbook of research on teaching the English language
science: Quantitative and qualitative aspects. Interna- arts. New York: Macmillan.
tional Journal of Science Education, 26, 131–149. Hoffman, J., & Roser, N. (2012, May). Reading and writ-
Haroutunian-Gordon, S. (2011). Plato’s philosophy of lis- ing the world using beautiful books: Language expe-
tening. Educational Theory, 61(2), 125–139. rience re-envisioned. Language Arts, 89(5), 293–304.
Harste, J. (2003). What do we mean by literacy? Voices in Holdaway, D. (1991). Shared book experience: Teaching
the Middle, 10(3), 8–12. reading using favorite books. In C. Kamii, E. Fer-
reiro, F. Siegrist, H. Sinclair, B. Cuttings, J. Milligan,
Haskins, J. (1995). The day Fort Sumter was fired on: A et al. (Eds.), Early literacy: A constructivist foundation
photo history of the Civil War. New York: Scholastic. for whole language. Washington, DC: National Edu-
Hauerwas, L. B., & Walker, J. (2003). Spelling of inflected cation Association.
verb morphology in children with spelling deficits. Holder, M. K. (2012). Teaching left-handers to write.
Learning Disabilities Research and Practice, 18, 25–35. Handedness Research Institute. Retrieved from http://
Hawkins, L., & Razali, A. B. (2012, May). A tale of 3 handedness.org/action/leftwrite.html.
Ps—Penmanship, product and process: 100 years of Holdren, T. S. (2012). Using art to assess reading com-
elementary writing instruction. Language Arts, 89(5), prehension and critical thinking in adolescents. Jour-
305–317. nal of Adolescent and Adult Literacy, 55(8), 692–703.
Heard, G. (1989). For the good of the earth and sun: Teach- Hollenbeck, A., & Saterus, K. (2013). Mind the compre-
ing poetry. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann. hension iceberg and avoiding Titanic mistakes with
Heathcote, D., & Bolton, G. (1995). Drama for learning: the Common Core State Standards. The Reading
Dorothy Heathcote’s mantle of the expert approach to Teacher, 66(7), 558–568.
education. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann. Hoose, P. (2012). Moonbird: A year on the wind with the
Helman, L. (2005, April). Using literacy assessment results great survivor B95. New York: Farrar.
to improve teaching for English language learners. The Hope, S. (2003, Summer). Questions and challenges con-
Reading Teacher, 58(7), 668–677. cerning music’s role in education. Journal for Learn-
Henkes, K. (1987). Sheila Rae, the brave. Illus. K. Henkes. ing Through Music, 2.
New York: Puffin Books. Hopkins, L. B. (Ed.). (2010). Amazing faces. Illus. C.
Henry, L. (2006, April). Searching for an answer: The Soentpiet. New York: Lee & Low.
critical role of new literacies while reading on the Horning, K., Febri, C., Lindgren, M., & Schliesman, M.
Internet. The Reading Teacher, 59(7) 614–627. (2012). 50 multicultural books every child should
Hesse, K. (1997). Out of the dust. New York: Scholastic. know. Retrieved from http://ccbc.education.wisc.edu/
Hesse, K. (1999). Come on, Rain! Illus. J. J. Murth. New books/detailListBooks.asp?idBookLists=42.
York: Scholastic. Hughes, C. (2012). Tigers. National Geographic.
Hickox, R. (1999). The golden sandal: A Middle Eastern Huitt, W., & Hummel, J. (2003). Piaget’s theory of cognitive
Cinderella. Illus. W. Hillenbrand. New York: Holiday development. Valdosta, GA: Valdosta State University.
House. Hur, J. W., & Suh, S. (2012). Making learning active with
Hiebert, E. (2002). Standards, assessment an text diffi- interactive. Computers in the Schools, 29(4), 320–338.
culty. In A.E. Farstrup & S. J. Samuels (Eds.), What Hurst, B., Scales, K., Frecks, E., & Lewis, K. (2011). Sign
research says about reading instruction (pp. 337–369). up for reading: Students read aloud to class. The Read-
Newark, DE: International Reading Association. ing Teacher, 64(6), 439–443.
414    REFErENCES

Hutchison, A., Beschorner, B., & Schmidt-Crawford, D. Kippelen, V. (2002, March). The halls are alive. Retrieved
(2012). Exploring the use of the iPad for literacy learn- from http://connectforkids.org.
ing. The Reading Teacher, 66(1), 15–23. Kirszner, L., & Mandell, S. (2012). The brief Wadsworth
IDEA (2004). U.S. Department of Education. Retrieved handbook (7th ed.). Farmington Hills, MI: Wadsworth.
from http://idea.ed.gov/explore/home. Kluth, P., & Darmody-Lathan, J. (2003). Beyond sight
Imig, D. (2014, May 7). More books at home linked to words: Literacy opportunities for students with autism.
higher reading scores. Retrieved from www.urban- The Reading Teacher, 56(6), 532–534.
childinstitute.org/articles/updates/.
Knipper, K., & Duggan, T. (2006). Writing to learn across
International Reading Association & National Council of the curriculum: Tools for comprehension in content
Teachers of English (1996). Standards for the English area classrooms. The Reading Teacher, 59, 462–470.
language arts. Newark, DE, and Urbana, IL: Authors.
