Handbook of Reading Disability Research

Bringing together a wide range of research on reading disabilities, this comprehensive Handbook extends
current discussion and thinking beyond a narrowly defined psychometric perspective. Examining reading dis-
abilities from sociopolitical and historical perspectives, as cultural and psychological constructs, from the point
of view of an interventionist, and emphasizing that learning to read proficiently is a long-term developmental
process involving many interventions of various kinds, all keyed to individual developmental needs, it ad-
dresses traditional questions (What is the nature or causes of reading disabilities? How are reading disabilities
assessed? How should reading disabilities be remediated? To what extent is remediation possible?), but from
multiple or alternative perspectives.

Taking incursions into the broader research literature represented by linguistic and anthropological paradigms,
as well as psychological and educational research, the volume is on the front line in exploring the relation of
reading disability to learning and language, to poverty and prejudice, and to instruction and schooling.

The editors and authors are distinguished scholars with extensive research experience and publication records
and numerous honors and awards from professional organizations representing the range of disciplines in
the field of reading disabilities. Throughout, their contributions are contextualized within the framework of
educators struggling to develop concrete instructional practices that meet the learning needs of the lowest
achieving readers.

Anne McGill-Franzen is Professor and Director of the Reading Center at the University of Tennessee. She
was recipient of the International Reading Association Nila Banton Smith Award, co-recipient (with Dr. Rich-
ard L. Allington) of the IRA Albert J. Harris Award for research published in the field of reading disabilities,
and the 2004 recipient of the IRA Dina Feitelson Award honoring an empirical study of language and literacy
acquisition with clear implications for instruction. Dr. McGill-Franzen was a member of the Board of Direc-
tors of the National Reading Conference, serves on the editorial advisory boards of several major journals,
and was Technical Consultant for the UNESCO funded project on diagnostic teaching of reading in Kenya,
Ghana, and Tanzania.

Richard L. Allington is Professor of Education at the University of Tennessee. He has served or serves on
the editorial advisory boards of Reading Research Quarterly, Review of Educational Research, Journal of
Educational Psychology, Reading Teacher, Elementary School Journal, Journal of Literacy Research, and
Remedial and Special Education. A past president of the National Reading Conference and the International
Reading Association, he was co-recipient (with Dr. Anne McGill-Franzen) of the IRA Albert J. Harris Award
for contributions to improving professional understanding of reading/learning disabilities, and was elected to
the Reading Hall of Fame.
Handbook of Reading Disability Research

Edited By
Anne McGill-Franzen
University of Tennessee
Richard L. Allington
University of Tennessee

Part Editors

George Hruby
John Elkins
Peter Johnston
S. Jay Samuels
Susan Hupp
Victoria Risko
Patricia Anders
William Rupley
Victor L. Willson
First published 2011
by Routledge
270 Madison Avenue, New York, NY 10016

Simultaneously published in the UK

by Routledge
2 Park Square, Milton Park, Abingdon, Oxon OX14 4RN

Routledge is an imprint of the Taylor & Francis Group, an informa business

This edition published in the Taylor & Francis e-Library, 2010.
To purchase your own copy of this or any of Taylor & Francis or Routledge’s
collection of thousands of eBooks please go to www.eBookstore.tandf.co.uk.

© 2011 Taylor & Francis

All rights reserved. No part of this book may be reprinted or reproduced or utilised in any form or by any electronic, mechanical, or other
means, now known or hereafter invented, including photocopying and recording, or in any information storage or retrieval system, without
permission in writing from the publishers.

Trademark Notice: Product or corporate names may be trademarks or registered trademarks, and are used only for identification and
explanation without intent to infringe.

Library of Congress Cataloging in Publication Data

Handbook of reading disability research / edited by Anne McGill-Franzen, Richard L. Allington.
p. cm.
1. Reading disability—Research—Handbooks, manuals, etc. I. McGill-Franzen, Anne. II. Allington, Richard L.
LB1050.5.H265 2010
371.91’44—dc22
2010016336

ISBN 0-203-85301-6 Master e-book ISBN

ISBN 13: 978-0-8058-5333-9 (hbk)

ISBN 13: 978-0-8058-5334-6 (pbk)
ISBN 13: 978-0-203-85301-6 (ebk)
 Contents

Acknowledgments ix

Preface xi
Anne McGill-Franzen

Part I: Perspectives on Reading Disability 1

Editor: George Hruby

1 The Political Contexts of Reading Disabilities 3

Patrick Shannon and Jacqueline Edmondson

2 Second Language Reading Disability: International Themes 13

Lee Gunderson, Reginald D’Silva, and Louis Chen

3 Reader Profiles and Reading Disabilities 25

Sheila W. Valencia

4 Language Development and Reading Disabilities 36

Ludo Verhoeven

5 Sociocultural Perspectives on Children with Reading Difficulties 45

Ellen McIntyre

6 Instructional Texts and the Fluency of Learning Disabled Readers 57

Shailaja Menon and Elfrieda H. Hiebert

7 Teacher Education and Reading Disabilities 68

Susan M. Benner, Sherry Mee Bell, and Amy D. Broemmel

8 Neuroscience and Dyslexia 79

Steven L. Strauss

Part II: Causes and Consequences of Reading Disability 91

Editor: John Elkins

9 Home Differences and Reading Difficulty 93

Jeanne R. Paratore and Susan Dougherty

10 Persistent Reading Disabilities: Challenging Six Erroneous Beliefs 110

Linda M. Phillips, Denyse V. Hayward, and Stephen P. Norris

11 Prenatal Drug and Alcohol Exposure and Reading Disabilities 120

Diane Barone

12 Aliteracy, Agency, and Identity 129

Stergios Botzakis and Leigh A. Hall

v
vi Contents

Part III: Assessing Reading Proficiency 137

Editor: Peter Johnston

13 Response to Intervention as an Assessment Approach 139

Donna M. Scanlon

14 Patterns of Reading Disabilities across Development 149

Louise Spear-Swerling

15 Traditions of Diagnosis: Learning from the Past, Moving Past Traditions 162
Kathleen A. Gormley and Peter McDermott

16 Reading Fluency: What Is It and How Should It Be Measured? 173

S. J. Alt and S. Jay Samuels

Part IV: Developmental Patterns of Reading Proficiency and Reading Difficulties 183
Editors: S. Jay Samuels and Susan Hupp

17 Shifting Perspectives in Emergent Literacy Research 185

Renée M. Casbergue and Lea McGee

18 Developmental Patterns of Reading Proficiency and Reading Difficulties 196

Marcia Invernizzi and Latisha Hayes

19 Vocabulary Development and Implications for Reading Problems 208

Andrew Biemiller

20 Reading Comprehension and Reading Disability 219

Katherine K. Frankel, P. David Pearson, and Marnie Nair

21 Writing Difficulties 232

Steve Graham and Karen Harris

22 Motivation and Reading Disabilities 242

Mark J. Van Ryzin

23 The Contribution of Discussion to Reading Comprehension and Critical Thinking 253

Jacquelynn A. Malloy and Linda B. Gambrell

Part V: Developmental Interventions 263

Editors: Victoria Risko and Patricia Anders

24 Expert Classroom Instruction for Students with Reading Disabilities: Explicit, Intense, Targeted …
and Flexible 265
Ruth Wharton-McDonald

25 Cultural Modeling: Building on Cultural Strengths as an Alternative to Remedial Reading Approaches 273
Marjorie Faulstich Orellana, Jennifer Reynolds, and Danny Cortez Martínez

26 Interventions to Develop Phonological and Orthographic Systems 279

Darrell Morris

27 Interventions to Develop Decoding Proficiencies 289

Irene W. Gaskins

28 Interventions to Enhance Fluency and Rate of Reading 307

Melanie R. Kuhn
 Contents vii

29 Interventions to Enhance Vocabulary Development 315

Michael F. Graves and Rebecca Silverman

30 Interventions to Enhance Narrative Comprehension 329

Janice F. Almasi, Barbara Martin Palmer, Angie Madden, and Susan Hart

31 Interventions to Enhance Informational Text Comprehension 345

Nicole M. Martin and Nell K. Duke

32 Peer Mediation: A Means of Differentiating Classroom Instruction 362

Douglas Fuchs, Lynn S. Fuchs, Adina Shamir, Eric Dion, Laura M. Saenz, and Kristen L. McMaster

33 Reading Instruction Research for English-Language Learners in Kindergarten through Sixth Grade:
The Last Twenty Years 373
Steve Amendum and Jill Fitzgerald

34 Interventions for the Deaf and Language Delayed 392

Kimberly A. Wolbers and Hannah M. Dostal

Part VI: Studying Reading Disabilities 407

Editors: William Rupley and Victor L. Willson

35 Teacher Research on Reading Difficulties 409

James F. Baumann and T. Lee Williams

36 Single-Subject and Case-Study Designs 419

David Cihak

37 Experimental and Quasi-Experimental Designs for Interventions 434

Victor L. Willson and William Rupley

38 Observational Research 444

Misty Sailors and Margaret Flores

39 Large Database Analyses 456

Therese D. Pigott and Kenneth Wong

40 Policy, Research, and Reading First 464

Naomi Zigmond, Rita Bean, Amanda Kloo, and Melissa Brydon

41 Meta-Analysis of Research on Children with Reading Disabilities 477

H. Lee Swanson

42 Interpretive Research 488

Donna E. Alvermann and Christine A. Mallozzi

Epilogue 497
Richard L. Allington

About the Authors 499

Index 511
 Acknowledgments

When undertaking a project like this handbook, there deadline. This book has been several years in the making
are always a lot of folks to thank. We’d like to begin by and yet every author stayed with us, even those who sent
acknowledging all the work Dr. Maria Cahill did on this us manuscripts before the original deadline! We appreciate
project as a graduate research assistant and prior to begin- the effort involved in writing each chapter and the gener-
ning her career at Texas Womens University. Maria was ous sharing of knowledge by so many of our colleagues in
gentle with us, even when it was our fault we could not find service of a better understanding of reading disabilities. So,
something we needed (and knew we had seen). again, thank you authors.
We would also like to thank our Part Editors for all We gratefully acknowledge the contributions of Patti
the work they did reviewing these manuscripts, and of- Fagg, our departmental secretary, who made more copies
ten providing chapter authors with just the sort of useful for us than any one person should ever have to, and Naomi
information they needed to revise and complete a better Silverman, our editor at Routledge, who has graciously ac-
chapter. While we read all the chapters and offered editorial cepted the fact that we have missed deadline after deadline.
comments on many, we didn’t have the necessary expertise We hope she will agree that it was worth the wait.
across all of the domains the chapters cover to offer advice Finally, our appreciation to Lane Akers whose good hu-
to everyone. mor and charm convinced us we should edit this volume.
We would also like to thank the chapter authors, even Thank you one and all.
those whose manuscripts arrived a bit beyond our original

ix
 Preface
ANNE MCGILL-FRANZEN

Reading is high on the national agenda. As mandated by the Likewise, issues of equity and diversity of experience loom
Congress, schools must bring all children, bar none, to grade large in critical perspectives on development. Children who
level competence or be subject to increasingly severe sanc- have the greatest difficulty achieving grade level standards
tions. Children and adolescents who experience difficulties are those from disadvantaged backgrounds who start school
in reading, and the school programs that serve them, are far behind more advantaged peers, children learning English
coming under greater scrutiny and regulation as a result. as a second language, and children who have experienced
Unfortunately, much of the current focus is proscribed mediocre teaching for several consecutive years. Nonethe-
by a narrowly defined and enacted research agenda, one less, as rigorous, classroom-based studies have observed,
that largely ignores the contributions that a broader, more the handicaps of poverty and inappropriate schooling can
inclusive perspective would bring to our understandings be overcome with assessments that inform teaching and
about children’s reading development. Consequently, an intensive, sustained, and personalized instruction that builds
enormous volume of research reporting on reading difficul- on cultural knowledge.
ties from a variety of other perspectives—sociolinguistic, In recognition of these findings, recent policy holds
cultural, and critical perspectives, for example—has been schools accountable for the reading achievement of all chil-
shut out of the conversation, and this, at a time of increasing dren, regardless of label, rendering current classifications
pluralism and diversity in our classrooms. moot and putting increased emphasis on accurate diagnosis
A learning disability in reading is typically a psychomet- and effective remediation of reading problems. What is
ric construct, historically defined in schools by a discrep- relevant is that assessment and curriculum be educative,
ancy between one and one and a half standard deviations that is, assist educators in developing instruction to meet the
from the mean on standardized, norm-referenced reading diverse learning needs of the lowest achieving readers.
achievement tests compared to average or near average Reading disabled children are not a homogeneous group
scores on intelligence tests. More recently, a learning needing the same type of remediation: it is imperative
disability may be defined by performance on benchmark that schools have the tools to develop accurate profiles
assessments that follow a standardized program of remedia- of struggling readers and the expertise and autonomy to
tion, or in today’s parlance, response to intervention (RtI) on intervene appropriately. According to current analyses
a standard treatment protocol. Although federal law ascribes of testing programs, students with reading deficits severe
disability to children who meet predetermined psychometric enough to fail state and national assessments demonstrate
criteria, in reality, whether children are classified as such varying patterns of reading development and need varying
depends on the state, school district, and school community instructional foci. Nor is reading development a monolithic
in which they live. Children may be considered average in process, based on learning a single strategy, such as phonics.
one community and disabled in another, depending on the Rather, at different points in time, along a road or pathway
resources available to help struggling children, the ethos of to reading proficiency, the mastery of particular strategies
the school, and the funding incentives to classify children or assumes paramount importance. For example, at the very
not. Unfortunately, schools often describe children labeled beginning stages of reading development, children who do
with a reading disability in terms that suggest diminished not develop the alphabetic insight that sounds map to letters
expectations and limited intellectual potential for learning. will falter. At later stages of development, automatic word
This is so even in the face of research that has demonstrated recognition assumes increased salience because without
positive effects of sustained, high-quality instruction by it, children cannot read fluently or fast enough to maintain
expert teachers. comprehension. Thus, an alternative to the norm-referenced
Further, research suggests that cognitive development discrepancy definition of reading disabilities is a conceptu-
and academic achievement cannot be separated easily from alization of learning to read proficiently as a developmental
motivation and engagement in learning, and these cannot be continuum. Children who experience difficulty will need
separated from the social, linguistic, and cultural contexts particular interventions at particular points in the develop-
of the school and community within which children learn. mental process.

xi
xii Preface

With this handbook we hope to extend current discussion • Represent the breadth of paradigms on reading dis-
and thinking about reading disabilities beyond a narrowly ability and the research within these paradigms
defined psychometric perspective. By taking incursions
into the broader research literature—that represented Throughout the book, learning to read proficiently is
by linguistic and anthropological paradigms, as well as conceptualized as a long-term developmental process in-
psychological and educational research, we explore the volving many interventions of various kinds—all keyed to
relation of reading disabilities to learning and language, individual developmental needs.
to poverty and prejudice, and to instruction and schooling. Part editors and chapter contributors are distinguished
Thus, we examine reading disabilities from sociopolitical scholars with long-standing experience in funded research,
and historical perspectives, as cultural and psychological extensive publication records, and recipients of numerous
constructs, and from the point of view of an interventionist. honors and awards from the professional organizations that
We also address traditional questions such as the following, represent the range of disciplines in the field of reading
but from multiple or alternative perspectives: disabilities. Collectively, they have edited or co-edited nu-
merous research volumes, methodology texts, journals, and
What is the nature or causes of reading disabilities? other publications for practitioners as well as researchers,
How are reading disabilities assessed? and serve or have served on the review boards of the major
How should reading disabilities be remediated and to journals in reading and related fields. In addition to examin-
what extent is remediation possible? ing the multiple perspectives (and associated research) that
Our interrelated goals in developing this volume were: influence reading disability, the contributors consistently
• Create a contemporary collection of the research on present their material within the framework of educators
reading disability diagnosis and remediation with struggling to develop concrete instructional practices that
an emphasis on a developmental perspective meet the learning needs of the lowest achieving readers.
 Part I
Perspectives on Reading Disability

EDITOR: GEORGE HRUBY

 1
The Political Contexts of Reading Disabilities
PATRICK SHANNON AND JACQUELINE EDMONDSON
Pennsylvania State University

The study of politics is the investigation of power within (2000) and Snow, Burns, and Griffin (1998) and are pro-
particular contexts. Power circulates through discourses nounced valid and reliable based on their correlations with
among various groups who make use of and are used by other established tests. In these ways, DIBELS performs
values and language to participate in on-going events the discourse of experimental science—its language, logic,
(e.g., Foucault, 1980; Gonick, 2003; Peet, 2007). These appearance, and values—constructing reading abilities and
discourses and uses of discourse set parameters, influence disabilities in its wake.
actions, and position participants within events. Those who At the same time, DIBELS is a product that competes
wield power in some contexts are powerless in others as in a market created when the need for regular monitoring
negotiations push and pull participants in ways of their own of these skills became generally accepted within the read-
making, but not entirely within their control. The discourses ing field. Although the basic materials of DIBELS can be
surrounding DIBELS (Dynamic Indicators of Basic Early downloaded from a website, and students’ scores can be
Literacy Skills) can serve as a short introduction to the processed and packaged into reports for $1 per student,
political contexts of reading disabilities, demonstrating the tests are also available commercially in several forms
how power works. along with test preparation materials and technical and
Each summer our campus supports a reading program human support as well. These products and services are
for children and youth who are experiencing difficulty advertised through professional journals and the Internet.
in learning to read at school. The program serves as a In these ways, DIBELS incorporates the discourse of busi-
practicum for masters degree students seeking reading ness, working for a market share and to maximize profits,
specialist certification. Working from a 3-to-1 students/ complicating what it means to determine reading ability
teacher ratio, we enroll between 20 and 30 children each and disability.
year. Traditionally, the enrollment process begins in late The market for the regular measurement of early read-
spring after teachers and parents have conferred about a ing was officially sanctioned when the Bush administration
student’s progress throughout the academic year and their implemented its Reading First Initiative of the No Child
projections for success in the next grade. In the past, parent Left Behind education law of 2002. In order to insure that
phone calls would trickle in during late May and early June all students would test “proficient in reading” by 2014,
with discussions about “summer regress” and “a boost going the Department of Education connected federal funding to
into next year.” Over the last 3 years, however, our program state and school district compliance with testing systems
is full with a waiting list by the end of January. Parents call that could track schools’ progress toward that goal. With
with panic in their voices, reporting that their kindergarten the discourses of science and business firmly underlying
and first grade children are “reading disabled” because they modern policy making, federal officials searched for a
have not “passed the DIBELS tests.” valid and reliable technology to standardize the practices
The Dynamic Indicators of Basic Early Literacy Skills and outcomes of reading education across the country. Ac-
are a set of six fluency tests (letter names, initial sounds, cording to a Department of Education Inspector General’s
phoneme segmentation, nonsense words, oral reading, and Report (September, 2006), Reading First officials pressured
retelling) designed to enable regular monitoring of “pre- states and school districts to adopt DIBELS as the appro-
reading and early reading skills” (www.dibels.org). The priate technology in order to comply with federal policy
purpose, content, and format of DIBELS are built upon the and qualify for funding. In these ways, DIBELS projects a
evidence-based conclusions of the National Reading Panel government discourse, framing the use of its tests as lawful