Kong, A., & Fitch, E. (2002/2003). Using book club to
International Reading Association (2002). Family–school engage culturally and linguistically diverse learners
partnerships: Essential elements of literacy instruction in reading, writing, and talking. The Reading Teacher,
in the United States. Newark, DE: Author. 56(4), 352–362.
Jalongo, M. R. (2000). Early childhood language arts (2nd Krashen, S. (1991). Bilingual education: A focus on cur-
ed.). Boston: Allyn & Bacon. rent research. In National Clearinghouse for Bilingual
Jay, D. (1991). Effects of a dance program on the creativ- Education, Vol. 3. Washington, DC.
ity of preschool handicapped children. Adapted Physi-
Krashen, S. (2005). Is in-school free reading for children?
cal Activity Quarterly, 8, 305–316.
Why the National Reading Panel Report is (still)
Jensen, E. (2000). Music with the brain in mind. San Diego, wrong. Phi Delta Kappan, 86(6), 444–451.
CA: Brain Store.
Kroll, S. (2001). Patches lost and found. New York: Win-
Jensen, E. (2001). Arts with the brain in mind. Alexandria, slow Press.
VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum.
Kumaravadivelu, B. (2003). Beyond methods: Macrostrate-
Jensen, J. M., & Roser, N. L. (1990). Are there really 3
gies for language learning. New Haven, CT: Yale Uni-
R’s? Educational Leadership, 47(6), 7–12.
versity Press.
Johnson, D. D., & Pearson, P. D. (1984). Teaching read-
Labadie, M., Mosley-Wetzel, M., & Roger, R. (2012).
ing vocabulary (2nd ed.). New York: Holt, Rinehart
Opening spaces for critical literacy. The Reading
& Winston.
Teacher, 66(2), 117–127.
Jones, N., Johnson, C., Schwartz, R., and Zalud, G. (2005,
Lally, J. R. (2010, Nov.). School readiness begins in infancy.
Spring). Two positive outcomes of Reading Recovery:
Phi Delta Kappan, 92(3), 17–21.
Exploring the interface between Reading Recovery
and Special Education. The Journal of Reading Recov- Langdon, T. (2004). DIBELS: A teacher-friendly basic lit-
ery, 4(3), 19–34. eracy accountability tool for the primary classroom.
Jordan, G. E., Snow, C. E., & Porche, M. V. (2000). The Teaching Exceptional Children, 37(2), 54–58.
effects of a family literacy project on kindergarten Lansky, B. (2000). If pigs could fly . . . and other deep
students’ early literacy skills. Reading Research Quar- thoughts. Illus. by S. Carpenter. New York: Mead-
terly, 35(4), 524–546. owbrook.
Kalmar, K. (2008). Let’s give children something to talk Larrick, N. (1965, Sept. 11). The all-white world of chil-
about. Young Children, 63(1), 88–92. dren’s books. Saturday Review, 48, 63–65, 84–85.
Kane, S. (2007, Sept.). Does the Imposter Strategy pass Larson, K. (2013). Hattie ever after. New York: Delacorte
the authenticity test? Journal of Adolescent & Adult Press.
Literacy, 51(1), 58–64. Laughlin, M., & Latrobe, K. (1990). Reader’s theatre for
Kantrowitz, B., & Scelfo, J. (2006, November 27). What children: Scripts and script development. Englewood,
happens when they grow up. Newsweek, 47–53. CO: Litran’s Unlimited.
Karchmer, R. (2001). The journey ahead: Thirteen teach- Leu, D. J., & Kinzer, C. (2003). Effective literacy instruc-
ers report how the Internet influences literacy and tion: Implementing best practice (5th ed.). Upper Saddle
literacy instruction in their K–12 classrooms. Read- River, NJ: Merrill/Prentice Hall.
ing Research Quarterly, 36(4), 442–466. Lewis, S., Simon, C., Uzzell, R., Horowitz, A., and Casserly,
Kaufman, D., Moss, D. M., & Osborn, T. A. (Eds.) (2003). M. (2010). A call for change: The social and educa-
Beyond the boundaries: A transdisciplinary approach to tional factors contributing to the outcomes of black
learning and teaching. Westport, CT: Praeger. males in urban schools. Washington, DC: Council of
Keene, E. & Zimmerman, S. (1997). Mosaic of thought. the Great City Schools.
Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann. Linn, M. (2001, Dec.). An American educator reflects on
Kimmel, E. (1995). Anansi and the talking melon. Illus. J. the meaning of the Reggio experience. Phi Delta Kap-
Stevens. New York: Holiday House. pan, 83(4), 332–340.
 REFErENCES     415

Long, R. (2010). Common Core Standards released. Read- McKeown, R., and Gentilucci, J. (2007, Oct.). Think-aloud
ing Today, 27(6), 26. strategy: Metacognitive development and monitoring
Longo, P. (1999, November 8). Distributed knowledge in comprehension in the middle school second-language
the brain: Using visual thinking networking to improve classroom. Journal of Adolescent & Adult Literacy, 51(2),
students’ learning. Boston: Learning and the Brain 136–147.
Conference. McLaughlin, M. (2012). Reading comprehension and what
Loy, D. (2004). English language learners, classroom drama. every teacher needs to know. The Reading Teacher,
The Quarterly, 26(1). 65(7), 432–440.
Lushington, K. (2003, December). Lighting the fire of McLaughlin, M., & Allen, M. B. (2009). Guided reading
imagination through theatre and drama in Ontario in grades 3–8 (2nd ed.). Newark, DE: International
schools. Retrieved from www.code.on/pages/dra- Reading Association.
maarticle.html. McPherson, K. (2008). Listening carefully. Teacher Librar-
Macaulay, D. & Keenan, S. (2012). Castle: How it works. ian, 35(4), 73–75.
New York: Roaring Books. McVee, M. A., Dunsmore, K., & Gavelek, J. (2013). Schema
MacDonald, S. (2012). Environmental Print. Retrieved theory revisited. In D. Alvermann, N. Unrau, & R. B.
from http://sharonmacdonald.com/environmental- Ruddell (Eds.), Theoretical models and processes of read-
print.aspx. ing (pp. 489–524). Newark, DE: International Reading
MacMahon, S., Rose, D., & Parks, M. (2003). Basic read- Association.
ing through dance programs: The impact on first- Medina, A. (2006). The parallel bar: Writing assessment
grade students’ basic reading skills. Education Review, and instruction. In J. S. Schumm (Ed.), Reading Assess-
27, 104–125. ment and Instruction. New York: Guilford Press.
Make It Happen (2000). The I-Search Unit. Education Medwell, J. & Wray, P. (2008). Handwriting—A forgot-
Development Center. Retrieved from www2.edc.org/ ten language skill. Language and Education, 22(1),
fsc/mih/i-search.html. 34–47.
Manning, M., Manning, G., & Long, R. (1994). Theme Meinbach, A. M., Rothlein, L., & Fredricks, A. (2000).
immersion inquiry-based curriculum in elementary The complete guide to thematic units: Creating the inte-
and middle schools. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann. grated curriculum (2nd ed.). Norwood, MA: Christo-
Manzo, A. V. (1968). Improving reading comprehension pher-Gordon.
through reciprocal questioning. Unpublished doctoral Mellon, J. (1969). Transformational sentence combining:
dissertation, Syracuse University, NY. Method of enhancing the development of syntactic flu-
Manzo, A. V. (1969). The ReQuest procedure. Journal of ency in English composition (Research Report No.
Reading, 13(3), 123–126. 10). Urbana, IL: National Council of Teachers of
Manzo, U. C., Manzo, A. V., & Thomas, M. M. (2009). English.
Content area literacy: A framework for reading-based Mesmer, E., & Mesmer, H. A. (2009). Response to inter-
instruction (5th ed.). New York: John Wiley & Sons. vention (RTI): What teachers of reading need to
Marrin, A. (2009). Years of Dust: The story of the Dust know. The Reading Teacher, 62(4), 280–290.
Bowl. New York: Scholastic. Micklos, J. (2011 Oct./Nov.). Celebrate I Love to Write
Marschark, M., & Hauser, P. C. (2012). How Deaf chil- Day. Reading Today, 29(2), 14–15.
dren learn. New York: Oxford University Press. Miller, W. H. (2000). Strategies for developing emergent
Marshall, J. (1988). Goldilocks and the Three Bears. Illus. literacy. Boston: McGraw-Hill.
J. Marshall. Dial Books for Young Readers. Mitton, T. (2014). Super Submarines: Amazing Machines.
Marshall, J. (1990). Hansel and Gretel. Illus. J. Marshall New York: Kingfisher.
Puffin Books. Mohr, K. (2004). English as an accelerated language: A call
Matson, S. (2012). Read, flip, write. Journal of Adolescent to action for reading teachers. The Reading Teacher,
and Adult Literacy, 56(2), 109. 58(1), 18–26.
McCaslin, N. (1996). Creative drama in the classroom (6th Monahan, J., & Hinson, B. (Eds.). (1988). New directions
ed.). New York: Longman. in reading instruction. Newark, DE: International Read-
McDermott, P. (2003). Using the visual arts for learning: ing Association.
The case of one urban charter school. Paper presented Moore, D. W., & Moore, S. A. (1986). Possible sentences.
at the 15th Annual Ethnographic and Qualitative In E. K. Dishner, T. W. Bean, J. E. Readence, & D.
Research in Education Conference. Pittsburgh, PA: W. Moore (Eds.), Reading in the content areas (2nd
Duquesne University. ed.).Dubuque, IA: Kendall/Hunt.
McGee, L., & Richgels, D. J. (1985). Teaching expository Morgan, B. (2002). Critical practice in community-based
text structure to elementary students. The Reading ESL programs. Journal of Language, Identity and Edu-
Teacher, 38(8), 739–748. cation, 1, 141–162.
416    REFErENCES

Morgan, B. (2004). Modals and memories: A grammar Nilsson, N. (2005, March). How does Hispanic portrayal
lesson on the Quebec referendum on sovereignty. In in children’s books measure up after 40 years? The
B. Norton & K. Toohey (Eds.), Critical ESL Pedago- Reading Teacher, 58(6), 534–548.
gies. Cambridge, MA: Cambridge University Press. Norris, E., Richard, C., & Mokhtari, K. (1997). The influ-
Morgan, S. (2006). Owls. Laguna Hills, CA: QEB Pub- ence of drawing on third graders’ writing performance.
lishing. Reading Horizons 38(1), 13–30.
Mundi, S. (1989). Rent-a-reader. Learning, 17(5), 70. Northwest Regional Education Laboratory (1998/1999).