3
4 Patrick Shannon and Jacqueline Edmondson

behavior and a commitment to helping all students become resulted in the creation of psychology as an academic field.
proficient readers. In order to be recognized as a field, “scientists of the mind”
Through these three (and other) discourses, DIBELS had to distinguish their work from previous philosophic and
positions participants within reading education, replacing religious considerations on mental activity (Shore, 2001).
local knowledge and practices with the universal values, Toward that end, would-be psychologists secularized the
language, and rules of science, business, and government. Christian virtues of faith and hope in terms of science and
For example, adults’ familiarity with students’ interest in text progress and operationalized the metaphysical questions
or children’s questions around meanings are discounted in about the mind—What can I know? What ought I to do?
favor of students’ speed and accuracy when decoding sound For what can I hope?—to: How does the brain work? Ac-
and print. School traditions and teacher decisions give way to cordingly a science of the mind, psychology, would provide
technologies that direct students’ attention to code in printed the positive knowledge that would lead human beings out
texts. Although these discourses are sometimes contradic- of the problems of theological fictions and metaphysical
tory, they provide new possibilities for the participants as egotism toward the natural laws of learning, increasing
well as limit others. DIBELS enables administrators, teach- human capacity to make life easier and securing individual
ers, parents, and students to be more effective, more efficient, and social freedom (Ward, 2002).
and more accountable during reading instruction. Although efforts to separate science from philosophy
However, DIBELS also defines these participants by the and religion began during the French Enlightenment and
same terms. Each becomes defined as an abled or disabled accelerated with August Comte’s 1830 call for a social sci-
administrator, teacher, parent, or reader according to the ence to make human nature comprehensible, experimental
six measures in the DIBELS battery, and their subsequent psychology began in William Wundt’s laboratory in Leipzig,
actions are disciplined by the meanings assigned and per- Germany, during 1879 (Danziger, 2001). James McKeen
formed through the authority of these discourses. All other Cattell (Wundt’s first assistant) and G. Stanley Hall are of-
relations with text become irrelevant. To the extent that par- ten credited for extending Wundt’s experimental work and
ticipants internalize these discourses, the power of DIBELS bringing it to the United States, where it met the burgeon-
becomes invisible and natural, and local administrators ing applications of science to industry, medicine, and the
make policies, teachers label students, parents worry about military. William James’s (1890) Principles of Psychology is
their children, and readers are made or unmade accordingly. considered the first American book on psychology. Twelve
And the reach of these discourses comes knocking on the years in the writing, James’s two volumes included chapters
door of our campus reading program with early calls from on the functioning of the brain and brain activity.
anxious parents, who have been warned by concerned teach- Yet, James’s work can also serve as a metaphor for the
ers, who work in schools that must prove that they have a struggle among discourses of science, philosophy, and reli-
technology to produce proficient readers within specified gion within the scholarly discussions of the mind (Tolman,
time limits. Our program’s enrollment becomes younger 2001). For example, in 1902, James published The Variet-
each year—filled with kindergarten graduates and first grade ies of Religious Experience: A Study of Human Nature in
repeaters. Although the parents’ reactions have changed, the which he rationalized a belief in God, not on ontological
discourses behind the politics are not new. DIBELS is only or teleological grounds, but as therapeutic. He cautioned
the most recent amplification for these discourses. psychologists, “Science must be constantly reminded that
In order to consider the political contexts of reading her purposes are not the only purposes, and that the order
disabilities, we will examine the construction, mainte- of uniform causation which she has use for, and is therefore
nance, and uses of the discourses of science, business, and right in postulating, may be enveloped in a wider order,
the government that have and continue to swirl around on which she has no claims at all” (p. 1179). In 1904, he
reading education in the United States. Although reading published his interpretation of the central crisis in American
disabilities appear to be a psychological state of being, we psychology, “Does Consciousness Exist?”
understand the term to be ripe with politics at many levels. Behind this ambiguity, American researchers interested
Our intention is to provide histories, locating the origins in psychology worked to separate themselves from philoso-
and consequences of these discourses within the emergence phy (Koch, 1992). In 1883, Hall established a psychology
of disabilities in the reading field during the 20th century laboratory at Johns Hopkins and began to publish his results
and into the 21st. Within those histories, we shall search for in the American Journal of Psychology in 1887. During
values and interests that moved or move the term in various the late 1880s, psychology departments opened at many
ways with consequences that ripple through clinics, schools, established universities and became the founding discipline
states, and national contexts. for the new Clark University (which hired Hall as its first
president). There were 10 laboratories by 1890 and 20 by
1893. The American Psychological Association (APA)
Science Discourses
was formed in 1892 and held its first meeting that year. In
In An Elusive Science: The Troubling History of Education- 1895, Cattell became the editor of the Psychological Review
al Research, Lagemann (2000) argues that scholars’ efforts with the first recognized editorial review board. Because
to apply the principles of the Enlightenment to education philosophers found it difficult to present their papers at the
 The Political Contexts of Reading Disabilities 5

APA conferences and then publish them in the psychology from historical and descriptive accounts or personal
journals, they split from APA to form the Western Philo- evaluations of classroom practices and texts to statisti-
sophical Association in 1901 and the American Philosophi- cal comparisons of basic perception among able and less
cal Association in 1902. able subjects and of experimental interventions against
Appeals to science and the use of science methods were traditional methods. For example, Ruskin’s philosophical
the primary reasons for tension between these groups (Toul- words were often quoted: “To use books rightly is to go
min & Leary, 1992). In 1896, Karl Pearson explained, to them for help; to be led by them into wider sight, purer
conceptions than our own, and to receive from them the
The scientific method consists in the careful often laborious united sentences of the judges and councils of all time
classification of facts, the comparison of their relationships
against our solitary and unstable opinions” (e.g., Brown,
and sequences, and finally in the discovery by aid of the
disciplined imagination of a brief statement or formula,
1906). Such sentiments gave way in the early 20th century
which in a few words resumes a wide range of facts. Such to a different discourse substituting scientific rationality
a formula is called a scientific law. (p. 22) and technological advances for the experiential basis of
tradition treatments of reading and reading instruction.
E. L. Thorndike (1906) explained the social advantages Consider the following statements.
of this disciplined imagination and named psychologists
as agents of this work. After all we have thus far been content with trial and er-
ror, too often allowing publishers to be our jury, and a real
The judgments of science are distinguished from other rationalization of the process of inducing a child with the
judgments by being more impartial, more objective, more practice of reading has not been made. (Huey, 1908/1968,
precise, and more subject to verification by any competent p. 9)
observer and being made by those who by their very na-
When the mechanics of reading, if we may use that phrase,
ture and training should be better judges. Science knows
are mastered, the whole attention may now be concentrated
or should know no favorites and cares for nothing in its
on the significance of the passage. (Judd, 1914, p. 366)
conclusions but the truth. (p. 265)
Any progress toward measuring how well a child can read
Starting with Wundt and Cattell, psychologists looked with something of the objectivity, precision, co-measur-
for scientific laws that would explain reading (Venezky, ability, and conveniences which characterize our measure-
1984). Although Wundt was most interested in physiology, ments of how tall he is, how much he can lift with his back,
Cattell pursued his interests in understanding individual squeeze with his hand, or how acute his vision, would be a
differences by focusing on observable behaviors he thought great help in grading, promoting, and testing the value of
relatable to reading, including letter and word recognition, methods of teaching. (Thorndike, 1914, p. 1)
legibility, and attention span. His interest in differences
led him to extend Galton’s work through the development Standard reading tests supply information concerning all
phases of instruction from broader issues involved in the
of mental tests (a term he coined in 1890), which could be
course of study to the detailed difficulties encountered by
used to establish a normal range of intelligence by sampling individual pupils. (Gray, 1915, p. 59)
individual behaviors. In the same study, Cattell predicted
that “experimental psychology is likely to take a place in The Standard Test Lessons in Reading are offered to the
the educational plan of our schools and universities” (p. teachers in our school [Lincoln School at Teachers College
390). Although Cattell’s efforts to capture human differ- Columbia University] with confidence that their use will
ence through mental testing proved futile, his students (E L. give to pupils a rate of speed and power to comprehend
Thorndike, Walter Dearborn, and Arthur Gates) and others exceeding that yielded by ordinary methods of teaching
silent reading…Every lesson is a test and every test is a
would bring the concept of mental testing to their experi-
lesson…Not only is every test a lesson, but every test is
ments on learning in general and on reading in particular. a standard test; that is, it shows how well the normal or
In fact, Venezky (1984) labeled this era “The Golden Years” typical pupil would read these same lessons. (McCall &
of reading research, leading to the publication of Edmond Crabbs, 1925, p. xi)
Burke Huey’s The Psychology and Pedagogy of Reading
in 1908 and Thorndike’s establishment of the Journal of One of the most potent factors in spreading the results
Educational Psychology in 1911. Kolers would note in 1968 of research is through a well-prepared set of readers and
that “remarkably little empirical information has been added manuals, yet we find teachers still instructing children
as they themselves were taught, absolutely ignorant and
to what Huey knew (about the reading process), although
oblivious that science had discovered for us truths and that
some of the phenomena have now been measured more little children are entitled to he benefits of these discoveries.
precisely” (Huey, 1908/1968, p. xiv.). (Donovan, 1928, pp. 106–107)
In these golden years, the language about reading and
reading education changed from contemplation of how In these remarks, the discourse of science positions
reading fitted into moral development, stimulated thought, teachers and publishers as impeding the translation of the
or captured beauty to analyses of perception, speed, and laws of reading into classroom practice. The process of
precision. The language of reading instruction changed reading is divided and sequenced. Technology is declared
6 Patrick Shannon and Jacqueline Edmondson

to be the solution to individual variation, leading from ered able or disabled. As demands or perceived demands
accurate measurement to classroom instruction to individual shift, the numbers in each group change accordingly. The
remediation. The discourse established a normal range in technology and organization required to ensure ability and
the process of reading, the ways in which it is learned, and prevent disability move as well, creating markets and new
the speeds with which it is acquired. Students within this areas of expertise in their wake. Teachers’ and students’
range become able readers, and those outside this normal daily classroom practices are altered by these expectations,
range are disabled. Presuming all student capacities being organizations, and technologies—even their relationships
equal, only teacher error kept these disabled readers from with one another and society transform.
the normal able process, approach, and speed. At the same Of course, the economic rationale for reading instruc-
time, the discourse of science positioned psychologists as tion is not new. Northern colonies in the New World were
experts within this field of reading and reading education, taught reading in order to save individual souls, but used
applying scientific methods to new issues of concern. Phi- the metaphor of home economies to describe the respon-
losophers, theologians, historians, literary scholars, or even sibilities and practices of early public reading instruction
other social scientists became less important, less powerful (Smith, 2002). Thomas Jefferson and Horace Mann, nearly
in the discussions and actions surrounding reading ability 50 years apart, argued that public schooling would create
and disability. active citizens and able workers in order to develop de-
The rise of the scientific discourse in reading education mocracy and build an economy one citizen at a time. In the
has been neither straight nor smooth, but to the extent that 1800s, even the content of the school readers encouraged
evidence-based or scientifically based policy and practice Americans to be industrious, entrepreneurial, and efficient
are currently considered the norm, it has been successful. (Mosier, 1965). In this way, students became consumers of
Across the 20th century, its increasing influence can be values as well as literacy skills through reading instruction.
mapped in professional organizations (e.g., National Society As the economy turned more and more from agriculture
for the Study of Education, American Educational Research to industry, the organizational schemes of business and
Association, National Council of Teachers of English, In- industry were considered to be the primary solutions to
ternational Reading Association, National Reading Confer- consequent social challenges—industrialization, urbaniza-
ence, and Society for the Scientific Study of Reading), their tion, and immigration.
journals and meetings, and state-of-the-field reports (NSSE The first sustained effort to bring business and industrial
Yearbooks Horn, 1919; Gray, 1925; Gray, 1937: Gates, principles to public education is found in the work of the
1949; Austin & Morrison, 1963; Barton & Wilder, 1964; Committee on the Economy of Time in Education. Members
Durkin, 1978; Anderson, Heibert, Scott, & Wilkinson, 1985; of that committee sought to rationalize school curricula
Adams, 1990; Snow et al., 1998; National Reading Panel, and instruction according to Frederick Winslow Taylor’s
2000). Throughout, there has been a tone of certainty—now scientific management (Taylor, 1912), replacing personal
coming full circle back to physiology. judgment and rule of thumb with scientifically developed
technology and standard practices. Their logic was that
Reading reflects language, and reading disability reflects a
importing these business principles would increase both
deficit within the language system….Using functional brain
imaging, scientists around the world have discovered not
efficiency and the quality of the teachers’ work and product,
only the brain basis of reading but also a glitch in the neural running more smoothly, cheaply, and productively. Toward
circuitry for reading in children and adults who struggle to that end, the practices of the most productive teachers were
read. (Shaywitz & Shaywitz, 2004, pp. 7, 8) analyzed in terms of tested results, useless movements
discarded, and divided into elemental parts that could be
described completely on instructional cards. These cards
Discourses of Business
would enable any literate person to follow the one best
The rhetoric of A Nation at Risk (1983), and that of the system of teaching reading. Within these moves, students
reports of crisis that followed, described reading ability and became more than metaphorical products of teachers’ labor.
disability in economic terms (Shannon, 1998). Such crisis- Their learning was subject to quality control of tests, and
based analyses suggest that those who are able to meet the teachers’ efforts were standardized in order to increase their
literacy demands of a global economy are those who will continuous fidelity to that system.
prosper and help the United States prosper. Those who are The four reports of the committee demonstrate the in-
unable to meet those demands are those who will face dif- complete application of this business model to schooling in
ficult times, becoming social and economic liabilities. The general and reading in particular. The first report presented
ability to read in socially acceptable ways, then, becomes a national survey in order to establish standards of expec-
capital—something that can be accounted for and spent tations for teachers in each grade. Issues such as subjects
personally and socially. In this way, the financial well- within the curriculum, time devoted to reading instruction,
being of the individual and society are embedded within rates of reading, vocabulary loads in textbooks, and the
the framing, infrastructure, and practices that surround tests available to determine student progress were listed
reading ability and disability. Literacy skills required within to establish norms of expectations (Wilson, 1915). In the
particular economies set the parameters of who is consid- second and third reports, William S. Gray delved deeper
 The Political Contexts of Reading Disabilities 7

into daily practices of reading instruction, advocating that categories of able and disabled readers (typically with
silent reading instruction was preferable to oral because scales within each category) in order to direct teachers’ at-
of its utility and efficiency in everyday tasks and provided tention and instruction to the areas designated as the causes
a first glimpse of his tests—Standardized Oral Reading of individual reading disability. The publishers’ purpose,
Paragraphs and Silent Reading (Wilson, 1917). The fourth however, was (as it is to this day) to insure that every reader
report was to be the equivalent of the instructional card for was tested in every way necessary in order to maximize
scientific management. the companies’ profits. Increased economic demands for
literate workers fueled, as it continues to fuel, the need for
The effort throughout has been to put its recommendations more and better tests, keeping the test publishing market
in simple, direct language, that its report may constitute a
lucrative. Currently it is a multi-billion of dollars per year
handbook and guide for the use of teachers and supervisors
who are interested in planning classroom procedures with
industry (PBS, 2008).
due regard for both economy and efficiency in teaching and The prevention and remediation of reading disability
learning. (Wilson, 1918, pp. 7–8) also created markets for publishers. The need for standard-
ized instruction across classrooms led to the production of
Gray deduced 48 principles for reading instruction from teachers’ manuals, which set the path for able development
35 studies, covering norms for student progress across (Shannon, 1989). Although most teachers used textbooks
grade levels, suggestions for oral and silent reading, and during reading instruction prior to 1920, those books printed
specifications for printed materials. He emphasized that the only brief directions for teachers within the students’ books.
experiments demonstrated that no single textbook method During the 1920s, psychologists’ calls for explicit direc-
of teaching reading was necessarily superior to all others tions to standardize teaching practices created a market
in terms of test results. Rather he argued that instructional for textbooks enhanced by lengthy teachers’ guidebooks.
efficiency and productivity varied according to how well Reminiscent of Taylor’s instructional cards, the tone and
teachers used the materials available to them. Just as Taylor content of directions set the scope, sequence, and expected
had found in the steel mills, master teachers of reading were outcomes of each lesson.
working in classrooms beside teachers who demonstrated Across the decades to the present, advances in reading
little talent. Even before the publication of the fourth report, psychology led publishers to identify new markets for better
the NSSE formed the Committee on Materials in Educa- and better materials—manuals, anthologies, practice books
tion, combining the Committee on the Measurement of and sheets, and informal and standardized tests—to monitor
Educational Products and the Committee on the Economy students’ flow through its system. Most reading experts pro-
of Time in Education. “At this point, the Society assigned to claimed the scientific basis of each new set of materials and
the present Committee the task of embodying, in concrete accessories, increasing the power of businesses in schools.
materials to be used in classrooms, the principles arrived at Many of the more prominent experts worked for basal (later
by the earlier committees” (Bagley, 1920, p. 11). In short, core) reading program publishers. Although periodically
the new committee was to develop a technology that would some experts have criticized the conservative influence of
raise the methods of struggling teachers to the same produc- publishers on classroom practices and conceptions of abil-
tivity of the master teachers. In this way, teachers became ity and disability (e.g., Durkin, 1978; Goodman, Shannon,
consumers and subjects of tests and materials in order to Freeman, & Murphy, 1988), most continued and continue
promote reading ability and prevent reading disability. to support the use of basal or core reading programs during
The need for more effective technologies of quality reading instruction, citing the quality control over teaching
monitoring of student learning and teacher instruction (e.g., Anderson, Osborn, & Tierney, 1984).
created new markets within the reading community (Shan- Adjusting quickly to changes in the professional rhetoric
non, 2001). Tests within reading lessons, tests of reading surrounding reading education to supply new supplemen-
progress over short and long periods, and diagnostic tests tary products, basal publishers, however, have not changed
became ubiquitous in classrooms and schools across the the basic structure of these materials since the 1920s. New
next decades. Experts took pains to explain the benefits information is added, and the nomenclature changes in order
and limits of informal sampling of students’ reading that to gain new customers, but the structures and formats remain
teachers could implement and analyze themselves, and remarkably the same to maintain the old market (Chall &
standardized reading tests which required outside monitor- Squires, 1991). Early in the century, publishers maintained
ing to be used effectively in order to identify specific areas their influence through direct involvement in NSSE commit-
of weaknesses among students. As early as 1906, existing tee work in order to provide recommendations on reading
textbook companies (e.g., World Book, Lippincott, and education and instruction. In the 1950s, publishers con-
Public School) and companies created to publish tests (e.g., tributed to the start-up capital of the International Reading
Courtis and Thorndike published their own tests before Association, and continue to fund the professional meetings
selling them to companies) entered this market. As with the of that and other organizations concerned with reading and
textbook market, many of the tests were modest variations reading instruction (Jerrolds, 1977; Sears, 2007). For the
of a few popular products. The authors’ intended purpose educational materials publishing industry, all these efforts
of these tests was (as it is to this day) to sort students into and expenses are simply marketing.
8 Patrick Shannon and Jacqueline Edmondson