Myers, A. (2003). Flying blind. New York: Walker & 6 + 1 Traits Writing Assessment and Instruction.
Company. Retrieved fromhttp://educationnorthwest.org.
Myers, A. (2004). Tulsa burning. New York: Walker Noyce Foundation (2014). Planning for mini-lessons.
Childrens. Retrieved from http://www.noycefdn.org/docu-
Myers, W. D. (1999). Monster. New York: HarperCollins ments/ecrw/profdev/InductionDay1/I1-05_Arch-
Publishers. Mini-lesson.pdf.
Myers, W. D. (2014). Darius and Twig. New York: Amistad. O’Neil K. E. (2011). Reading pictures: Developing visual
Nagy, W. E., & Scott, J. A. (2013). Vocabulary processes. literacy for greater comprehension. The Reading
In D. Alvermann, N. Unrau, & R. Ruddell (Eds.), Teacher, 65(3), 214–223.
Theoretical models and processes of reading (pp. 458– Olsen, J., & Knapton, E. (2012). Stepping into handwrit-
475). Newark, DE: International Reading Association. ing. Gaithersburg, MD: Handwriting without Tears.
National Association of Gifted Children (2003) found at Pacheco, M. B., & Goodwin, A. (2013). Putting two and
their website under nagc.org/index. two together: Middles school students’ morphological
National Center for Education Statistics (2014). The con- problem-solving strategies for unknown words. Jour-
dition of education 2014. Online: http://nces.ed.gov/ nal of Adolescent and Adult Literacy 56(7), 541–553.
pubsearch/pubsinfo.asp?pubid=2014083 Palincsar, A. S., & Brown, A. L. (1986). Interactive teach-
National Center for Education Statistics (2010, July). Sta- ing to promote independent learning from text. The
tus and trends in the education of racial and ethnic Reading Teacher, 39(8), 771–777.
groups: Highlights. Retrieved from http://nces.ed.gov/ Palmer, B., Shackelford, V., Miller, S., and Leclere, J.
pubs2010/2010015/. (2007, Jan.). Journal of Adolescent & Adult Literacy,
National Dissemination Center for Children with Dis- 50(4), 258–267.
abilities (2012). Categories of disability under IDEA. Palmer, E. (2011). Well spoken: Teaching speaking to all
Retrieved from http://NICHCY.org. students. Portland, ME: Stenhouse.
National Dissemination Center for Children with Disabili- Palmer, R. G., & Stewart, R. (2003). Non-fiction trade
ties (2010). Autism. Retrieved from http://www.ldon- book use in the primary grades. The Reading Teacher,
line.org/article/Autism. 57(1), 38-48.
National Governors Association Center for Best Practices, Park, K. & Amen, H. (2012). Bats. National Geographic.
& Council of Chief State School Officers (2010). Parr, M., & Campbell, T. (2006). Poets in practice. The
Common Core State Standards for English Language Reading Teacher, 60, 38–46.
Arts and Literacy in History/Social Studies, Science,
Parsons, S., Mokhtari, K., Yellin, D., and Orwig, R. (2011,
and Technical Subjects. Washington, DC: Author.
May). Literature study groups: Literacy learning “with
Retrieved from http://www.corestandards.org/the-
legs.” Middle School Journal, 42(5), 22–30.
standards.
Paugh, P., Carey, J., King-Jackson, V., & Russell, S. (2007,
National Information Center for Children and Youth with
Sept.). Negotiating the literacy block: Constructing
Disabilities (2000). General information about learn-
spaces for critical literacy in a high stakes setting. Lan-
ing disabilities. Retrieved from www.kidsource.com/
guage Arts, 85(1), 31–41.
NICHCY/learning_disabilities.html.
Paulsen, G. (1994). Haymeadow. New York: Yearling.
Nations, S. (2006). More primary literacy centers: Making
reading and writing stick. Maupin House. Paulsen, G. (1999). Hatchet. New York: Delacote Books.
Nauman, A., Sterling, T., & Borthwich, A. (2011, Feb.). Pearman, C. J. (2008). Independent reading of CD-ROM
What makes writing good? An essential question for storybooks. Measuring comprehension with oral retell-
teachers. The Reading Teacher, 64(5), 318–328. ings. The Reading Teacher, 61(8) 594–602.
New York Public Library (2002, August). Author chat Pearson, P. D., & Fielding, L. (1982). Research update: Lis-
with Christopher Paul Curtis. Retrieved from http:// tening comprehension. Language Arts, 59(6), 617–629.
www.nypl.org/author-chat-christopher-paul-curtis. Pearson, P. D., & Johnson, D. D. (1985). Teaching reading
Newlands, M. (2011, April). Intentional spelling: Seven comprehension. New York: Holt, Rinehart & Winston.
steps to eliminate guessing. The Reading Teacher, 64(7), Petress, K. (2000). Listening: A vital skill. Journal of Instruc-
531–534. tional Psychology, 26(4), 261–262.
 REFErENCES     417

Piaget, J. (1952). The origin of intelligence in children. New Reutzel, D. R., & Mitchell, J. (2005). High stakes account-
York: International Universities Press. ability themed issue: How did we get here from there?
Piaget, J. (1959). The language and thought of the child (A. The Reading Teacher, 58(7), 606–608.
Gabain, Trans.). London: Routledge & Kegan Paul. Reynolds, P. (2003) The dot. New York: Candlewick.
Piaget, J. (1964). The psychology of intelligence. Boston: Richardson, J. (2011, Feb.). Hunting for a drop-out solu-
Routledge and Kegan Paul. tion. Phi Delta Kappan, 92(5), 4.
Piaget, J. (1965). The language and thought of the child. New Richardson, J., Morgan, R., & Fleener, C. (2011). Read-
York: Meridian Books. ing to learn in the content areas (8th ed.).Belmont, CA:
Piaget, J. (1967). Language and thought from the genetic Wadsworth Cengage Learning.
point of view. In D. Elkind (Ed.), Six psychological Ries, L. (2010). Aggie the brave. Illus. F. W. Dormer. New
studies (A. Tenzer, Trans.). New York: Random House. York: Charlesbridge.
Pinkney, A. D. (2011). Bird in a box. New York: Little, Riesman, D. (1961). The lonely crowd. New Haven, CT:
Brown and Co. Yale University Press.
Pinkney, J. (2009). The lion and the mouse. New York: Little, Rigby Publishing (2006). The International Space Station.
Brown. Boston: Author.
Plumley, K. (2010). How to improve spelling skills. Retrieved Rivera, D. (2012). Revising (or re-seeing) your essay.
from www.connectionsacademy.com/Oklahoma. Tutoring the Whole Writer. Retrieved from http://
Polacco, P. (1987). Meteor! Illus. P. Polacco. New York: tutoringthewholewriter.com/2012/11/14/revising/.
Philomel. Robinson, S. (2014). Illus. A. Ford. Under the same sun.
Polacco, P. (2000). The Butterfly. Illus. P. Polacco. New York: New York: Scholastic.
Philomel Books.
Roe, B., Smith, S., & Burns, P. (2005). Teaching read-
Polacco, P. (2009). January’s Sparrow. New York: Philomel ing in today’s elementary school (9th ed.). Boston:
Books. Houghton Mifflin.
Pransky, K., & Bailey, F. (2002/2003). To meet your stu- Rosenblatt, L. M. (1994). The reader, the text, the poem:
dents where they are, first you have to find them: The transactional theory of the literary work. Carbon-
Working with culturally and linguistically diverse at- dale: Southern Illinois University Press.
risk students. The Reading Teacher, 56(4), 370–383.
Rosenblatt, L. M. (2004). The transactional theory of
Prelutsky, J. (2010). The carnival of the animals. Illus. M. reading and writing. In R. B. Ruddell & N. J. Unrau
GrandPre. New York: Knopf. (Eds.), Theoretical models and processes of reading
Raphael, T. (1982). Teaching questioning–answer strategies (5th ed.). Newark, DE: International Reading Asso-
for children. The Reading Teacher, 36(2), 186–191. ciation.
Rasinski, T., & Padak, N. (2000). Effective reading strate- Rosenblatt, L. M. (2013). The transactional theory of read-
gies: Teaching children who find reading difficult. Upper ing and writing. In D. E. Alvermann, N. J. Unrau, &
Saddle River, NJ: Merrill. R. B. Ruddell (Eds.), Theoretical models and processes
Ray, K. (2006). Exploring inquiry as teaching stance in of reading (6th ed., pp. 923–956). Newark, DE: The
the writing workshop. Language Arts, 83, 238–247. International Reading Association.
Readence, J., Bean, T. & Scott, B. (2012).Content area Roskos, K., & Brueck, J. (2009). The e-book as a learning
literacy: An integrated approach (10th ed.). Dubuque, object. In A. G. Bus & S. B. Neuman (Eds.), Multime-
IA: Kendall Hunt. dia and literacy development: Improving achievement for
Reading Rockets (2012). Story maps. Retrieved from http:// young learners (pp. 77–88). New York: Routledge.
www.readingrockets.org/strategies/story_maps. Roskos, K., Brueck, J., & Widman, S. (2009). Investigat-
Regan, K. S. (2003, Nov.–Dec.). Using dialogue journals ing analytic tools for e-book design in early literacy
in the classroom. Teaching Exceptional Children, 36(2), learning. Journal of Interactive Online Learning, 8(3),
36–41. 218–240.
Register, D. (2004, Spring). The effects of live music, groups Roskos, K., Tabors, P., & Lenhart, L. (2009). Oral language
versus an educational children’s television program and early literacy in preschool: Talking, reading, and
on the emergent literacy of young children. Journal of writing (2nd ed.). Newark, DE: International Reading
Music Therapy, 41(1), 2–27. Association.
Reis, S., & Renzulli, J. (2009). Myth 1: The gifted and tal- Ross, R. (1996). Storyteller. Little Rock, AR: August House
ented constitute a single homogeneous group. Gifted Publishers.
Child Quarterly, 53, 233–239. Rouse, H. L., & Fantuzzo, J. W. (2006). Validity of the
Renzulli, J. (2011, May). More changes needed to expand dynamic indicators of basic early literacy skills as an
gifted identification and support. Phi Delta Kappan, indicator of early literacy for kindergarten children.
92(8), 61. The School Psychology Review, 35(3), 341–355.
418    REFErENCES

Roy, R. (1998). A to Z mysteries: The empty envelope. New Online: http://www.helpguide.org/articles/add-adhd/

York: Random House. adult-adhd-attention-deficit-disorder-treatment.htm.