A recent successful marketing venture concerns the Variability in state legislature’s answers to these ques-
consequences of testing of reading ability. As described tions resulted in beautifully idiosyncratic consequences
by Garan (2005), readers who fail to reach the able range yet also standardized outcomes (On the one hand, think
require more and perhaps different attention because stan- of the wonderful classroom libraries that developed in
dardized technological solutions have been unsuccessful. California schools when the state legislature argued that
Prior to taking the tests, readers designated as “at risk” of students should read more in the 1980s, but would not
failure can be served by extra preparation. Test publish- fund school libraries. On the other hand, consider the ef-
ers, basal publishers, and independent entrepreneurs have fects of large state textbook adoptions on the production
moved rapidly into this market, supplying goods and ser- of basal or core reading programs from which smaller
vices to improve the odds of passing. Those who still fail states must also choose). Currently, definitions of reading
provide a market for more materials and services as well. ability and disability by state vary greatly because, under
Since public schools are responsible for students becoming No Child Left Behind (P.L. 107-100), states have the right
able readers, the tutoring market provides a new conduit for to determine these categories according to state standards
public education funds to flow toward private companies and examinations. Students can change their classification
and businesses. The continued flow has apparently been simply by crossing a state boundary. Arguments for district,
lucrative (PBS, 2008). Although there were scores of basal municipal, or other local control to address these questions
programs at the beginning of the 20th century, there are only would only increase such differences. However, as Coffey
five major programs and three publishers that control the (1933) made clear, it is state governments that have the
reading materials market today. The news media designated right to regulate local school districts. Local control is a
some publishing companies as “Bush stocks” when the No courtesy, not a right.
Child Left Behind legislations passed (Metcalf, 2004).
The maintenance of public schools is a matter of state,
rather than of local concern. School districts exist because
Government Discourses the state finds this is a convenient way to carry out its edu-
cational program. It may require these districts to do any
In North America, government discourse entered reading act, which it might perform directly. It may place restric-
education in 1642 when the Massachusetts legislature tions upon them as it seems essential. It has full authority,
passed a law requiring towns to make certain that “all youth unless its constitution provides otherwise, to prescribe the
under family Government be taught to read perfectly the subject matter that may or shall be taught in its schools.
English Tongue, have knowledge in capital laws, and be (Coffey, 1931, p. 386)
taught some orthodox catechisms, and that they be brought
up to some honest employment, profitable to themselves and Although the states have the authority to enforce their
to the Commonwealth” (quoted in Cubberley, 1933, p. 18). educational decisions through sovereign power, economic
In this statement, the colonial legislature presaged six val- sanctions have been the primary incentive since the end of
ues to be found in later U.S. government discourse: (a) the World War II. When local communities’ tax bases decline,
United States is a republic and not a democracy (legislators school districts become more dependent on state funding,
made the decision), (b) rule of law (all youth—knowledge of and thereby are compelled to comply with state regulations
capital laws), (c) equal protection of those considered citi- and demands.
zens (under family government), (d) building infrastructure The federal government may lack a constitutional man-
to develop the economy (taught to read—some honest em- date to manage public education, but its direct involvement
ployment), (d) accountability (perfectly), and (e) ideology began after the Soviet launch of Sputnik in 1957 when it
of party in power rules (English—orthodox catechisms). appeared that the United States was losing the technological
In 1789, with the ratification of the U.S. Constitution and advantage that it had demonstrated during the World War II
its first 10 amendments, education was secured as a state’s (Kaestle & Smith, 1983). The National Defense Education
right, continuing what had been the uneven commitment to Act (P.L. 85-864) provided substantial funding for research
public education and reading education across the various on, and development of, school curricula deemed vital to the
colonies. By necessity, each state legislature has had to national defense and security—science, second language
address a series of questions: and mathematics curriculum—and asserted for the first time
that general curriculum could be improved as well. With
What type of education should the state sponsor? this legislation, two new values were added to the govern-
Who should pay for that education? ment discourses. First, public schools were recognized as
Who should determine what is taught and how it is taught a national security concern, and therefore, the federal gov-
in a state sponsored school? ernment had a direct interest in schooling and curriculum.
Who should have the opportunity to study? For how Second, funding would be the primary federal incentive to
long? Toward what end? gain state compliance with its education initiatives. The
Who should decide and how should they decide when federal government would fund research as well as direct
students are sufficiently educated? payments to schools to enable programs. Subsequent federal
Who should decide who is qualified to teach? legislation (e.g., Elementary and Secondary Education Act
 The Political Contexts of Reading Disabilities 9

of 1965, P.L. 89-10, and the Education of All Handicapped visible or demographically recognizable minority—children
Children Act of 1975, P. L/ 94-142) reinforced these and with physical and cognitive handicaps. This legislation
the original government values and practices. marked the official entry of the language of disability into
The role of ideology within government discourses be- federal law (McGill-Franzen, 1987). To qualify for special
comes most apparent in the shift of the hierarchy of values educational services, students had to be tested and score
over the last half century. All administrations demonstrated outside the normal range, and gaps in scores were attributed
governmental values by their choice of rhetoric, legislation, to individual traits and not social conditions. Clearly, the
and research funding, but each positioned those values testing since the beginning of the standards movement in
according to its underlying political ideology (Shannon, the 1990s to the testing of NCLB follow this latter defini-
2007). Contrast the emphasis in the rhetoric surrounding tion of reading disability as a personal deficit with a simple
Project Head Start (Economic Opportunity Act of 1964, P.L. instructional solution. To overcome those gaps, the federal
88-452), a program designed to promote equal opportunity government began to fund research on best methods to as-
for disadvantaged children through federal funding, during sure success in reading before and during school.
the Johnson as compared to the Reagan administrations. Such federal funding of research is a third way in which
Consider the following two quotes from each in turn. ideology influences government discourses on reading
education. The influence has not been singular or linear.
Archimedes told us many centuries ago: give me a lever Contrast the eclectic approaches of the First Grade Studies
long enough and a fulcrum strong enough and I can move
(Bond & Dykstra, 1967) and Project Head Start (1960s),
the world. Today, at last, we have a prospect of a lever long
enough and support strong enough to do something about
the information processing of The Center for the Study of
our children of poverty. The lever is education, and the Reading (1970s), the disciplined agenda of the National In-
fulcrum is federal assistance. (Commissioner of Education stitute for Child Health and Development (1970s–90s), and
Francis Keppel, 1965, p. 6) the “contextual” work of the Center for the Improvement of
Early Reading Achievement (1997–2002). Federal and state
First the President wanted to reduce substantially federal administrations spent tens of millions of dollars to discover
spending for education. Second, he wanted to strengthen which methods would teach all American children to read.
local and state control of education and to reduce dramati-
In order to translate those results for school personnel, the
cally the federal responsibility in this area….Fourth, the
President wanted to encourage the establishment of laws
federal government funded a series of state-of-the-field
and rules that would offer greatly expanded parental choice reports: Becoming a Nation of Readers (Anderson et al.,
and that would increase the competition for students among 1985), Beginning to Read (Adams, 1990), Preventing Read-
schools in newly created public and private structures ing Difficulties in Young Children (Snow et al., 1998), and
patterned after the free market system that motivates and the National Reading Report (2000). In each, the definitions
disciplines U. S. business and industry. (Secretary of Edu- of reading ability and disability are contingent on who was
cation Terrell Bell, 1986, p. 482) at the table as the content of the reports were decided.
Although both the liberal and conservative official ex- The areas of focus and the methods of analyses were de-
pressed his commitment to schooling, the difference in val- cided by who was selected to the panel. The five areas of
ues is explicit expressed in their statements. Ideology is also the [National Reading Panel] Report do not capture all there
evident in the rhetoric employed by the neoliberal Clinton is to reading. Rather they are the specialties of the panel
administration (Edmondson, 2000) and the neoconservative members. Tom Trabasso in comprehension, Linnea Ehri
G. W. Bush administration (Goodman, Shannon, Goodman, in phonics, me for fluency. I fought for my topic as did the
others. The outcome could not have been otherwise. That
& Rappaport, 2004). Regardless of the ideology, Head Start
does not compromise the report. It simply demonstrates its
was never sufficiently funded under any administration to limits. (Samuels, 2006)
enroll all eligible children.
Furthermore, consider two federal attempts to protect
minorities’ rights in public schools. In 1965, the Elementary Connections, Contradictions, Constants
and Secondary Education Act (P.L. 89-10, which has passed As demonstrated by the foregoing review, the political con-
through several iterations to its current form No Child Left texts of reading disabilities are mediated by the discourses
Behind) was originally the educational weapon in the War of science, business, and government. The power of these
on Poverty, supporting other federal programs for food, discourses circulate through and among participants near and
health care, and housing. Gaps in achievement between the far in ways that establish opportunities and limits, impact
poor and the not poor were attributed to social inequalities actions, and position participants within their immediate cir-
that were to be addressed with a comprehensive and national cumstances. It is circumstance, not position, that determines
plan. In schools, this required compensatory supplemental participants’ power (Fraatz, 1987). In order to understand
instruction for demonstrably poor, including racial minority, the political contexts of reading disabilities, researchers
students. Lack of progress in reading was defined as a social must locate these discourses and map the landscape of the
disadvantage. In 1975, the Education for All Handicapped situation accordingly. Note that the discourses do not always
Children Act (later renamed Individuals with Disabilities work in conjunction with one another, because the values
Education Act, P.L. 108-446) sought services for a non- of one discourse can trump those in another.
10 Patrick Shannon and Jacqueline Edmondson

Consider for example, the struggles over the definitions basis for highlighting specific commercial programs such
of reading disabilities since the turn of the 21st century. as Open Court and SRA Reading Mastery, they contribute
Researchers, teachers, politicians, and pundits with com- to the impression that students’ reading problems will be
peting conceptions of reading and literacy presented their solved if a school simply buys the right program. (Taylor,
Anderson, Au, & Raphael, 2000, p. 23)
positions to professional and public audiences. Some af-
firmed traditional definitions and methods, while others In contrast to the variability and struggles within the
called for higher standards and higher stakes for both. Some discourse of science and government, business discourses
researchers and teachers disputed the assumptions inherent have been consistent across the entire 20th century: Schools
in how the categories of reading abilities and disabilities are responsible for and to the economy, they should be or-
could and should be determined, while others denied the ganized and run like businesses, and they provide markets
categories altogether. for businesses. Accordingly, higher standards are needed
The ebb and flow of these debates have played out in sev- because business demands on reading have increased.
eral ways. For example, Dressman (2007) tracked a move Straightforward practices based on the measurement of
from psychological theory to social theory in the majority goals will be effective and efficient—business like. Both
of articles published in three major research journals in the these values are implied in Taylor and her colleagues’
field of reading education research. A second example is statement. Explicit in their statement, however, is the third
the split within the membership of the National Reading value—the commodification of reading disabilities. Pub-
Conference when in 1993 disgruntled members formed lishing companies, testing companies and their parent com-
the Society for the Scientific Study of Reading in order to panies, as well as new entrepreneurs are heavily invested
reinforce the traditional values of science and progress in in the identification, maintenance, and practices of reading
the field of reading. A third example is University of Oregon disabilities. “Discoveries” of new methods to identify and
Professor Douglas Carnine’s call for the professionalization address reading disabilities are quickly transformed into
of the reading field through “systematic aggressive action” commodities for sale. When the market is saturated with
to increase “the use of scientific methods to determine products, then, like other businesses, new types of disabili-
efficacy” in order to discredit nonexperimental methods ties are discovered and new (or repackaged) remedies mar-
(1999, p. 6). As director of the federally funded National keted. This is not a recent phenomenon (Altwerger, 2005;
Center to Improve the Tools for Educators, Carnine’s solu- Larson, 2007). The current billion-dollar test, textbook, and
tion channeled all three of the discourses. test prep industries rest upon those million-dollar textbook
During the second Clinton administration to the pres- industries of the past.
ent, government discourses marched into this struggle with The Department of Education Inspector General’s report
atypical consistency. As reviewed previously, the standards of September 22, 2006 (ED OIG/I13-F0017) described
movement set standardized tests as the measurement of how discourses of science and government swirl inside
learning. NICHD, by its own acknowledged criteria, has the most powerful business discourse within the Reading
funded only research proposals that have employed reliable First Initiative of the federal No Child Left Behind educa-
and replicable experimental methods in the study of reading tion law. Echoing Edmond Burke Huey and members of
instruction during Reid Lyon’s tenure. Member selection the Committee on the Economy of Time in Education, the
for national panels on reading favored experimentalists over Reading First Initiative policy requires scientifically based
social theorists throughout the decade (Cunningham, 2001; research as the criterion for making instructional decisions.
Kennedy, 2007; U.S. Department of Education Inspector The phrase appears over 100 times in the policy. Yet the
General, 2006). Finally, the federal government sought to Inspector General’s report found that science and research
end the struggle over the definition of reading disabilities were not the criteria used to determine the test, materi-
with the Education Science Reform Act of 2002 (P.L. 107- als, and practices that would define reading abilities and
249). Although the National Academy of Sciences was disabilities on a daily basis in American schools. Rather,
successful in negotiating somewhat inclusive language, materials favored (and sometimes authored) by external
many educational researchers continue to interpret that law groups appointed by the federal government were forced
as decidedly biased in favor of experimentalism (Feuer, upon school personnel and students without benefit of rig-
Towne, & Shavelson, 2002). Taylor and her colleagues orous research, and other programs which did have such
expressed their frustration that the discourses of science, scientific support were excluded systematically. The report
business, and government overlap to produce a powerful provides the names of some officials who were implicated,
but irrational force in the reading education field. but does not offer the names or titles of the questionable
commodities or their publishers.
Policymakers and educators feel the urgency of finding
an easy answer and producing results. Foorman and her
The Washington Post was not so discrete (Grunwald,
colleagues appear to present just such an easy answer in 2006, p. A14). They report that “the vast majority of the
the last line of their article by suggesting that widespread 4,800 Reading First schools have now adopted one of five or
reading failure might be prevented through explicit teach- six top selling commercial textbooks…most of the schools
ing of the alphabetic principle. Further, when the authors use the same assessment program…with little research
of this widely publicized study use their results as the backing.” That assessment program is DIBELS. The same
 The Political Contexts of Reading Disabilities 11