Ruddell, R. B., & Unrau, N. J. (2013). Reading as a moti- Seidel, S. (1998). Wondering to be done: The collaborative
vated meaning-construction process: The reader, the assessment and conference. In D. Allen (Ed.), Assess-
text, and the teacher. In D. E. Albermann, N. J. Unrau, ing student learning: From grading to understanding
& R. B. Ruddell (Eds.), Theoretical models and pro- (pp. 21–39). New York: Teachers College Press.
cesses of reading (pp. 957–977). Newark, DE: Interna- Shanahan, T. (2011, August). Common Core Standards:
tional Reading Association. Are we going to lower the fences or teach kids to
Rumelhart, D. L. (1980). Schemata: The building blocks of climb? Reading Today, 29(1), 20–21.
cognition. In R. Spiro, B. Bruce, & W. Brewer (Eds.), Shanahan, T., & Shanahan, S. (1997). Character perspec-
Theoretical issues in reading comprehension. Hillsdale, tive charting: Helping children to develop a more
NJ: Erlbaum. complete conception of story. The Reading Teacher,
Saddler, B. (2005). Sentence combining: A sentence-level 50(8), 668–677.
writing intervention. The Reading Teacher, 58, 468–471. Sheldon, S. (2002). Parents’ social networks and beliefs
Salley, C. (2002). Epossumondas. Illus. J.Stevens. Orlando, as predictors of parent involvement. The Elementary
FL: Harcourt. School Journal, 102(4), 301–316.
Salley, C. (2004). Why Epossumondas has no hair on his tail. Short, K., Kauffman, G., & Kahn, L. (2000). “I just need
Illus. by J. Stevens. Orlando, FL: Harcourt. to draw”: Responding to literature across multiple
Salley, C. (2006). Epossumondas saves the day. Illus. by J. sign systems. The Reading Teacher, 54(2), 160–173.
Stevens. Orlando, FL: Harcourt. Sidman, J. (2009). Red sings from treetops: A year in color.
Salley, C. (2009). Epossumondas plays possum. Illus. by J. Illus. by P. Zagarenski. Boston: Houghton Mifflin
Stevens. Orlando, FL: Harcourt. Harcourt.
Saltzberg, B. (2010) Beautiful oops! New York: Workman. Siegel, M. (2006). Rereading the signs: Multimodal trans-
formations in the field of literacy education. Language
Sarafino, E., & Armstrong, J. (1986). Child and adolescent
Arts, 84(1), 65–77.
development (2nd ed.). St. Paul, MN: West Publish-
ing Co. Sigmon, C. M. (1997). Implementing the 4-Blocks Literacy
Model. Greensboro, NC: Carson-Dellosa.
Satrapi, M. (2007). The complete Persepolis. New York:
Knopf. Sigmon, C. M. (2001). Modifying the Four-Blocks for upper
grades: Matching strategies to students’ needs. Greens-
Satterfield, K. H. (2005). Benjamin Franklin: A man of
boro, NC: Carson-Dellosa.
many talents. New York: HarperCollins.
Simonsen, F., & Gunter, L. (2001). Best practices in spell-
Schneider, J. (2005, October). Teaching grammar through ing instruction: A research summary. Journal of Direct
community issues. ELT Journal, 59(4), 298–305. Instruction, 1(2), 97–105.
Schroeder, A. (1997). Smokey Mountain Rose: An Appala- Sinatra, R. (1991). Integrating whole language with the
chian Cinderella. Illus. B. Sneed. Dial Books for Young learning of text structure. Journal of Reading, 34(6),
Readers. 424–433.
Schugar, H. R., Smith, C., & Schugar, J. T. (2013). Teach- Slavin, R. (1996). Neverstreaming: Preventing learning
ing with interactive picture e-books in grades K–6. The disabilities. Educational Leadership, 53(5), 4–7.
Reading Teacher, 66(8), 615–624.
Smith, D., Stenner, A.J., Horabin, J., & Smith, M. (1989).
Schulman, M. B. & Payne, C.D. (2000). Guided reading: The Lexile scale in theory and practice: Final report.
Making it work. New York: Scholastic. Washington, DC: Metametrics. (ERIC Document
Schuster, E. (2004). National and state writing tests: The Reproduction Service No. ED 307577.)
writing process betrayed. Phi Delta Kappan, 85(5), Smith, F. (1997). Reading without nonsense (3rd ed.). New
375–378. York: Teacher’s College Press.
Scripp, L. (2003). Critical link, next steps: An evolving Smith, M. (2002). The effects of rhyme–rime connection
conception of music and learning in public school training on second grade reading performance. Unpub-
education. Journal of Learning Through Music, 2, lished doctoral dissertation. Stillwater: Oklahoma
119–140. State University.
Searfoss, L., Readence, J., & Mallette, M. (2001). Help- Smith, S. (2003, April 2) Why not dance? Chicago Tribune,
ing children learn to read (4th ed.). Boston: Allyn & p. 2.
Bacon. Snowball, D. (2006). Spelling strategies make smart use
SEE Center (2014). Retrieved from http://seecenter.org. of sounds and spelling patterns. Instructor Magazine,
Seely, A. (1995). Integrated thematic units. Westminster, 24(7), 12–14.
CA: Teacher Created Materials. Spandel, V. (2008). Creating young writers: Using the six
Segal, J., & Smith, M. (2012). ADD/ADHD and School. traits to enrich writing process in primary classrooms
Harvard Health Publications. Harvard Medical School. (2nd ed.). Boston: Pearson, Allyn & Bacon.
 REFErENCES     419

Spandel, V. (2012). Creating Writers: 6 Traits, Process, Tomlinson, C. A. (2000). Reconcilable differences? Stan-
Workshop, and Literature (6th ed.). New York: Pearson. dards-based teaching and differentiation. Educational
Spiegelman, A. (1986). Maus: A survivor’s tale. New York: Leadership, 58(1), 6–11.
Pantheon. Tompkins, G. (2003). Literacy for the 21st century: Teach-
Spires, H., Hervey, L., Morris, G., & Stelpflug, C. (2012). ing reading and writing in pre-kindergarten through
Energizing project-based inquiry: Middle-grade stu- grade 4 (3rd ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Merrill/
dents read, write, and create videos. Journal of Ado- Prentice Hall.
lescent and Adult Literacy, 55(6), 483–493. Tompkins, G. (2013). Literacy for the 21st century: A bal-
Stahl, S., & Nagy, W. (2006) Teaching word meanings. New anced approach (6th ed.) Boston: Pearson.
York: Lawrence Erlbaum. Tough, J. (1984). How young children develop and use
Stamaty, A. (2004). Alia’s mission: Saving the books of Iraq. language. In D. Fontana (Ed.), The education of the
New York: Knopf. young child. Oxford: Basil Blackwell Publishers.
Stange, T., and Wyant, S. (2008). Poetry proves to be posi- Trelease, J. (2013). The read-aloud handbook (7th ed.). New
tive in the primary classroom. Reading Horizons, 48(1). York: Penguin.
Stauffer, R. G. (1970). The language experience approach Truss, L. (2003). Eats, Shoots & Leaves: The Zero Toler-
to the teaching of reading. New York: Harper & Row. ance Approach to Punctuation. London: Profile Books.
Stauffer, R. G. (1969). Directing reading maturity as a cog- Turkle, B. (1992). Deep in the woods. New York: Puffin.
nitive process. New York: Harper & Row.
U.S. Department of Education (2010). National Writing
Stevens, J., & Stevens Crummel, S. (2003). Jackalope. Illus. Project: Online: http://www.nwp.org/cs/public/print/
by J. Stevens. San Diego, CA: Harcourt. doc/about/annual_reports.csp.
Stone, T. L. (2009). Almost astronauts: 13 women who Union of Concerned Scientists (2014). Solutions to
dared to dream. New York: Candlewick. Global Warming. Online: ww.ucsusa.org/global_
Stothard, S., & Hulme, C. (2006). A comparison of phono- warming/solutions.
logical skills in children with reading comprehension
Vacca, R. T., Vacca, J. A., & Mraz, M. (2014). Content
difficulties and children with decoding difficulties. Jour-
area reading: Literacy and learning across the curricu-
nal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 36(3), 399–408.
lum. Boston: Pearson.
Stricklin, K. (2011). Hands-on reciprocal teaching: A com-
Vamos, S. (2011). The Cazuela that the farm maiden stirred.
prehension technique. The Reading Teacher, 64(8),
New York: Charlesbridge.
620–625.
VanNess, A. R., Murnen, T., & Bertelsen, C. (2013). Let
Strong, W. (1993). Sentence combining: A composing book
me tell you a secret: Kindergarteners can write! Read-
(3rd ed.). New York: McGraw-Hill.
ing Teacher, 66(7), 574–585.
Swain, K., Friehe, M., & Harrington, J. (2004). Teaching
listening strategies in the inclusive classroom. Inter- Veatch, J. (1992). Whole language and its predecessors.
vention in School and Clinic, 40(1), 48–54. Journal of Reading Education, 18, 69–77.
Talliaferro, J. (2004). Great white fathers: The story of the Verhallen, M. J. A. J., Bus, A. G., & de Jong, M. T. (2006).
obsessive quest to create Mount Rushmore. New York: The promise of multimedia stories for kindergarten
Public Affairs. children at risk. Journal of Educational Psychology,
98(2), 410–419.
Tankersley, K. (2003). The threads of reading: Strategies for
literacy development. Alexandria, VA: ASCD. Vitz, K. (1983). A review of empirical research in drama
and language. Children’s Theater Review, 32(40), 17–25.
Temple, C., Nathan, R., Burris, N., & Temple, F. (1988).
The beginnings of writing (2nd ed.). Boston: Allyn & Vygotsky, L. (1978). Mind in society: The development of
Bacon. higher psychological processes (M. Cole et al., Eds.).
Temple, E. (2013). 10 great multicultural books. Retrieved Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
from http://flavorwire.com/400364/10-great-multi- Vygotsky, L. (1986). Thought and language (A. Kozulin,
cultural-childrens-books. Ed.). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Thomas, E. (2009). Analysis of the learning styles of Waks, L. (2011). John Dewey on listening and friendship
highly- versus poorly-achieving seventh-, ninth, and in school and society. Educational Theory, 61(2),
eleventh-grade students by age, attitude, and gender. 191–206.
(Doctoral dissertation, St. John’s University.) Walker, B. (2000). Diagnostic teaching of reading (4th ed.).
Thomson, B. (2010). Chalk. New York: Two Lions. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Merrill/Prentice Hall.