one that brings the “reading disabled” kindergarten and first Fraatz, M. (1987). The politics of reading: Power, opportunity, and pros-
grade “failures” to our reading camp. We have practiced the pects for change in American public schools. New York: Teachers
College Press.
politics of reading disabilities in our own context by sharing Garan, E. (2005). Scientific flimflam: A who’s who of entrepreneurial
comments with parents from the newspapers concerning research. In B. Altwerger (Ed.), Reading for Profit: How the bottom
the Inspector General’s report on the conflict of interest line leaves kids behind (pp. 21–32). Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.
in the Reading First Initiative, then we begin to work with Gates, A. (Ed.). (1949). Reading in the elementary school. 48th Yearbook
the reading abilities that the children have brought with of the National Society for the Study of Education. Chicago: University
of Chicago Press.
them to camp. Gonick, M. (2003). Between femininities: Ambivalence, identity and
edcuation of girls. Albany, NY: SUNY Press.
Goodman, K., Shannon, P., Freeman, Y., & Murphy, S. (1988). Report
References
card on basal readers. Katonah, NY: Richard C. Owens.
Adams, M. (1990). Beginning to read. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. Goodman, K., Shannon, P., Goodman, Y., & Rappaport, D. (2004). Saving
Altwerger, B. (Ed.). (2005). Reading for profit: How the bottom line leaves our schools. San Francisco, CA: Liveright.
kids behind. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann. Gray, W. S. (1915). Selected bibliography upon practical tests of reading
Anderson, R., Heibert, E., Scott, J., & Wilkinson, J. (1985). Becoming a ability. In H. Wilson (Ed.), Minimum essentials in elementary school
nation of readers. Washington, DC: National Institute of Education. subjects — Standards and current practices. 14th Yearbook of the
Anderson, R., Osborn, J., & Tierney, R. (1984). Learning to read in National Society for the Study of Education (pp. 38–51). Bloomington,
American schools: Basal readers and content texts. Mahwah, NJ: IL: Public School Publishing.
Erlbaum. Gray, W. S. (1919). Principles of method in teaching reading as derived
Austin, M., & Morrison, C. (1963). The first r. New York: Wiley. from scientific investigation. In E. Horn (Ed.), Fourth report of the
Bagley, W. (1920). Introduction. In G. Whipple (Ed.), The new materials committee on the economy of time in education. 18th Yearbook of the
of instruction. 19th yearbook of the National Society for the Study of National Society for the Study of Education. Bloomington, IL: Public
Education (pp. 7–19). Bloomington, IL: Public School Publishing. School Publishing.
Barton, A., & Wilder, D. (1964). Research and practice in the teaching of Gray, W. S. (Ed.). (1925). Report of the national committee on reading.
reading. In M. Miles (Ed.), Innovation in education (pp. 361–398). 24th Yearbook of the National Society for the Study of Education.
New York: Teachers College Press. Bloomington, IN: Public School Publishing.
Bell, T. (1986). Education policy development in the Reagan administra- Gray, W. S. (Ed.). (1937). Teaching reading: A second report of the national
tion. Phi Delta Kappan, 68, 481–487. committee on reading. 36th Yearbook of the National Society for the
Brown, G. (1906). Point of view. In G. Brown (Ed.), On the teaching of Study of Education. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
English in elementary and secondary schools (pp. 5–65). Bloomington, Grunwald, M. (2006, October 1). Billons for an inside game on reading.
IL: Public School Publishing. Washington Post, B 01.
Carnine, D. (1999). Campaign for moving research into practice. Remedial Horn, E. (Ed.). (1919). Fourth report of the committee on the economy of
and Special Education, 20, 2–6, 35. time in education. 18th Yearbook of the National Society for the Study
Cattell, J. M. (1890). Mental tests and measurement. Mind, 15, 373–380. of Education. Bloomington, IL: Public School Publishing.
Chall, J., & Squires, J. (1991). The publishing industry and textbooks. In Huey, E. B. (1968). The psychology and pedagogy of reading. Cambridge,
R. Barr, M. Kamil, P. Monsenthal, & P. D. Pearson (Eds.) Handbook MA: MIT Press. (Original work published 1908)
of reading research vol. 2 (pp. 120–146). New York: Longman. James, W. (1890). The principles of psychology. New York: Henry Holt.
Coffey, W. (1931). Judicial opinion on textbook selection. In G. Whipple James, W. (1902). The varieties of religious experience: A study in human
(Ed.), The textbook in American education. 30th Yearbook of the Na- nature. New York: New American.
tional Society for the Study of Education (pp. 71–82). Bloomington, James, W. (1904). Does consciousness exist? Journal of Philosophy,
IL: Public School Press. Psychology, and Scientific Methods, 1, 477–491.
Cubberley, E. (1933). Public education in the United States: A study and Jerrolds, B. (1977). Reading reflections: A history of the international read-
interpretation of American educational history. Boston: Houghton- ing association. Newark: DE: International Reading Association.
Mifflin. Judd, C. (1914). Reading tests. Elementary School Journal, 14, 365–373.
Cunningham, J. (2001). The National Reading Panel report. Reading Kaestle, C., & Smith, M. (1983). The federal role in elementary and
Research Quarterly, 36, 326–355. secondary education 1940–1980. Harvard Educational Review, 52,
Danziger, K. (2001). Sealing off the discipline: Wilhelm Wundt and the 384–408.
psychology of memory. In C. Green, M. Shore, & T. Tao (Eds.), The Kennedy, T. (May 9, 2007). The chairman’s report on the conflict of
transformation of psychology: Influences of 19th century philosophy, interest found in the implementation of the reading first program at
technology, and natural science (pp. 45–62). Washington, DC: Ameri- three regional tech centers. Washington, DC: Government Printing
can Psychological Association. Office.
Donovan, H. (1928). Use of research in the teaching of reading. Elementary Keppel, F. (1965). Aid to elementary and secondary education: Hearings
English Review, 14, 106–107. before the general subcommittee on education of the committee on
Dressman, M. (2007). Theoretically framed: Argument and desire in the education and labor. 89th Congress. 1st Session. Washington, DC:
production of general knowledge about literacy. Reading Research Government Printing Office.
Quarterly, 42, 332–363. Koch, S. (1992). Wundt’s creature at age zero—and as centenarian: Some
Durkin, D. (1978). What classroom observation reveal about reading com- aspects of the institutionalization of the new psychology. In S. Koch
prehension instruction. Reading Research Quarterly, 14, 481–538. & D. Leary (Eds.), A century of psychology as science (pp. 75–99).
ED-OIG/I13-F0017 (2006, September). The Reading First Program Grant Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.
Application Process: Final Inspection Report. Washington, DC: Office Kolers, P. (1968). Introduction. In E. B. Huey (Ed.), The psychology and
of Inspector General, United States Department of Education. pedagogy of reading (pp. 3–12). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Edmondson, J. (2000). America reads: A critical policy analysis. Newark, Lagemann, E. C. (2000). An elusive science: The troubling history of
DE: International Reading Association. education research. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Feuer, M., Towne, L., & Shavelson, R. (2002). Scientific culture and Larson, J. (Ed.). (2007). Literacy as snake oil: Beyond the quick fix. New
educational research. Educational Researcher, 31, 4–29. York: Peter Lang.
Foucault, M. (1980). Power/knowledge. (C. Gordon, Ed.). New York: McCall, W., & Crabbs, L. M. (1925). Standard test lessons in reading (5
Pantheon. volumes). New York: Teachers College Press.
12 Patrick Shannon and Jacqueline Edmondson

McGill-Franzen, A. (1987). Failure to learn to read: Formulating a policy Snow, C., Burns, S., & Griffin, P. (1998). Preventing reading difficulties in
problem. Reading Research Quarterly, 22, 475–490. young children. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.
Metcalf, S. (2004). Reading between the lines. In A. Kohn & P. Shannon Taylor, B., Anderson, R., Au, K., & Raphael, T. (2000). Discretion in
(Eds.), Education inc.: Turning learning into a business (pp. 49–75). the translation of research to policy: A case from beginning reading.
Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann. Educational Researcher, 29, 16–26.
Mosier, R. (1965). Making the American mind: Social and moral ideas in Taylor, F. W. (1912). The present state of the art of industrial management.
the McGuffey readers. New York: Russell and Russell. The American Magazine, 71, 1–9.
National Commission on Excellence in Education. (1983). A nation at risk: Thorndike, E. L. (1906). The principles of teaching based on psychology.
The imperatives of educational reform. Washington, DC: Government New York: A. G. Seler.
Printing Office. Thorndike, E. L. (1914). The measurement of ability in reading. Teachers
National Reading Panel. (2000). Report of the National Reading Panel: College Record, 15, 1–17.
Teaching children to read: An evidence-based assessment of the Tolman, C. (2001). Philosophical doubts about psychology as a natural
scientific research literature and its implications for reading instruc- science. In C. Green, M. Shore, & T. Tao (Eds.), The transformation
tion. Washington, DC: National Institute of Child Health and Human of psychology: Influences of 19th century philosophy, technology, and
Development. natural science (pp. 175–194). Washington, DC: American Psycho-
PBS. (2008, February 18). http://www.pbs.org/nbr/site/onair/ logical Association.
transcripts/080218i Toulmin, S., & Leary, D. (1992). The cult of empiricism in psychology
Pearson, K. (1896). The grammar of science. New York: MacMillan. and beyond. In S. Koch & D. Leary (Eds.), A century of psychology
Peet, R. (2007). Geographies of power. New York: Zed Books. as science (pp. 594–617). Washington, DC: American Psychological
Samuels, S. J. (2006, May 3). Statement made during the question and Association.
answer session of the Reading Hall of Fame presentation at Interna- U.S. Department of Education’s Inspector General. (2006, September 22).
tional Reading Association Convention, Chicago, IL. The Reading First Program’s Grant Application Process: Final Inspec-
Sears, L. (2007). Reaction, initiation, and promise: A historical study of the tion Report. Washington, DC: Government Printing Office.
International Reading Association. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Venezky, R. (1984). The history of reading research. In P. D. Pearson, R.
University of Pittsburgh. Barr, M. Kamil, & P. Mosenthal (Eds.), Handbook of reading research
Shannon, P. (1989). Broken promises: Reading instruction in 20th century (pp. 3–38). New York: Longman.
America. Westport, CT: Bergin & Garvey. Ward, S. (2002). Modernizing the mind: Psychological knowledge and
Shannon, P. (1998). Reading poverty. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann. the remaking of society. Westport, CT: Praeger.
Shannon, P. (2001). iSHOP/you shop: Raising questions about reading Wilson, H. (Ed.). (1915). Minimum essentials in elementary school
commodities. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann. subjects — Standards and current practices. 14th Yearbook of the
Shannon, P. (2007). Reading against democracy: The broken promises of National Society for the Study of Education. Bloomington, IL: Public
reading instruction. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann. School Publishing.
Shaywitz, S., & Shaywitz, B. (2004). Reading disability and the brain. Wilson, H. (Ed.). (1917). Second report of the committee on minimum es-
Educational Leadership, 6(6), 6–11. sentials in elementary school subjects. 16th Yearbook of the National
Shore, M. (2001). Psychology and memory in the midst of change: The Society for the Study of Education. Bloomington, IL: Public School
social concerns of late 19th century North American psychologists. In Publishing.
C. Green, M. Shore, & T. Tao (Eds.), The transformation of psychology: Wilson, H. (Ed.). (1918). Third report of the committee on economy of time
Influences of 19th century philosophy, technology, and natural science in education. 17th Yearbook of the National Society for the Study of
(pp. 63–86). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association. Education. Bloomington, IL: Public School Publishing.
Smith, N. B. (2002). American reading instruction (5th ed.). Newark, DE:
International Reading Association.
 2
Second Language Reading Disability
International Themes
LEE GUNDERSON, REGINALD D’SILVA
University of British Columbia

LOUIS CHEN
University of Toronto

Introduction around the world are often involved in learning to read

languages that are different from their home or first lan-
There appears to be the belief around the world that learn-
guages.
ing to read is foundational to becoming a contributing,
In this chapter we address issues related to reading dis-
participating member of global society. Many view reading
ability in the case of learners attempting to learn to read
as the prerequisite that allows individuals’ participation
a language that is different from the language they speak
in school, socialization into society, ability to learn, and
at home. In the process, we will attempt to identity salient
academic and professional success. In reality millions of
themes in the international literature base—a daunting task.
human beings lead healthy productive lives without ever
The chapter begins with a description of the millions of hu-
learning to read; however those who do read appear to have
man beings who attempt to learn to read a language other
better access to the world economy, to technology, and to the
than their L1. The terms reading disability and dyslexia are
rapidly expanding knowledge base. Different jurisdictions
described and defined, and research findings are discussed,
proudly proclaim their institutional success in achieving
including notions related to orthographic depth. Reading
high literacy levels in their populations (see, for instance,
disability related to three major languages—English, Hindi,
Kerala.gov.in/education/status.htm). Organizations such as
and Chinese—is reviewed. The chapter concludes with a
the International Association for the Evaluation of Educa-
number of overall themes related to the international view
tion Achievement (see http://nces.ed.gov/surveys/pirls/)
of reading disability.
measure reading achievement and use these data to compare
or rank countries. Reading, often referred to as literacy, is
widely considered to be important. Second Language Reading
In 1955 the eminent American reading expert William
Millions of human beings are enrolled in programs to learn
S. Gray noted that literacy problems affected countries
to read a language that is different from the one they speak at
around the world:
home; sometimes this is called the mother tongue. In many
Reports from abroad show that every country, language, and cases they learn a second (L2), a third (L3), a fourth (L4), or
culture faces many such problems, which are in urgent need more languages. The focus of the discussion in this chapter
of intensive study. This situation is due in large measure is disability related to the learning of reading in an additional
to two closely related facts: first, a clear recognition by all language. As it turns out, the number of individuals attempt-
nations of the tremendous role that world literacy might ing to learn to read in an additional language is huge and
play in promoting individual welfare, group progress, in- the reasons they do so are interestingly complex.
ternational understanding, and world peace; and, second, Individuals learn to read an additional language for po-
the many challenging problems faced everywhere in ef-
litical, economic, social, and personal reasons. However,
forts to help both children and adults to acquire sufficient
competence in reading to use it effectively in promoting
these categories are not exclusive. Migration from one
personal development and group progress. (p. 11) country to another as immigrants or refugees often requires
the learning of a new language. Migrants arrive in their new
Gray’s comments concerned learners involved in the countries with complex language backgrounds including
teaching and learning of their First Language (L1). Times those who are literate or illiterate in their home languages,
have changed since 1955. For various reasons learners those who have a variety of motivations to learn to read,

13
14 Lee Gunderson, Reginald D’Silva, and Louis Chen

and those who may have different levels of ability in the the graffiti in Figure 2.1 photographed just outside a school
languages of their new countries. Around the world there in Canada in which a fairly large portion of the popula-
are those involved in learning, for example, such additional tion included students from such countries as Russia, the
languages as Danish, German, Spanish, English, Greek, Ukraine, Georgia, Croatia, and Moldova.
French, Russian, Turkish, Swahili, Arabic, Mandarin, and In Figure 2.1, the graffiti is written in Russian (translated
Cantonese. by Daria Semenov of the University of British Columbia).
Another major reason for people needing to learn a It is an adaptation of an old Soviet slogan that reads “Let’s
language other than their first language exists in countries (we will) demolish (destroy) damned (cursed) capitalism.”
where the language of instruction is chosen for pragmatic or The Russian is filled with errors that suggest the author
political reasons. The language of instruction in China and was not an L1 Russian speaker. There are also a number of
Taiwan is Mandarin, while many learners come from differ- primary-like English letters. It may be that the author was
ent dialect or language groups. The language of instruction an immigrant from the Ukraine where he or she studied
in the Ukraine was Russian, although that has changed. It is in Russian as a second language or possibly a Croatian
now Ukrainian. In India most students learn to read Hindi, speaker. Russian was the second language, the one used
although rough estimates are that about 350 million Indians in schools for these two groups of immigrants. Sometimes
out of about 1 billion speak it as a first language, often in a second language writing appears to be very primitive or
form known as Hinglish (Baldauf, 2004). Hinglish is Hindi under-developed because learners are just beginners.
interspersed with English words or phrases and sometimes It is sometimes difficult to distinguish between a de-
even whole sentences in English. For instance, a news head- velopmental feature of learning a second language and a
line in Hinglish might read as follows: disability feature in the second language. Indeed, develop-
mental features and features that suggest a student has a
Aaj ke news mein Mumbai ke municipal elections per ek learning disability are often similar. Is the Russian slogan
special report (In today’s news: A special report on Bom-
noted above filled with errors as a result of the author
bay’s municipal elections).
being a beginning Russian learner or because she/he had
It is not unusual for Hinglish to be written in Roman script. a Russian learning disability? It is extremely difficult to
It is used mainly in urban India. In many parts of Africa the identify a second language reading disability (Gunderson
language of instruction is Swahili, French, or English. & Siegel, 2001) for a variety of reasons. One reason is that
Finally, learners often attempt to read English as an the identification of first language reading disabilities is not
additional language because it is important for them in always straightforward or simple.
studying and learning in their academic fields, success in
their professional endeavors, or to enhance their ability to Reading Disability Defined
access information. The issue involved in second language
learning are wonderfully complex. Consider, for instance, The concept of reading disability is subsumed within the
broader term learning disability, except in a number of
jurisdictions that classify reading disability as dyslexia.
In the United States the U.S. National Joint Committee on
Learning Disabilities revised and expanded on a definition
of learning disabilities:

Learning disabilities...[refer] to a heterogeneous group

of disorders manifested by significant difficulties in the
acquisition and use of listening, speaking, reading, writing,
reasoning, or mathematical abilities. These disorders are
intrinsic to the individual, presumed to be due to central
nervous system dysfunction, and may occur across the
life span. Problems in self-regulatory behaviors, social
perception, and social interaction may exist...but do not
by themselves constitute a learning disability. Although
learning disabilities may occur...with other handicapping
conditions (for example, sensory impairment, mental re-
tardation, serious emotional disturbance), or with extrinsic
influences (such as cultural differences, inappropriate or
insufficient instruction), they are not the result of them.
(National Center for Learning Disabilities, 1990)