Tierney, R. J., & Pearson, P. D. (1983). Toward a compos- Wall, S. (2008), Easier said than done: Writing an auto-
ing model of reading. Language Arts, 60(5), 568–580. ethnography. International Journal of Qualitative
Tierney, R. J., & Readence, J. E. (2005). Reading strate- Methods, 7(1), 38–53.
gies and practices: A compendium (6th ed.). Boston: Watkins, S. (1995). Green snake ceremony. Illus. K. Doner.
Allyn & Bacon. Tulsa, OK: Council Oak Books.
420    REFErENCES

Watson, D. J. (1989). Defining and describing whole lan- Woop Studios (2011). A zeal of zebras: An alphabet of col-
guage. The Elementary School Journal, 90(2), 129–141. lective nouns. San Francisco: Chronicle.
Weaver, C. (2002). Reading process and practice (3rd ed.). World Class Instructional Design & Assessment (2014).
Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann. Can do descriptors. Retrieved from www.wida.us/
Wertsch, J., & Sohmer, R. (1995). Vygotsky on learning downloadlibrary.aspx.
and development. Journal of Human Development, 38, Wray, D., & Lewis, M. (1997). Extending literacy:
332–337. Children reading and writing non-fiction. New
Westat & Policy Studies Associates (2001). The longitu- York: Routledge.
dinal evaluation of school change and performance in Wright, G., Hernandez, B., & Joperd, M. (2014). Collabo-
Title I schools. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of rating dance with artists, technical directories, health
Education. education physical educators, and other profession-
Wheeler, L. (2006). Mammoths on the move. Orlando, FL: als. The Journal of Physical Recreation & Dance, 85(8),
Harcourt. 9–12.
Wheelock, W., & Silvaroli, N. (2011). Classroom reading Yang, G. (2008). Graphic novels in the classroom. Lan-
inventory (12th ed.). New York: McGraw-Hill. guage Arts, 85, 185–192.
Wiesner, D. (2013). Mr. Wuffles! Illus. D. Wiesner. New Yolen, J. (1992). Encounter. Illus. D. Shannon. Orlando,
York: Clarion. FL: Voyager Press.
Wigginton, E. (1986). Sometimes a shining moment: The Yopp, H. K. & Yopp, R. H. (2013). Literature-based read-
Foxfire experience. Garden City, NY: Doubleday. ing activities: Engaging students with literary and infor-
mational text (6th ed.). New York: Pearson.
Wiles, D. (2005). Freedom summer. Illus. by J. Lagarrigue.
New York: Aladdin. Yopp, R. H., & Yopp, H. K. (2012). Young children’s lim-
ited and narrow exposure to informational text. The
Williams, C., & Pilonieta, P. (2012). Using interactive
Reading Teacher, 65(7), 480–490.
writing instruction in the kindergarten and first-grade
English language learners. Early Childhood Education Young, A. (1997). Mentoring, modeling, monitoring, moti-
Journal, 40(2), 145–150. vating. New Directions for Teaching and Learning, 69,
27–39.
Wingert, P., & Brant, M. (2005, August 15). Reaching
your baby’s mind. Retrieved from www.msnbc.msn. Young, E. (1989). Lon PoPo: A Red Riding Hood Story from
com/id/3032542/site/newsweek/. China. Illus. E. Young. New York: Philomel Books.
Zachry, A. (2011, Jan. 30). Handwriting readiness. Pediatric
Winter, J. (2005) Roberto Clemente: Pride of the Pittsburgh
Occupational Therapy Tips. Retrieved from http://
Pirates. Illus. R. Colon. New York: Aladdin Paperback.
drzachryspedsottips.blogspot.com/search?q=hand
Withers, Carl (2007). A rocket in my pocket. New York: writing+readiness.
Holt, Rinehart & Winston.
Zezima, K. (2011, April 17). The case for cursive. New
Witte, S. (2007, Oct.). That’s online writing, not boring York Times. Retrieved from www.nytimes.com/2011/
school writing: Writing with blogs and the Talkback 04/28/us/28cursive.html.
Project. Journal of Adolescent & Adult Literacy, 51(2),
Zhang, J., & Dougherty-Stahl, K. (2012). Collaborative rea-
92–96.
soning: Language-rich discussions for English learners.
Wolf, S. (2006). The mermaid’s purse: Looking closely at The Reading Teacher, 65(4), 257–260.
young children’s art and poetry. Language Arts, 84(1),
Zonta, P. (2002). Jessica’s X-ray. New York: Firefly Books.
10–20.
Zorfass, J., & Copel, H. (1995). The I-search: Guiding
Wolk, S. (2008). School as inquiry. Phi Delta Kappan, 90(2),
students toward relevant research. Educational Lead-
115–122.
ership, 53(1), 48–51.
Wong, H. K., & Wong, R. (2009). The first days of school:
Zwiers, J., & Crawford, M. (2011). Academic conversations:
How to be an effective teacher (4th ed.). Mountain View,
Classroom talk that fosters critical thinking and content
CA: Harry K. Wong.
understandings. Portland, ME: Stenhouse.
Wood, A. (1984). The napping house. Illus. D. Wood. San
Zygouris-Coe, V. & Glass, C. (2004). Making connections:
Diego, CA: Harcourt Brace, Jovanovich.
Text to self, text to text, and text to world. Retrieved
Woodson, J. (2001). The other side. Illus. E. B. Lewis. New from http://forpd.ucf.edu/strategies/strattext.html.
York: G.P. Putnam’s and Sons.