There appears to be a general view concerning the defini-

tion of learning disability around the world. The definition
can be stated succinctly: an individual is learning disabled
Figure 2.1 Graffiti. if the individual’s intelligence is normal, but achievement is
 Second Language Reading Disability 15

two or more years below grade level. A review of definitions The International Dyslexia Association (formerly the
reveals that formal school-based or governmental-based Orton Dyslexia Society) currently defines the term as:
definitions almost always include three features: (a) the
notion of discrepancy, (b) the notion that the discrepancy Dyslexia is a specific learning disability that is neurological
in origin. It is characterized by difficulties with accurate
is not wholly a result of intellectual, physical, emotional,
and/or fluent word recognition and by poor spelling and
or environmental features, and (c) the notion that the causal decoding abilities. These difficulties typically result from
variables are likely genetic, neurological, or biochemical, or a deficit in the phonological component of language that is
some combination of these factors. In India, for instance, often unexpected in relation to other cognitive abilities and
the National Center for Learning Disabilities notes: the provision of effective classroom instruction. Secondary
consequences may include problems in reading comprehen-
LD is a neurological disorder that affects the brain’s ability sion and reduced reading experience that can impede the
to receive, process, store and respond to information. The growth of vocabulary and background knowledge. (The
term learning disability is used to describe the seeming International Dyslexia Association, n. d., paragraph 1)
unexplained difficulty a person of at least average intel-
ligence has in acquiring basic academic skills. These skills
are essential for success at school and at workplace, and for Problems with the Discrepancy Definition in L2
coping with life in general. LD is not a single disorder. It is
a term that refers to a group of disorders in listening, speak- There are a number of ways to measure discrepancies
ing, reading, writing, and mathematics. The other features (Gunderson & Siegel, 2001). The basic approach is to ad-
of LD are: (a) a distinct gap between the level of achieve- minister an intelligence test and to observe whether there
ment that is expected and what is actually being achieved is a significant discrepancy between intelligence (apparent
(b) difficulties that can become apparent in different ways capacity) and actual level of functioning (reading achieve-
with different people (c) difficulties with socio-emotional ment). The difficulty is that the measurement of intelligence
skills and behavior. (Sakhuja, 2004, paragraph 3) or IQ is neither reliable nor valid, especially for those who
are tested in a language that is not their home or first lan-
The Learning Disabilities Association of Canada
guage. Gunderson and Siegel have noted:
notes:
The concept of “intelligence” should signify skills in rea-
The general category is often broken down into specific soning, problem solving, critical thinking, and adaptation
areas such as reading disability and math disability. Learn- to the environment. Although this notion appears logical,
ing disabilities range in severity and may interfere with the it breaks down when one carefully examines the content
acquisition and use of one or more of the following: of IQ tests. Typically they consist of factual knowledge,
• oral language (e.g., listening, speaking, understand- definitions of words, memory recall, fine-motor control
ing); and fluency of expressive language: they probably do not
• reading (e.g., decoding, phonetic knowledge, word rec- measure reasoning or problem-solving skills. They assess
ognition, comprehension); what a person has learned, not what he or she is capable
• written language (e.g., spelling and written expression); of doing. (p. 49)
and
• mathematics (e.g., computation, problem solving; The
From this perspective, intelligence tests are not culture- or
Learning Disabilities Association of Canada, n.d., para- language-free measures. In addition, learners are often
graph 3). given extra points for quick responses. Such an approach
does not take into consideration different cultural norms
These are often referred to as specific learning disabili- relative to such features as reflectiveness. Gunderson and
ties. This term is used to identify the individual who has Siegel also have made the point that translating an IQ test
significant difficulty learning to read, while others use the from one language to another is not appropriate because
term dyslexia. these cultural norms cannot be translated. Unfortunately,
the identification of discrepancy is typically through the use
of such a measurement. These authors argue that students
Reading Disability and Dyslexia
with reading disabilities can be identified by teachers using
The generally preferred term in education in North America reading measures. The notion of “Response to Intervention”
appears to be reading disability, while the term dyslexia in the United States promotes a different view related to
seems to be preferred in most jurisdictions outside of North identifying individuals with reading disability.
America, although the term appears to have originated in
the United States and seems to be a feature of the language
Response to Intervention (RTI)
of those who are involved in exploring the neurological
correlates of reading disability and those who explore the The concept of Reading Recovery was developed on the
neurological roots of reading disability (see, for instance, premise that early intervention could help students over-
Pugh et al., 2000). The term dyslexia was developed by come early reading problems (Clay, 1985, 1987). It has
ophthalmologists, physicians, and neurologists (Critchley, been suggested that intervention can also serve as a kind
1964). of assessment tool to identify students who have specific
16 Lee Gunderson, Reginald D’Silva, and Louis Chen

reading disabilities (Vellutino et al., 1996). Response to Cummins (2000) reviewed considerable evidence to
Intervention (RTI) was approved by the US Congress in support the notion of common underlying proficiency or in-
2004 as part of the Individual with Disabilities Education terdependence demonstrating that ESL students take longer
Improvement Act of 2004 (IDEA) (PL:108-446). In essence, to acquire academic language than social language (Collier,
students who are identified as those with possible learning 1987, 1994; Cummins, 1981a; Saville-Troike, 1984).
disabilities are included in intense intervention and their Cummins (1979, 1980, 1981a, 1981b) proposed that
progress is monitored carefully. Students’ response to in- there were two kinds of language proficiencies to be learned,
struction is used to judge whether or not they have specific “basic interpersonal communicative skill” (BICS), the
learning disabilities. This is a fairly new development in language of ordinary conversation or “the manifestation of
defining reading disability that does have some difficulties language proficiency in everyday communicative contexts”
related to reliability (see, for example, Fuchs & Fuchs, 2006). (1984, p. 137), and cognitive academic language proficiency
The reliability problem is related to the variety of different (CALP), the language of instruction and academic texts,
measures of reading used by different researchers. which has come to be known as academic language profi-
A potential contribution of RTI is that it may reveal ciency. However, it has been suggested these labels might
that students will respond positively to expert, intensive, lead to a misinterpretation of the complexities they seek to
appropriate reading instruction. As a result, with beginning describe (Edelsky et al, 1983; Rivera, 1984) and imply a
readers, reading difficulties may be overcome by appropri- deficit model of language. Edelsky (1990) likens CALP to
ate instruction and that most LD students will no longer be “test-wiseness” and develops an additional acronym; SIN,
learning disabled. RTI has the potential for demonstrating “skill in instructional nonsense” (p. 65).
that most learning disabled students actually suffer from
a lack of appropriate instruction (see chapter 13 of this
volume). Threshold
RTI’s application to second language students has Threshold is another concept discussed by Cummins (2000).
not been explored, but it seems like a promising area of Threshold is related to the notion by Alderson noted above:
research. The difficulty is determining which behaviors one has to acquire a certain level of L2 proficiency to learn
are related to reading disability and which are features of to read in the L2 (Cummins, 1979, 2001; Skutnabb-Kangas
learning an additional language. & Toukamaa, 1977). Cummins (1979) notes, “… a cogni-
Alderson (1985) questioned whether learning a second tively and academically beneficial form of bilingualism can
language was a reading problem or a language problem. He be achieved only on the basis of adequately developed first
suggested that: poor reading in a foreign language is due to language (L1) skills” (p. 222). He adds that “The threshold
poor reading ability in the first language and that good L1 hypothesis assumes that those aspects of bilingualism which
readers should develop into good L2 readers. Alternatively, might positively influence cognitive growth are unlikely
he suggested poor reading in a second language results from to come into effect until the child has attained a certain
“an inadequate knowledge of the target language” (p. 4). minimum or threshold level of competence in a second
This raises several related and important issues to discuss: language” (p. 229). Cummins also spoke of a lower and an
interdependence, Common Underlying Proficiency (CUP), upper threshold. In essence, the lower threshold allows the
L1 transfer, and L2 threshold. learner to develop interpersonal competence, while the up-
per threshold allows students to be involved in learning that
First- vs. Second-Language involves complex cognitively difficult language. However,
Edelsky et al. (1983) disagreed strongly with Cummins:
Cummins (1983, 1984) and Cummins and Swain (1986)
proposed a Common Underlying Proficiency (CUP) model The definition of cognitive academic language proficiency
based on the notion that “literacy-related aspects of a bi- is the ability to do what many schools unfortunately define
lingual’s proficiency in L1 and L2 are seen as common or as achievement of various kinds. The definition of school
interdependent across languages” (p. 82). In essence, this achievement is cognitive academic language proficiency,
which often amounts to scores on standardized reading
supports Alderson’s notion that good (or poor) L1 readers
tests. What explains scores on reading tests is cognitive
become good (or poor) L2 readers. There is evidence to academic language proficiency. This circularity is hardly
support CUP (Baker & deKanter, 1981; Cummins, 1983, illuminating. (p. 8)
2000). Hakuta, Butler, and Witt (2000) have shown more re-
cent evidence that transfer does occur. Common underlying Despite this early criticism, the two terms continue to be
proficiency has also been referred to as the interdependence used (see Cummins, 2000; Gunderson, 2007). These issues
principle. Cummins (2000) defines interdependence as: and concepts are important to the discussion of second lan-
guage disabilities that follow. Students who have difficulties
To the extent that instruction in Lx is effective in promot-
ing proficiency in Lx, transfer of this proficiency to Ly will learning to read a first language are likely to have difficulties
occur provided there is adequate exposure to Ly (either in learning a second. This is the prediction one makes on the
school or environment) and adequate motivation to learn basis of the common underlying proficiency theory and the
Ly. (p. 29) notion of threshold.
 Second Language Reading Disability 17

English and Reading Disability Ziegler and Goswami (2005) developed a theory they
English is a language associated with the most powerful referred to as the “grain size” or “granularity” model. Their
country in the world and it is also a major feature associ- view is that there are differences both within and between
ated with access to knowledge, technology, and the internet. orthographies in the size of the units represented; whole
English reading disability is one of the most studied and words, syllables, onset-rimes, and letters. These authors
analyzed research areas in education. Indeed, “Much of posited that smaller grain sizes were less consistent than
what we know about the nature and the origin of develop- larger grain sizes and that some languages such as English
mental dyslexia comes from studies that were conducted have a wider variety of grain sizes in their orthographies
in English-speaking countries” (Ziegler, Perry, Ma-Wyatt, than other languages such as Spanish.
Ladner, & Schulte-Körne, 2003, p. 170). Second language One of the key findings of cross-language research
reading problems appear to be often related to the learning is that children learning to read a regular orthography
of English as an additional language. Ziegler et al. (2003) rely to a greater extent on grapheme-phoneme decoding
note that “The slower rate of learning to read in English whereas children in English-speaking countries supplement
does not seem to occur because of variations in teaching grapheme-phoneme decoding by rhyme and whole word
methods across different countries, rather it seems due to strategies (Goswami, Ziegler, Dalton, & Schneider, 2003;
the relatively low orthographic consistency of English” Ziegler & Goswami, 2005; Ziegler et al., 2003). Kiswahili,
(p. 13). English is the most difficult language to learn to for instance, is a non-European language that is “perfectly
read, and there appears to be more individuals who have regular from grapheme to phoneme; each grapheme maps
trouble learning to read it. “The empirical evidence that is onto only one phoneme” (Alcock, 2006, p. 405). Learners
presented … clearly suggests that reading acquisition in the very quickly learn to decode written Kiswahili. This is the
English writing system proceeds more slowly than any other case with many languages. Interestingly, Korkeamäki and
orthography that has been looked at so far” (Landerl, 2006, Dreher (1993) found that beginning readers in Finland learned
p. 514). Hispanic students who are born in the United States to decode successfully in primary grades, but when instruc-
and immigrants who have Spanish as their first language tion began to be focused on comprehension they did not do as
are over-represented in remedial reading and special edu- well. In essence, they learned quickly to decode the shallow
cation classes (Klingner, Artilles, & Barletta, 2006; Rueda Finnish orthography, but did not appear to comprehend well
& Windmueller, 2006). Clearly, the learning of reading in what they were reading.
English as an additional language is not easy. Danish and English are considered deep orthographies
Some have suggested that the processes underlying and some learners have difficulty learning them. English
reading are universal (e.g., Goodman & Goodman, 1979). appears to be one of the most difficult languages for second
It has become evident, however, that this may not be true. language learners to learn to read. Typically researchers
The processes underlying reading, and especially their find that “The most striking outcome was the evidence of
distinctions in reading disability, may not be the same in profound delays in the development of simple decoding
other languages as they are in English. There is evidence skills in English” (Seymour, Aro, & Erskine, 2003, p. 160).
that the processes underlying reading (Akamatsu, 2006; They add, “Quantification of this effect, using the regres-
Aro, 2006; Escribano, 2007; Goswami, 2006; Joshi, Høien, sion method, suggested that a reading age of 7.5 years or
Feng, Chengappa, & Boulware-Gooden, 2006; Landerl, above was necessary before accuracy and fluency matched
2006; Seymour, 2006) and reading disability (Frith, Wim- the European levels” (p. 160). Their sobering conclusion
mer, & Landerl, 1998; Katzir, Shaul, Breznitz, & Wolfe, is, “Five-year-old children may lack the maturity neces-
2004; Milles, 2000; Spencer & Hanley, 2003) vary relative sary for mastery of an alphabetic orthography” (p. 165).
to orthography. However, the strongest conclusion is “... the researchers
and teachers working within consistent orthographies are
well advised not to base their theories and instructional
Orthographic Depth choices solely on English findings” (Aro, 2006, p. 544). In
Differences in reading processes among languages are often deeper orthographies more whole-word teaching may be
attributed to orthographic depth. Spanish, for instance, is required because explicit teaching of grapheme-phoneme
considered a shallow orthography, while English is a deep correspondences is unreliable.
orthography. The degree to which an orthography represents Öney and Goldman (1984) showed that Turkish stu-
the phonemes of a language has been referred to as ortho- dents were more accurate at recognizing pseudowords
graphic depth (see various authors in Joshi & Aaron, 2006). than were American students. German students have su-
An orthography that has a one-to-one relationship between perior phonological recoding skills than English-speaking
its orthography and the phonemes in its language is said students (Frith et al., 1998; Goswami, Ziegler, Dalton, &
to be shallow, while those that are less reliable are said to Schneider, 2001; Näslund, 1999; Wimmer & Goswami,
be deep. Languages such as Italian, Spanish, and Turkish 1994). German dyslexic learners were better than English
have shallow orthographies, while Danish and German are learners at recognizing pseudowords (Landerl, Wimmer,
deeper and less consistent. English is a deep orthography, & Frith, 1997). Interestingly, reading problems in more
perhaps the deepest. transparent orthographies appear to be associated with
18 Lee Gunderson, Reginald D’Silva, and Louis Chen

reading speed rather than accuracy (Aro, 2006; Lundberg Currently, students in the People’s Republic of China are
& Høien, 1990; Porpodas, 1999; Rodrigo & Jiménez, 1999; taught to read initially through the use of the international
Wimmer, 1993). phonetic alphabet (i.p.a.), called Pinyin, as a method to
In general, it appears that students who first learn to introduce sound-symbol relationships to students. Pinyin
was adopted in 1958 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zhuyin)
read in a shallow orthography, depending on their age, may
to replace the previous system that had been in place called
experience initial difficulty learning a second language
guóyǔzìmǔ (or bopomofo in Taiwan). In addition, in 1949
with a deep orthography such as English with a variety of the People’s Republic of China adopted a simplified ortho-
grain sizes and many relational exceptions (e.g., “read” graphy (see http://www.omniglot.com/writing/chinese_sim-
and “red”). plified.htm#simp) so that the first characters students learn
are simplified from the classic form. Simplified characters
are introduced with Pinyin added so that students are able
Deficit and Double-Deficit
to “decode” the characters. This system is used until about
As noted previously, it has been argued that dyslexic readers the third grade, with new characters being introduced with
have difficulty processing phonological information in deep Pinyin, but not thereafter (Hudson-Ross & Dong, 1990).
orthographies. This is called the phonological deficit theory.
In Taiwan, students are introduced to a phonetic transcrip-
However, as also noted above, naming speed has been iden-
tion system that involves non-Roman syllables called
tified as a factor in shallow orthographies. Dyslexic readers
zhùyīnfúhào or bopomofo. Developed in 1913 by the
may have problems with phonological awareness or speed, Ministry of Education in the Republic of China, the system
or phonological awareness and naming speed; a double defi- was originally called guóyǔzìmǔ or the National Phonetic
cit (Bowers & Wolf, 1993). In addition, some have expanded Alphabet. In 1986, the Republic of China (Taiwan) adapted
this view to include a third deficit related to orthography the system to assist learners in learning to read and write
(Badian, 1997) and a fourth to visual deficit (Watson & Mandarin, re-naming it zhùyīnfúhào (bopomofo). The
Willows, 1993). An orthographic deficit is related to letter characters/symbols are based on calligraphic forms and
frequency so that learners have no more success with high some are derived from Chinese characters (see http://
frequency letters and letter combinations than they do with en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bopomofo). Students in Taiwan
low frequency letters, while learners with a visual deficit learn to read standard, classic Chinese characters that have
not been simplified. Finally, in Hong Kong, until recently,
find it difficult to “process the visual gestalt of word” (Ho,
learning to read Cantonese was by a system that involved
Chan, Tsang, Chan, & Lee, 2002, p. 544).
drill and rote memorization of classic Chinese characters
The discussion so far has focused on orthographies using a “flash card” approach that begins at about age
involving augmented Roman alphabets. This is warranted, three for many students…students in Hong Kong often
because English employs such an orthography and because begin formal reading instruction in pre-school at the age
the number of students involved in learning to read English of three. (pp. 195–197)
as an additional language is huge. It is reported that about
175 million in the school system in China are studying The use of an orthography, such as the i.p.a., that reli-
English (Adams & Hirsch, 2007). In the same Newsweek ably represents the phonemes of Chinese in early instruc-
article it was also reported that the British Council predicts tion complicates research related to underlying reading
that 2 billion human beings will be studying English by processes. Learners in the People’s Republic of China,
2010. However, for comparative purposes, disability in regardless of their home language, in essence learn to read
other orthographic systems deserves scrutiny. It appears Mandarin. “One obvious advantage of the logographic and
that Chinese represents the case in which millions of human morphosyllabic nature of Chinese is that the same script
beings attempt to learn to read a language that is different can be used in a large population in which people speak
from the language they speak at home. different dialects” (Ho, Chan, Tsang, Chan, & Lee, 2002,
p. 544). Are there reading disabilities in Chinese?
Developmental dyslexia is a fairly new concept in China,
Chinese
Hong Kong, and Taiwan. Reading disability is not a topic
The largest country in the world, the People’s Republic often discussed or researched from an educational perspec-
of China, is associated with an orthography that many tive. Conventional wisdom links learning difficulties in first
believe is logographic; that each character represents a language reading and writing with a student’s lack of effort
morpheme. However, in fact, “More than 80% of modern and disinterest. Similarly, reading disability in English
Chinese characters are phonetic compound characters” education is seldom discussed. A student who struggles to
(Shu, 2003, p. 275). Shu, Chen, Anderson, Wu, and Yuan acquire English skills is often considered the norm as the
(2003) analyzed all of the characters taught in elementary general public perceives English to be a difficult language
school. They found: 58% were semantically transparent, to master. Those who do not demonstrate improvement over
20% were semi-transparent, and 9% were opaque where time may also have their effort and interest questioned. A
the character provides no information about the meaning. lack of authentic input is often believed to be a key bar-
The difficulty, however, is that instructional features also rier in successfully acquiring English skills. Families with
differ. As Gunderson (2007) notes: financial means often encourage students to study abroad,
 Second Language Reading Disability 19

with the assumption that experiences in English-speaking reading. Their conclusion was that phonological deficits
countries will result in proficiencies in English. were more associated with English than Chinese, while
English phonological skills such as phonological visual-orthographic deficits seemed more related to Chinese
awareness, phonological memory, and naming speed are reading. They also reported on one dyslexic in Chinese who
significant correlates or predictors of performance among did not have trouble in English. This and a number of other
students from China, Hong Kong, and Taiwan (Ho, 1997; anomalous cases will be discussed later.
Ho & Bryant, 1997; Ho, Chan, Tsang, Chan, & Lee, 2002;
Hu & Catts, 1998; Huang & Hanley, 1995; McBride-Chang
India
& Chang, 1995; McBride-Chang & Ho, 2000). Interest-
ingly, these findings are similar to those concerning shallow There is a growing awareness of learning disabilities in
orthographies described previously. India. The notion of learning disabilities in general, in-
Ho, Chan, Tsang, Chan, and Lee (2002) conclude that, cluding reading disability, is largely a foreign concept.
although limited, research shows that Chinese dyslexic Karanth (2006) notes that, “Historically, scholars in India
readers have difficulties in phonological skills and naming have claimed that specific reading disabilities in healthy,
speed. They argue that “results suggest that Chinese children normal children reported in English-speaking societies
with dyslexia have difficulties in keeping sounds in the were largely a by-product of the vagaries of the alphabetic
short-term memory” (p. 545). On the basis of their study, script” (p. 397). She also notes that the concept of reading
however, they also note, “The present findings show that disability appears to be most prevalent in urban areas where
the dyslexic group performed significantly worse than the the language of instruction is often English. It seems that
CA control group but similarly to the RL control group on students who do not do well in school, other than those
most of the cognitive tasks” (CA=matched on chronological who have Down Syndrome, are considered less intelligent,
age, RL=matched on reading level). They conclude, “This lazy, or unmotivated. This view is evidenced in the recent
suggests that the nature of their reading problem is one Bollywood movie Taare Zameen Par (Khan, 2007; for a
of delay rather than deviance” (p. 548). Indeed, “In other review see Wikipedia, n.d.), which depicts the extreme
words, the dyslexic children in this study were very similar difficulty a child with dyslexia (in English and Hindi) had
in terms of their cognitive profile to average readers about in school and in his community. However, Sharma (2004)
2 years younger” (p. 548). Their conclusion is that “only a noted “Children with learning disabilities may be found in
small proportion of the Chinese dyslexic children exhibited nearly every classroom in India” (p. 128). She concluded
a phonological deficit” (p. 545). Ho and colleagues identi- that “The LD children were found to be schizothymic, rigid,
fied 30 Chinese dyslexic learners. They found that 23% had and phlegmatic compared to the NLD children” (p. 139).
double deficits, while over 50% had three or more deficits. Others believe that at least three or four students in a class
Their conclusion was that “These findings support the mul- of 60 have some form of dyslexia (Times of India, 2006).
tiple-deficit hypothesis in Chinese developmental dyslexia” Sociocultural norms place a premium on education in
(p. 550). As noted in Gunderson (2007), issues related to India. Most parents believe that education is crucial for
differences in instruction among the People’s Republic of their children to succeed in life. Labels such as reading
China, Taiwan, and Hong Kong make it difficult to identify disability or dyslexia are seen as socially ostracizing.
relationships among underlying processes. Indeed, he used Some parents even hide the problem (Malaviya, 2002).
multiple factor analyses to attempt to parse out underlying Individualized attention in the form of tutoring is widely
differences among the three groups, but the only significant believed to be a solution to improve grades in school. Dys-
difference was the instructional feature. lexic children may be subjected to rote learning through
As noted previously, millions of Chinese speakers (forced) assisted-repeated readings in such tutoring ses-
attempt to learn to read English. What happens when a sions leading to further frustration. School personnel are
Chinese dyslexic attempts to learn English? The standard generally insensitive to children with learning disabilities
view is that the dyslexic Chinese reader should likely have and consider such students as failures (Sakhuja, 2004).
difficulty learning to read English. Ho and Fong (2005) There seems to be an “extremely limited understanding
explored this issue. The dyslexic Chinese readers were about the problem among school teachers, administrators,
given 10 tasks, including a nonverbal intelligence test, teacher educators, educational policy makers, medical and
an English picture vocabulary test, two English reading paramedical personnel and of course parents of the dyslexic
tasks, four tasks on English phonological skills, an English child” (Malaviya, 2002).
verbal memory task, and an English rapid naming task. There is a growing recognition of the problem, however.
Their conclusion was that, in general, dyslexics who had The government of Maharashtra, for instance, has granted
trouble reading Chinese also had trouble reading English. special provisions for LD students since 1996 (Kulkarni,
They also noted such readers were weak in phonological Karande, Thadani, Maru, & Sholapurwala, 2006). It was
processing in both Chinese and English. Interestingly, the found that schools failed to provide adequate support to
Chinese dyslexic readers did not show a relationship be- LD students, and, as a consequence, a Mumbai high court
tween their phonological awareness and their word reading ruling directed schools to adhere to guidelines for students
in Chinese, although it was strongly related to their English with learning disabilities (Times of India, 2006). There is a
20 Lee Gunderson, Reginald D’Silva, and Louis Chen

small but growing body of research in reading disabilities from studies, such as the Progress in International Literacy
in India (Ramaa, 2000). Study (PIRLS), that about 10% to 20% of students appear
It appears that the normal course of events is that students to have trouble learning to read in their first languages (see
in India learn to read in two languages; English-Hindi (in http://nces.ed.gov/Surveys/PIRLS/index.asp).
urban schools), English-local language, Punjabi-Hindi, and It is not clear, how many have trouble learning to read a
in pre-university and university level courses instruction is second language, although there is some general informa-
almost entirely in English. The situation is complex. How- tion. Elley (1992) looked at the reading achievement scores
ever, India becomes even more complex when one considers of students in thirty-two countries who spoke a language
the number of orthographies, e.g., Brahmi, Kharishthi, at home that was different from the language of school.
Devanagari, Gujarati, Gurmuki, Bengali, Oriya, Sinhala, He found there were major discrepancies. Nine-year-old
Kannada, Telugu, Malayalam, Tamil, Tibetan, and a number students in New Zealand, for instance, were on the average
of other derivatives as discussed by various authors (Dan- 70 points below their native English-speaking classmates,
iels & Bright, 1996). In these cases the orthographies are a difference that increased to 81 points for 14-year-olds.
syllabaries or semi-syllabaries. Generally, they are shallow Students in the United States were 61 points below their
orthographies. native English-speaking classmates. Students in Botswana,
Karanth (1992) reports on two case studies; one of an Cyprus, Indonesia, Nigeria, Germany, Spain, and Thailand
English-Kannada-Hindi learner and the other of an English- did not show the same pattern; non-native speakers were
Kannada learner. In both cases, the learners were disabled in reading about as well as their native-speaking classmates.
all of the languages they attempted to learn to read. Mishra Second-language students in many countries are not learn-
and Stainthorp (2007) reported on a study of Oriya-English ing to read L2 at their appropriate grade-levels, while some
learners in Oriya-medium or English-medium schools in appear to have no difficulty achieving at or above grade-
Orissa, India. The authors noted “Awareness of the large level norms, even though the programs they are enrolled in
phonological units of Oriya contributed significantly to are second language programs.
Oriya reading when children were learning it as their first Students in some countries appear to learn to read more
literacy language, but not when they were learning it as successfully in a second language than do students in other
their second literacy language” (p. 33). They concluded that countries. Gunderson (2007) concluded that there were
“These data support the view that phonological awareness many factors such as socio-economic status that might ac-
is an important contributor to word reading ...” (p. 35). count for these second language differences.
Karanth (2006) noted that in studies involving Kannada
about 10% have difficulty learning to read “because of fac-
L1 and L2 Anomalies
tors such as deficits in auditory sequential memory, visual-
verbal association, and poor word analysis and synthesis There appears to be a degree of consensus that human beings
skills” (p. 401). The general conclusion of a number of who have difficulty learning to read in a first language will
different studies conducted in India is that phonological have difficulty learning to read a second language, although
awareness is a factor in learning to read both local semi- there are a number of mitigating factors, e.g., L1 vs. L2
syllabaries and English. orthographic depth; L1 vs. L2 ability; L1 vs. L2 instruc-
tion. The research literature contains a number of reports
on what appear to be anomalies. Gunderson (2007), in a
The Overall Incidence of Reading Disabilities
retrospective case study, described an immigrant student who
The notion of reading disability appears to have been de- learned to read successfully in his first language (Cantonese),
velopment in the United States. For years it was assumed but appeared to be reading disabled in English. Indeed, after 5
that reading disability was a feature of English. Makita years of instruction he was unable to consistently recognize
(1974), for instance, in speaking of reading disability ar- any words in English, while his Chinese character reading
gued that “its incidence in Japan is so rare that specialists appeared to be quite good. Learning to read Chinese suc-
in Japan do not get any referrals” (p. 250). As reported cessfully should have predicted success in learning to read
in Stevenson, Stigler, Lucker, Hsu, and Kitamura (1982), a second language, but it did not, because the language
Kuo, a psychologist who conducted a survey in Taiwan, was English, a deep orthography. In a widely cited article,
concluded that “Chinese children seldom have a problem Wydell and Butterworth (1999) described a 16-year-old
of reading disabilities” (p. 1165). Stevenson and colleagues English/Japanese bilingual “whose reading/writing diffi-
also reported that they had similar comments from experts culties are confined to English only” (p. 273). The authors
in the People’s Republic of China and Hong Kong. Such concluded that their learner’s achievement was predictable
conclusions were based, in part, on the notion that Japanese on the basis of the transparency of the orthographies.
and Chinese orthographies better represented the languages. Miller-Guron and Lundberg (2000) note that the common
Stevenson and colleagues (1982) conducted a study that assumption is that “our reading skills are most proficient
showed that Japanese and Chinese reading problems were in the language with which we are most familiar” (p. 41).
“not less severe than those found for English-speaking Findings showed that L1 dyslexic students (Swedish)—a
children in the United States” (p. 1174). In general, it seems shallow orthography—did not necessarily have the same
 Second Language Reading Disability 21

problem with English—a deep orthography—which is English plays a significant role around the world relative
not what is predicted. Indeed, the Wydell and Butterworth to second language learners. The evidence noted above sug-
(1999) findings seem more predictable than the Miller- gests that English is one of the most difficult languages to
Guron and Lundberg findings. Human beings are complex learn to read. There is a fairly standard view concerning the
and their disabilities concerning languages are, indeed, definition of the term. Around the world the term is defined
extremely complex. as a discrepancy between potential and actual performance.
The theme is that the reading disability definition includes
three features:
Summary, Themes, and Implications
The purpose of this chapter was to explore international 1. the notion of discrepancy;
themes related to second language reading disabilities. 2. the notion that the discrepancy is not wholly a result
Considering the number of languages in the world and the of intellectual, physical, emotional, or environmental
number of human beings involved in learning to read sec- features;
ond languages, the task is extremely challenging. However, 3. the notion that the causal variables are likely genetic,
there are some themes that seem to occur across countries, neurological, or biochemical, or some combination of
academic disciplines, and educational and governmental these factors.
institutions. The reader is advised to consider these themes
as interesting, but not necessarily definitive. This definition is based on research related to disabilities
in English that has been expanded to speakers of other lan-
Themes There is a disability/dyslexia dichotomy: authors guages around the world even though some researchers have
refer to the great difficulty some have in learning to read as cautioned that a model based on English is not appropriate
reading disability or specific reading disability; while oth- because of differences in processing related to orthography.
ers refer to it as dyslexia. The term disability is used most Reading processes differ according to their orthographies.
often in the United States by educators and dyslexia appears Unfortunately, while it is not appropriate to use IQ tests
used most often in Europe and other parts of the world and to measure disability in second language learners, it is the
by cognitive neuroscience researchers in the United States. most widely used procedure.
The existence and recognition of reading disability is not Orthographies represent languages in different ways
standard in many countries, and many languages have no and have been classified according to their reliability in
equivalent for the term (see, for instance, Stevenson et al., representing the relationships between their graphemes and
1982). Educators in many countries have just begun to language. English is a deep orthography, while Spanish is
recognize that there are students who have trouble learning shallow. Students learning to read shallow orthographies
to read. The notion of reading disability appears to develop learn quickly. Students learning to read shallow orthogra-
in stages around the world: phies rely on grapheme-phoneme decoding, while English
learners rely on rhyme and whole word strategies.
1. denial or non-awareness; Reading disability in English appears to be related to
2. initial awareness often developing in urban areas; phonological awareness and decoding, while disability in
3. developed awareness in which individuals, educa- shallow languages in more likely associated with slower
tional groups, and governmental agencies recognize reading speed. The deficit and double-deficit theories
the term. propose that disabled readers in English have trouble
processing phonological information, while those in shal-
Unfortunately, in countries where the notion is developing, low orthographies have trouble in naming speed. Second
researchers and educators often adopt the model used to language students can have a deficit in one or the other or
describe disability in English (see below). both of these processes.
Students learning to read a second language often display A final theme that appears in our review is that students
behaviors similar to those associated with disabled readers who have trouble learning to read a first language will prob-
in the L2. The problem is that these behaviors may represent ably have trouble learning a second language. This appears
perfectly normal reading development. The difficulty is to to be generally true, although there are exceptions. One
determine when the behaviors are, in fact, signs of a second theme that appears to be changing is that reading disability
language learning disability. When a learning disability does not exist. Instead, a student having difficulty learning
is overlooked because the teacher believes it is simply a to read is characterized as not having the intelligence or
feature of normal development, a serious life-long problem the commitment to learn to read. What seems missing is
may be unrecognized or identified. Gunderson (2007) spoke that other jurisdiction around the world are using the older
of fuzzy benchmarks and suggests that second language child-centered model for reading/learning disabilities that
learners, particularly those learning to read English, should holds that the problem is related to the child rather than to
begin to learn basic reading skills after no longer than three insufficiencies in instruction. This suggests that students
to four years of instruction depending upon their first lan- with second language problems may actually be involved
guage literacy backgrounds (Gunderson, 2009). in poor or deficient second language instruction.
22 Lee Gunderson, Reginald D’Silva, and Louis Chen

Implications Educators need to be aware that English is Cummins, J. (1980).The entry and exit fallacy in bilingual education.
a difficult second language to learn to read. They should be NABE Journal, 4, 25–59.
Cummins, J. (1981a). Age on arrival and immigrant second language learning
aware that the development of English reading skills is dif- in Canada: A reassessment. Applied Linguistics, 2, 132–149.
ferent than the development of reading in other languages. Cummins, J. (Ed.). (1981b). The role of primary language development
Teachers should be aware that English is a deep orthography in promoting educational success for language minority students.
and that phonics instruction alone is not as sufficient as it Schooling and Language minority students (pp. 3–49). Los Angeles:
may be in shallow languages. California State University.
Cummins, J. (1983). Language proficiency and academic achievement. In
Teachers and other educators should understand that J. W. Oller (Ed.), Issues in language testing research (pp. 108–129).
normally developing human beings should not have Rowley, MA: Newbury House.
persistent difficulties in learning to read a first or second Cummins, J. (1984). Bilingualism and special education: Issues in assess-
language. Those who do have persistent problems that ment and pedagogy. Clevedon, England: Multilingual Matters.
continue for more than two or three years should be Cummins, J. (2000). Language, power and pedagogy Toronto, ON:
Multilingual Matters.
evaluated by someone who knows about first- and second- Cummins, J. (2001). Instructional conditions for trilingual development.
language reading development. Indeed, Gunderson and International journal of bilingual education and bilingualism, 4,
Siegel (2001) argued that the trained teacher can accu- 61–75.
rately identify students who have disabilities by a careful Cummins, J., & Swain, M. (1986). Linguistic interdependence: A central
analysis of their spelling behavior, oral reading behavior, principle of bilingual education. In J. Cummins & M. Swain (Eds.),
Bilingualism in education (pp. 80–95). New York: Longman.
and writing behavior. The administration of standardized Daniels, P. T., & Bright, W. (Eds.). (1996). The world’s writing systems.
tests of letter recognition, word recognition, and com- New York: Oxford University Press.
prehension can help to identify students with disabilities. Edelsky, C. (1990). With literacy and justice for all: Rethinking the social
The difficulty, of course, is that they also need the time in language and education. London: The Falmer Press.
and training to perform such analyses and to provide the Edelsky, C., Hudelson, S., Flores, B., Barkin, F., Altwerger, J., & Jilbert,
K. (1983). Semilingualism and language deficit. Applied Linguistics,
appropriate instruction. 4, 1–22.
Elley, W. B. (1992). How in the world do students read? Grindledruck,
Germany: The International Association for the Evaluation of Edu-
References
cational Achievement.
Adams, J., & Hirsch, M. (2007). English for everyone. Retrieved August Escribano, C. L. (2007). Evaluation of the double-deficit hypothesis
3, 2008, from http://www.newsweek.com/id/32295 subtype classification of readers in Spanish. Journal of Learning
Akamatsu, N. (2006). Literacy acquisition in Japanese-English bilinguals. Disabilities, 40, 319–330.
In R. M. Joshi & P. G. Aaron (Eds.), Handbook of orthography and Frith, U., Wimmer, H., & Landerl, K. (1998). Differences in phonological
literacy (pp. 481–496). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum. recoding in German- and English-speaking children. Scientific Studies
Alcock, K. J. (2006). Literacy in Kiswahili. In R. M. Joshi & P. G. Aaron of Reading, 2, 31–54.
(Eds.), Handbook of orthography and literacy (pp. 405–419). Mah- Fuchs, D., & Fuchs, L. S. (2006). Introduction to response to interven-
wah, NJ: Erlbaum. tion: What, why, and how valid is it? Reading Research Quarterly,
Alderson, J. C. (1985). Reading in a foreign language: A reading problem 41, 93–99.
or a language problem? RELC Journal, 16(2), 1–24. Goodman, K. S., & Goodman, Y. M. (1979). Learning to read is natural.
Aro, M. (2006). Learning to read: The effect of orthography. In R. M. In L. B. Resnick & P. A. Weaver (Eds.), Theory and practice of early
Joshi & P. G. Aaron (Eds.), Handbook of orthography and literacy reading (Vol. 1, pp. 137–154). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
(pp. 531–550). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum. Goswami, U. (2006). Orthography, phonology, and reading development:
Badian, N. A. (1997). Dyslexia and the double deficit hypothesis. Annals A cross-linguistic perspective. In R. Malatesha & P. G. Aaron (Eds.),
of dyslexia, 47, 69–87. Handbook of orthography and literacy (pp. 463–480). Mahwah, NJ:
Baker, K. A., & deKanter, A. A. (1981). Effectiveness of bilingual educa- Erlbaum.
tion: A review of the literature. Washington, DC: Office of Planning Goswami, U., Ziegler, J. C., Dalton, L., & Schneider, W. (2001). Pseudo-
and Budget, U.S. Department of Education. homophone effects and phonological recoding procedures in reading
Baldauf, S. (2004). A Hindi-English jumble, spoken by 350 million. Re- development in English and German. Journal of Memory and Lan-
trieved January 13, 2008, from http://www.csmonitor.com/2004/1123/ guage, 45, 648–664.
p01s03-wosc.html Goswami, U., Ziegler, J. C., Dalton, L., & Schneider, W. (2003). Nonword
Bowers, P. G., & Wolf, M. (1993). Theoretical links among naming speed, reading across orthographies: How flexible is the choice of reading
precise timing mechanisms and orthographic skill in dyslexia. Reading units? Applied Psycholinguistics, 24, 235–247.
and writing, 5, 69–85. Gray, W. S. (1955). Current reading problems: A world view. The Elemen-
Clay, M. M. (1985). The early detection of reading difficulties (3rd. ed.). tary School Journal, 56, 11–17.
Aukland, New Zealand: Heinemann. Gunderson, L. (2007). English-only instruction and immigrant students in
Clay, M. M. (1987). Learning to be disabled. New Zealand Journal of secondary school: A critical examination. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
Educational Studies, 22, 155–173. Gunderson, L. (2009). ESL (ELL) literacy instruction: A guidebook to
Collier, V. P. (1987). Age and rate of acquisition of second language for theory and practice. New York: Routledge.
academic purposes. TESOL Quarterly, 21, 617–641. Gunderson, L., & Siegel, L. S. (2001). The evils of the use of IQ tests to
Collier, V. P. (1994). Sociocultural processes in academic, cognitive, and define learning disabilities in first- and second-language learners. The
language development. Plenary Address, TESOL International, Balti- Reading Teacher, 55, 48–55.
more, MD. Hakuta, K., Butler, Y. G., & Witt, D. (2000). How long does it take English
Critchley, M. (1964). Developmental dyslexia. London: William Heine- learners to attain proficiency? Santa Barbara: Univeristy of California,
mann. Linguistic Minority Research Institute.
Cummins, J. (1979). Linguistic interdependence and the educational Ho, C. S.-H. (1997). The importance of phonological awareness and verbal
development of bilingual children. Review of Educational Research, short-term memory to children’s success in learning to read Chinese.
49, 222–251. Psychologia, 40, 211–219.
 Second Language Reading Disability 23

Ho, C. S.-H., & Bryant, P. (1997). Phonological skills are important in Milles, E. (2000). Dyslexia may show a different face in different lan-
learning to read Chinese. Developmental psychology, 33, 946–951. guages. Dyslexia, 6, 193–201.
Ho, C. S.-H., Chan, D. W.-O., Tsang, S.-M., Chan, S.-H., & Lee, S.-H. Mishra, R., & Stainthorp, R. (2007). The relationship between phono-
(2002). The cognitive profile and multiple-deficit hypothesis in Chinese logical awareness and word reading accuracy in Oriya and English:
developmental dyslexia. Developmental Psychology, 38, 543–553. A study of Oriya-speaking fifth-graders. Journal of Research in Read-
Ho, C. S.-H., & Fong, K.-M. (2005). Do Chinese dyslexic children have ing, 30, 23–37.
difficulties learning English as a second language? Journal of Psycho- Näslund, J. C. (1999). Phonemic and graphemic consistency: Effects on
linguistic Research, 34, 603–618. decoding for German and American children. Reading and Writing:
Hu, C.-F., & Catts, H. W. (1998). The role of phonological processing An Interdisciplinary Journal, 11, 129–152.
in early reading ability: What we can learn from Chinese. Scientific National Center for Learning Disabilities. (1990). Learning disabilities:
Studies of Reading, 2, 55–79. Issues on definition. Retrieved January 3, 2008, from http://www.ncld.
Huang, H. S., & Hanley, J. R. (1995). Phonological awareness and visual org/content/view/458/
skills in learning to read Chinese and English. Cognition, 54, 73–98. Öney, B., & Goldman, S. R. (1984). Decoding and comprehension
Hudson-Ross, S., & Dong, Y. R. (1990). Literacy learning as a reflection skills in Turkish and English: Effects of the regularity of grapheme-
of language and culture: Chinese elementary echool education. The phoneme correspondences. Journal of Educational Psychology, 76,
Reading Teacher, 44, 110–123. 447–568.
Joshi, R. M., & Aaron, P. G. (Eds.). (2006). Handbook of orthography and Porpodas, C. D. (1999). Patterns of phonological and memory process-
literacy. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum. ing in beginning readers and spellers of Greek. Journal of Learning
Joshi, R. M., Høien, T., Feng, X., Chengappa, R., & Boulware-Gooden, Disabilities, 32(406–416).
R. (2006). Learning to spell by ear and by eye: A cross-linguistic com- Pugh, K. R., Mencl, W. E., Jenner, A. R., Katz, L., Frost, S. J., Lee, J. R.,
parison. In R. M. Joshi & P. G. Aaron (Eds.), Handbook of orthography et al. (2000). Functional neuroimaging studies of reading disability
and literacy (pp. 569–577). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum. (developmental dyslexia). Mental Retardation and Developmental
Karanth, P. (1992). Developmental dyslexia in bilingual-biliteractes. Read- Disabilities Research Review, 6, 207–213.
ing and Writing: An Interdisciplinary Journal, 4, 297–306. Ramaa, S. (2000). Two decades of research on learning disabilities in
Karanth, P. (2006). The Kagunita of Kannada-Learning to read and write an India. Dyslexia, 6, 268–283.
Indian alphasyllabary. In R. M. Joshi & P. G. Aaron (Eds.), Handbook Rivera, C. (Ed.). (1984). Language proficiency and academic achievement.
of orthography and literacy (pp. 389–404). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum. Clevedon, England: Multilingual Matters.
Katzir, T., Shaul, S., Breznitz, Z., & Wolfe, M. (2004). The universal and Rodrigo, M., & Jiménez, J. E. (1999). An analysis of the word naming
the unique in dyslexia: A cross-linguistic investigation of English- errors of normal readers and reading disabled children in Spanish.
speaking children with reading disorders. Reading and Writing: An Journal of Research in Reading, 22, 180–197.
Interdisciplinary Journal, 17, 239–768. Rueda, R., & Windmueller, M. P. (2006). English language learners, LD,
Khan, A. (Director). (2007). Taare zameen par. In A. Khan (Producer). and overrepresentation: A multiple-level analysis. Journal of Learning
India: PVR Pictures. Disabilities, 39, 99–107.
Klingner, J. K., Artilles, A. J., & Barletta, L. M. (2006). English language Sakhuja, S. (2004). Education for all and learning disabilities in India
learners who struggle with reading? Language acquisition or LD? Retrieved January 13, 2008, from http://www.sspconline.org/ar-
Journal of Learning Disabilities, 39, 108–128. ticle_details.asp?artid=art10
Korkeamäki, R., & Dreher, M. J. (1993). Finland, phonics, and whole Saville-Troike, M. (1984). What really matters in second language learning
language Beginning reading in a regular letter-sound correspondence for academic achievement? TESOL quarterly, 18, 199–219.
language. Language Arts, 70, 475–482. Seymour, P. H. K. (2006). Theoretical framework for beginning reading
Kulkarni, M., Karande, S., Thadani, A., Maru, H., & Sholapurwala, R. in different orthographies. In R. Malatesha & P. G. Aaron (Eds.),
(2006). Educational provisions and learning disability. Indian Journal Handbook of orthography and literacy (pp. 441–462). Mahwah, NJ:
of Pediatrics, 73, 789–793. Erlbaum.
Landerl, K. (2006). Reading acquisition in different orthographies: Evi- Seymour, P. H. K., Aro, M., & Erskine, H. J. M. (2003). Foundation
dence from direct comparisons. In R. M. Joshi & P. G. Aaron (Eds.), literacy acquisition in European orthographies. British Journal of
Handbook of orthography and literacy (pp. 513–530). Mahwah, NJ: Psychology, 94, 143–174.
Erlbaum. Sharma, G. (2004). A comparative study of the personality characteristics
Landerl, K., Wimmer, H., & Frith, U. (1997). The impact of orthographic of primary-school students with learning disabilities and their nonlearn-
consistency on dyslexia: A German-English comparison. Cognition, ing disabled peers. Learning Disabilities Quarterly, 27, 127–140.
63, 315–334. Shu, H. (2003). Chinese writing system and learning to read. International
Learning Disabilities Association of Canada. (n.d.). Official definition of Journal of Psychology, 38, 274–285.
learning disabilities. Retrieved January 13, 2008, from http://www. Shu, H., Chen, X., Anderson, R. C., Wu, N., & Yuan, Y. (2003). Properties
ldac-taac.ca/Defined/defined_new-e.asp of school Chinese: Implications for learning to read. Child Develop-
Lundberg, I., & Høien, T. (1990). Patterns of information processing skills ment, 74, 22–47.
and word recognition strategies in developmental dyslexia. Scandina- Skutnabb-Kangas, T., & Toukamaa, T. (1977). The colonial legacy and
vian Journal of Educational Research, 34, 231–240. language-planning in Sub-Saharan Africa. Cambridge: Multilingual
Makita, K. (1974). Reading disability and the writing system. In J. E. Matters.
Merritt (Ed.), New horizons in reading (pp. 246–262). Newark, DE: Spencer, L. H., & Hanley, R. J. (2003). Effects of orthographic transpar-
International Reading Association. ency on reading and phonemic awareness in children learning to read
Malaviya, R. (2002). Thinking differently. Retrieved February 10, in Wales. The British Journal of Psychology, 94, 1–28.
2008, from http://www.hinduonnet.com/thehindu/quest/200204/ Stevenson, H. W., Stigler, J. W., Lucker, G. W., Hsu, C., & Kitamura,
stories/2002041300070100.htm S. (1982). Reading disabilities: The case of Chinese, Japanese, and
McBride-Chang, C., & Chang, L. (1995). Memory, print exposure, and English. Child development, 53, 1164–1181.
metacognition. International Journal of Psychology, 30, 607–616. The International Dyslexia Association. (n.d.). Definition of Dyslexia.
McBride-Chang, C., & Ho, C. S.-H. (2000). Developmental issues in Retrieved August 3, 2008, from http://www.interdys.org/ewebeditpro5/
Chinese children’s character acquisition. Journal of Educational upload/Definition_Fact_Sheet_3-10-08.pdf
Psychology, 92, 50–55. The Learning Disabilities Association of Canada. (n.d.). Official definition
Miller-Guron, L., & Lundberg, I. (2000). Dyslexia and second language of learning disabilities. Retrieved January 13, 2008, from http://www.
reading: A second bite at the apple? Reading and Writing: An Inter- ldac-taac.ca/Defined/defined_new-e.asp
disciplinary Journal, 12, 41–61. Times of India. (2006). HC boost for dyslexic students. Retrieved
24 Lee Gunderson, Reginald D’Silva, and Louis Chen

February, 20, 2008, from http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/article- Wimmer, H. (1993). Characteristics of developmental dyslexia in a regular
show/1789910.cms writing system. Applied Linguistics, 14, 1–33.
Vellutino, F. R., Scanlon, D. M., Sipay, E. R., Small, S. G., Chen, R., Wimmer, H., & Goswami, U. (1994). The influence of orthographic con-
Pratt, A., et al. (1996). Cognitive profiles of difficult-to-remediate sistency on reading development: Word recognition in English and
and readily remediated poor readers: Early intervention as a vehicle German children. Cognition, 51, 91–103.
for distinguishing between cognitive and experiential deficits as basic Wydell, T. N., & Butterworth, B. (1999). A case study of an English-Japa-
causes of specific reading disability. Journal of Educational Psychol- nese bilingual with monolingual dyslexia. Cognition, 70, 273–305.
ogy, 88, 601–638. Ziegler, J. C., & Goswami, U. (2005). Reading acquisition, developmental
Watson, C., & Willows, D. M. (1993). Evidence for a visual processing- dyslexia, and skilled reading across languages: A psycholinguistic
deficit subtype among disabled readers. In D. M. Willows, R. S. Kruk, grain size theory. Psychological Bulletin, 131(1), 3–29.
& E. Corcos (Eds.), Visual processes in reading and reading disabilities Ziegler, J. C., Perry, C., Ma-Wyatt, A., Ladner, D., & Schulte-Körne, G.
(pp. 287–309). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum. (2003). Developmental dyslexia in different languages: Language-
Wikipedia. (n.d.). Taare zameen par. Retrieved August 3, 2008, from specific or universal? Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 86,
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taare_Zameen_Par. 169–193.
 3
Reader Profiles and Reading Disabilities
SHEILA W. VALENCIA
University of Washington

Results of the 2007 National Assessment of Educational tive, linguistic, motivational, and affective activity within
Progress reading assessment revealed that scores have equally complex situational contexts (Anderson, Hiebert,
improved only slightly and we still have much work to do. Scott, & Wilkinson, 1985). Broadly put, among the cogni-
Thirty-three percent of fourth graders and 26% of eighth tive skills and strategies readers engage while reading are
graders are still below basic level and a substantial gap phonological awareness, visual and auditory memory and
continues to exist between White students and their Black processing, semantic and syntactic processing, word read-
and Hispanic peers (Lee, Grigg, & Donahue, 2008). In ad- ing, oral language, vocabulary, fluency, comprehension,
dition, during the 2007–2008 school year, almost 30,000 background knowledge, reasoning, metacognition, and the
schools failed to make adequate yearly progress under like (NICHD, 2000; RAND Reading Study Group, 2002;
the No Child Left Behind Act and almost 1 in 5 of the na- Snow, Burns, Griffin, 1998). With such a complex process,
tion’s public schools missed their target for annual yearly it is easy to imagine the difficulty of determining students’
progress for 2 years or more and are now facing federal instructional needs.
sanctions (Hoff, 2008). Educators, policymakers, families, This chapter reviews one way of thinking about students’
and communities are concerned about these results, and diverse educational needs: reading profiles of students with
efforts to improve instruction and education have garnered reading difficulties. In this context, a profile refers to the
a good deal of attention from all quarters. Faced with this variability in reading-related skills and strategies within an
daunting task, many educators and researchers agree that individual student that characterize patterns of strengths and
a primary challenge is to understand and meet the wide weaknesses. Calls for this type of multidimensional lens
range of student needs in reading and, ultimately, improve on reading difficulty have come from a broad spectrum of
their performance. researchers and educators who are concerned that some
Growing evidence suggests that high-quality reading perspectives on reading difficulty may oversimplify the
instruction can be a powerful lever for preventing reading nature of skilled as well as unskilled reading (i.e., Aaron,
problems, decreasing the number of students identified Joshi, & Williams, 1999; Carr, Brown, Vavrus, & Evans,
as learning disabled, and significantly improving reading 1990; Clay, 2001; Daneman, 1991; Wixson & Lipson, 1991;
abilities of students who are low-performing (Allington, Spear-Swerling, 2004). Evidence suggests, for example,
2006; Allington & Wamsley, 2007; Clay, 2001; Johnston, substantial variability within groups of good readers as well
2002; Langer, 2001; Taylor & Pearson, 2002; Vellutino as poor, which likely leads to the equivocal results found
et al., 1996; Vellutino, Fletcher, Snowling, & Scanlon, in many intervention studies (Lipson & Wixson, 1986).
2004; Vellutino & Scanlon, 2002). One of the key features The efforts to understand reading difficulty reviewed here
across effective instructional approaches and interventions consider multiple factors and interacting paths that appear
is the teacher’s ability to differentiate instruction to meet to contribute to reading difficulty.
the various needs of different particular populations of The studies reviewed here were selected with an eye to-
students as well as the particular strengths and needs of ward the perspective of classroom teachers and possibilities
individual students. This already difficult task is made more for understanding reading instruction and assessment. They
difficult when one considers the complexity of the reading include investigations of profile variables such as phonemic
process and the ultimate goal of reading instruction—to awareness, decoding, fluency, and comprehension (reading
help students comprehend written text. Reaching this goal or listening). To be sure, there are other aspects of reading
requires a complex interactive process that includes cogni- that could and should be addressed through instruction but,

25
26 Sheila W. Valencia

for the most part, these have not been addressed in studies strengths and needs. The third group of studies originates
that profile within-reader differences (see the conclusion for from educational policy and related concerns about instruc-
a discussion of this issue). Studies that examined profiles tional interventions that are assigned to students based on
for the purpose of classifying students as learning disabled their scores on high-stakes assessment. In the final section
or comparing approaches to classification (e.g., Fletcher of the chapter, I raise several issues that I believe should
et al., 1994) or those that primarily included more general be considered as educators interpret research on reader
measures of cognition and perception such as attention, profiles, consider implications for practice, and chart the
serial memory, cross-modal transfer, knowledge, modality, course for future research.
visual perception, and memory were not included although
they may be of interest to some readers (cf. Swanson, How-
Background on Reader Profiles
ard, & Saez, 2006; Vellutino & Denckla, 1991; Vellutino
et al., 2004). Perhaps one of the earliest efforts to examine variability of
I take a conceptual approach to this review, rather than reading skills and strategies within an individual student can
an exhaustive one, examining a number of different ways be traced to the work of William S. Gray and individual tests
researchers have investigated and thought about reader of oral reading (for excellent historical reviews see Pelosi,
profiles and various reader subgroups or subtypes. This is 1977b; Lipson & Wixson, 1986; Wixson & Lipson, 1991).
motivated, in part, by the fact that “reader profiles” is not Following the scientific movement in education at the turn
a specific area of research such as individual differences, of the century and the development of educational tests,
neurological processes, assessment, phonological aware- including Thorndike’s first norm-referenced test of silent
ness, and intervention. Therefore, this chapter draws from reading in 1914, there was a sense that objective evidence
studies across a range of research priorities and topics with proved that many students across the country were failing
an eye toward those that consider multiple contributors to to learn to read. This gave impetus into investigations of
understanding the reading patterns of individual students. the problems students were experiencing and the causes of
Across these studies, profiles are sometimes referred to as reading difficulty. Thorndike had called for more objective,
reader subtypes, cognitive profiles, component analysis, or accurate, and convenient measures of a student’s ability in
reader types. All are used interchangeably in this review. four areas: pronounce words and sentences; understand the
The focus for this volume is children with reading dif- meaning of words and sentences read; appreciate “good
ficulties. Nevertheless, it is important to understand that literature” (Pelosi, 1977a, p. 39); and read orally clearly
most researchers take a dimensional perspective toward and effectively. For the most part, psychologists and educa-
reading understanding—that reading ability is normally tors of the time tried to isolate and evaluate these and other
distributed across populations (Snow et al., 1998). The same specific factors associated with good and poor reading. Wil-
skills, strategies, and factors influence reading competence liam Gray, a student of Thorndike, published the first oral
at all points along the continuum with the lower end of reading test in 1916 with an eye toward examining various
the distribution representing reading disability. What this components of skilled reading.
suggests is that there is no predetermined cut point for cat- Gray saw oral reading as a window on an individual’s
egorizing students as reading disabled or abled. As a result, reading abilities rather than an artful performance as oth-
the research reviewed here uses a variety of definitions and ers had. In addition to measuring the student’s rate of oral
approaches to identify and examine profiles of struggling reading and ability to pronounce words and sentences, Gray
readers, thus making it difficult to compare specific find- also analyzed and categorized oral reading errors using a
ings. However, by examining the conceptual questions and series of increasingly difficult reading passages much like
general findings across studies, we begin to get a sense of informal reading inventories used today. Gray pointed out
how reader profiles might be considered and how they might common types of errors and explained how they affected
help inform instruction. oral reading, and he noted that reading ability was influ-
The first section of this chapter provides background for enced by the interaction of various factors. For example,
this view of reader profiles, beginning with a brief history he pointed out that purpose, text difficulty, and interest
of early efforts to understand the complex nature of reading determined if the material would be understood (Lipson
difficulty. The next section, reviews the research related & Wixson, 1986) and brought attention to overreliance on
to reader profiles by organizing the studies reviewed into rate as the sole criterion for judging good or poor reading
three groups corresponding to general approaches used to (Pelosi, 1977a). Gray and his colleagues at the University
study within-reader variability. The first group of studies of Chicago continued to conduct studies using the oral
draws from the work of educational psychologists who reading test as a window on the causes of reading disability,
have examined multiple cognitive processes, often with concluding in 1946 that reading problems were not typically
an eye toward those underlying skilled and unskilled read- caused by any one factor but by a combination of factors
ing. The second group of studies examines interactions (Lipson & Wixson, 1986). So, the concept of individual
between specific types of instruction and particular reader and varying reader profiles was present as far back as the
abilities; these studies examine the differential efficacy of early 1900s.
instruction for students with various patterns of reading In the 1970s and 1980s two groups of researchers took an
 Reader Profiles and Reading Disabilities 27

interest in subgroups of students with reading difficulties. In difficulties in listening comprehension only, and difficulties
the field of learning disabilities, interest was spurred by ef- in both word identification and listening comprehension.
forts to improve the classification system and reduce hetero- Catts, Hogan, and Fey (2003) investigated these three
geneity of children identified as learning disabled (Kavale & profiles. They confirmed the presence of the profiles as well
Forness, 1987). This led to studies aimed at more precisely as the overall independence of word identification and com-
identifying homogeneous subtypes of learning disabled prehension in a group of second-grade poor readers. Using
students based on their abilities across multiple factors or composite scores from multiple measures of listening com-
multiple levels within a single factor (e.g., IQ scores). Most prehension, phonological processing, word recognition, and
often researchers in this field focused on neuropsychologi- reading comprehension, they reported that approximately
cal, psychoeducational, and linguistic processing and skills one-third of the students had good or adequate listening
to help them identify learning disabled students (Kavale comprehension but poor word recognition, approximately
& Forness, 1987). At about the same time, according to one-sixth had poor listening comprehension and good or
Wixson and Lipson (1991), information-processing research adequate word identification, and approximately one-third
in the reading field was similarly exploring characteristics had both poor listening comprehension and word identifica-
associated with reading disabilities, often focusing on tion skills. However, although poor readers differed in their
cognitive processes underlying successful and unsuccessful strengths and weaknesses in word identification and com-
reading and trying to simplify the problem by focusing on prehension, they didn’t cluster into homogenous subgroups.
a single etiology. A good deal of the good-poor reader re- In other words, poor readers demonstrated a wide range of
search led to efforts to link performance differences between abilities in both word recognition and comprehension, a
the groups to reading disability. However, these good-poor finding that is in line with the dimensional perspective sug-
reader studies often masked variability within the groups gested by Snow et al. (1998) described above. Surprisingly,
by averaging scores to compare groups. For example, if approximately 13% of the students didn’t fall into any of
on average, poor readers were found to lack phonological the three categories. They scored above cutoff levels in both
skills it could not be assumed that all students in that group word recognition and listening comprehension, yet they had
had poor phonological skills or that, by extension, all poor poor reading comprehension—a pattern that could not be
readers needed instruction in phonological skills. In fact, explained by the model. Catts et al. (2003) hypothesized
research is fairly clear that there is substantial variability that this inability to account for children with what they
within groups of poor readers as well as good readers; there termed nonspecific reading disorders might be attributed to
is a good deal of heterogeneity within groups as well as measurement error or to variables other than word recogni-
between groups. tion and listening comprehension that contribute to reading
This brief review highlights the early interest in within- comprehension. These basic findings ground much of the
reader variability associated with the development of the work related to reader profiles.
first diagnostic reading assessments. In the 1970s and 1980s,
however, with increased attention to students who were Detailed models of reading profiles. Spear-Swerling
failing to learn to read, efforts turned to finding a simpler (2004) took a somewhat different approach to differentiat-
indicator or predictor of learning and reading disabilities. ing reading profiles by proposing a developmental model
Nevertheless, research continued to suggest substantial of the various cognitive processes involved in skilled read-
variability within both good and poor readers and interest ing. Based on the work of Spear-Swerling and Sternberg
has turned, once again, to trying to understand the complex (1994) and influenced by cognitive psychologists such as
patterns of reading processes and strategies that underlie Adams (1990), Hoover and Gough (1990), and LaBerge
the reading difficulties of individual students. and Samuels (1974), Spear-Swerling described six phases
of reading development. Virtually all students pass through
these phases, although at different rates, as they progress
Review of Research
from preschool to high school or college: (a) visual cue word
Reading Processes recognition, (b) phonetic-cue word recognition, (c) con-
Foundational studies on reading profiles. Most studies trolled word recognition, (d) automatic word recognition,
related to reader profiles have been conducted by educa- (e) strategic reading, and (f) proficient reading. Although
tional psychologists who examine the reading and learning the first three stages are fairly linear, once readers reach
to read processes and subprocesses. A major influence on the third phase, controlled word recognition, the phases
these studies has been the so-called simple view of reading overlap, and students continue to develop word recognition
proposed by Gough and Tunmer (1986) and Hoover and and automaticity as well as strategic knowledge through the
Gough (1990) which suggests that reading comprehension final three phases. Spear-Swerling conceptualized reading
is composed of two basic, independent components: word disabilities as deviations from this developmental path. She
recognition and listening comprehension. Reading compre- categorized students into three general performance profiles
hension is assumed to be predicted from the product of the corresponding to Catts et al.’s (2003) three groups, and she
two. This model suggests that poor readers possess three added a layer of specificity to the subprofiles within each
different profiles: difficulties in word identification only, (see Figure 3.1). Thus, Spear-Swerling draws our attention
28 Sheila W. Valencia

TABLE 3.1
Cognitive Patterns of Reading Disability
Profile Phase Pattern Word Recognition Oral Language Reading Comprehension
Comprehension
SWRD Visual cue No phonological decoding skills; Average or better Weak due to limited word
Nonalphabetic uses visual skills recognition
Phonetic cue Inaccurate Some inaccurate phonological Average or better Adequate with undemanding text;
decoding; uses context cues to difficulty with more demanding
supplement text
Controlled word Accurate, effortful word Average or better Adequate with undemanding text;
Nonautomatic recognition; uses sentence context difficulty with more demanding
to supplement text
Automatic Delayed Accurate and automatic word Average or better Weak, impaired use of
recognition but lags behind peers comprehension strategies
SCD Strategic reading Fairly accurate, automatic word Sometimes below average Weak, impaired use of
Nonstrategic recognition; acquired at normal comprehension strategies and weak
rate comprehension
Strategic reading Fairly accurate, automatic word Sometimes below average Basic comprehension strategies but
Suboptimal recognition; acquired at normal lacks higher-order strategies and
rate comprehension
GVPR Word recognition difficulties in Below average Usually weak due to below
any of the four subcategories average word recognition and
comprehension

Source: Spear-Swerling (2004)

to both a developmental element and differentiation within these students, in part, because of their general language
the broad categories associated with the simple view. comprehension problems.
According to Spear-Swerling’s (2004) model, difficulty Spear-Swerling (2004) argued that cognitive profiles
in the first four phases of reading development results in a such as these can be exceedingly useful in early identifica-
specific word-recognition deficit (SWRD), which is char- tion and instructional planning for students with reading
acterized by four subprofiles. Each is associated with one difficulties. For example, a child with poor reading com-
of the first four developmental stages, increasing in skill prehension that is related to word identification difficulties
from non-alphabetic to delayed (see Table 3.1). Students in requires a different instructional approach than a child
each of these four profiles do not have underlying general who has low performance in both word recognition and
language problems or intellectual impairments, yet all of overall language skills. Furthermore, the developmental
them demonstrate difficulty with reading comprehension descriptions of subcategories within each broad area are
as a result of deficient word recognition skills. likely to provide needed specificity to help with diagno-
Students falling in the second major category, specific sis and instruction. Spear-Swerling cautioned, however,
comprehension deficit (SCD), are characterized by adequate that both intrinsic factors (e.g., motivation, temperament)
word recognition in the early grades yet difficulty with com- and extrinsic factors (e.g., experience, instruction, home
prehension that may be related to limited prior knowledge, environment) play a role in good and poor reading and are
comprehension strategies, motivation, or general language likely to influence how students engage their skills while
abilities. Thus, reading comprehension difficulties may, reading. Consequently, this developmental model must
but do not always, align with listening comprehension be considered together with other influences on reading
difficulties. The two SCD subcategories, Nonstrategic and performance.
Suboptimal, represent similar profiles of comprehension A question that arises from Spear-Swerling’s (2004)
difficulty that differ in degree of severity and ability in developmental model is whether children exhibit differ-
higher-levels of reading comprehension. ent patterns of reading abilities or disabilities at different
The last major category in this model, garden-variety points in their development. On the one hand, students’
poor reading (GVPR), is comprised of students who experi- instructional experiences, language development, and
ence difficulty with both word identification and listening cognitive maturation over time are likely to influence their
comprehension. Their word identification problems are skill and strategy development. On the other hand, they are
often obvious in the primary grades but their comprehen- also progressing through stages of reading development in
sion difficulties are often overlooked initially because the which the focus shifts from learning to read to reading to
texts are not demanding and reading comprehension cannot learn—from a primary emphasis on phonological and word
take place without a basic level of word reading. However, recognition skills to a primary focus on comprehension and
even after their word recognition difficulties have been ad- deep understanding of text. Both are likely to influence
dressed, comprehension continues to present difficulties for definitions of reading competence, primacy of different
 Reader Profiles and Reading Disabilities 29

reading components, and, ultimately, the profiles of strug- need to be reexamined at later grades using measures that
gling readers (Chall, 1983). This concept was investigated align with increasing comprehension demands so that
in the study described next. newly emerging reading difficulties can be identified. Fi-
Leach, Scarborough, and Rescorla (2003) examined the nally, data from multiple assessments administered in this
reading profiles of fourth- and fifth-grade students, some of study indicated that reading comprehension difficulties in
whom had been identified in third grade as reading disabled late-identified students did not stem solely from poor word
(early identified) and others who had not been identified as recognition skills but were likely influenced by multiple
reading disabled until fourth or fifth grade (late identified). factors including oral language, vocabulary, background
They were interested in the nature of reader profiles of knowledge, and inferential abilities. Conversely, students
low-performing students at different stages in their read- with poor word-level skills but strong reading comprehen-
ing development. Using eight separate measures of literacy sion, vocabulary, and listening abilities were likely able to
skills, the authors categorized students as having a reading comprehend by using their strong linguistic abilities and
comprehension deficit (reading and listening comprehen- context clues to compensate for low phonological awareness
sion) and/or a word-level deficit (speed and accuracy of and speed and accuracy of word reading. These findings are
pseudoword and real word reading, spelling). This resulted a reminder of the interactive and compensatory nature of
in four groups, similar to the basic groups identified in reading (Stanovich, 1980), even in models that purport to
studies reviewed above by Catts et al. (2003) and Spear- have independent components, and of the added specific-
Swerling (2004): comprehension deficit but no word level ity provided by multiple measures that might productively
deficit; word deficit but no comprehension deficit; deficits inform instruction.
in both word identification and comprehension; no deficits In sum, each of the studies in this section addressed
(no reading disability). somewhat different aspects of reader profiles, ranging
Four findings from this study contribute to a growing from three basic reader subgroups to more detailed de-
understanding of reader profiles. First, late-identified stu- velopmental descriptions of profiles. The heterogeneous
dents in fourth and fifth grade were not a homogeneous nature of reading disabilities and developmental changes in
group, a finding that mirrors that of Catts et al.’s (2003) with students’ profiles suggest further study is needed of read-
second-grade poor readers. Approximately one-third had ing components, assessments, and the frequency of profile
word-level deficits without comprehension deficits, one- construction. All the studies reviewed share a common
third had weak comprehension skills with good word-level model of reading ability and disability—the simple view of
skills, and one-third demonstrated deficits in both areas. As reading—in which reading comprehension is predicted to
in the other studies, this evidence supports the concept of result from word identification and listening comprehension.
within-student variability. Second, reader profiles for early- This seems to be the general case for most studies related
and late-identified students differed substantially. Very few to reader profiles that flow from the research of educational
(6%) early-identified third-grade students had a deficit only psychologists and special educators who study reading dis-
in comprehension as compared to 33% of the late-identified ability at the elementary level. As a result, the components
students in fourth or fifth grade. These results are consis- that have received most attention are word recognition (and
tent with others that find reading comprehension problems related phonological and decoding skills) and comprehen-
prevalent among older students (RAND, 2002). However, sion (listening and reading). Although several researchers
Leach et al. (2003) also note that comprehension difficul- in this field have acknowledged the role of psychological,
ties may be difficult to detect in the early grades because contextual, and cultural factors on reading ability (Aaron,
primary texts and tests of comprehension are generally not Joshi, Gooden, & Bentum, 2008; Spear-Swerling, 2004),
conceptually challenging. This finding holds implications few have systematically addressed them.
for the types of measures that are used in determining reader
profiles. In the example of this study, alternative measures of
Student-Instruction Interactions
comprehension at third grade may have produced different
reader profiles and may have identified some children who A second area of study that has touched on the concept of
were later identified at fourth or fifth grade. reader profiles is instruction. The studies most relevant to
A third finding from Leach and colleagues (2003) that a focus on within-reader variability are those that examine
illuminates issues related to reader profiles is that late- interactions between individual students’ skills and the
identified students did not simply demonstrate more severe nature of the instruction they receive—often referred to as
forms of the difficulties experienced by children in early student-instruction interactions. Some studies investigate
grades, nor were they inadvertently overlooked in earlier general classroom instruction to examine its effectiveness
grades. They displayed profiles of reading difficulty that for students who have a range of reading needs; others are
were not present for them in earlier grades; their difficulties beginning to target specific instructional interventions for
were not just late identified, they were also late emerging students with particular needs. This concept of differential
(see also Badian, 1999). This suggests that using reading responses and differential instruction has been highlighted
profiles in the early grades to identify students in need of by the National Reading Panel Report (NICHD, 2000) in
early intervention is insufficient. Students’ reading profiles its call for additional research on instructional strategies
30 Sheila W. Valencia

appropriate for students of different abilities, ages, and Investigating word identification growth in first-grade
levels of reading disability. And, clearly, student-instruction classrooms, Connor and colleagues (2004a) found patterns
interaction is at the heart of Response to Instruction (RTI) that mirrored the third-grade comprehension findings.
and the movement away from discrepancy models of dis- Overall, children who were strong in decoding and weak
ability (see chapter 13, this volume). in receptive vocabulary did better with less teacher-directed
In many ways, current efforts to examine student- decoding instruction and more student-managed, meaning-
instruction interactions grew from earlier work in aptitude- centered activities such as partner reading throughout the
by-treatment interactions (ATI). It asserted that some year. Children who had the opposite profile, high receptive
instructional strategies are more or less effective for indi- vocabulary and low decoding, made most progress in word
viduals, depending on their abilities (Cronbach & Snow, identification with higher amounts of teacher-managed
1977). Much of that early work defined student aptitude in decoding instruction and lower amounts of child-managed,
terms of broad, global traits such as intelligence, perceptual meaning-oriented activities that gradually increased over
skills, and modalities. Critics suggested that ATI research the school year. It is worth noting that although both studies
had failed to produce positive gains and that both aptitudes focused on two components of reader skills, each targeted
and treatments had been too narrowly defined, failing to only a single outcome of student growth. The first-grade
adequately address development, the multivariate nature of students were only assessed on word identification and the
students’ abilities, and the changing nature of learning and third-grade students were only assessed on comprehen-
psychological factors in various contexts (Speece, 1990). sion. These studies raise questions about whether other
Although the studies reviewed below do not address all the student-instruction interactions might be found if a fuller
concerns raised about ATI, they do, to a degree, address complement of reading outcome measures were used and
concerns about examining multiple aspects of learning if the nature of instruction were examined using different
and instruction, and therefore, provide another view on dimensions. The next study offers some insight into these
reader profiles. issues.
Research on the effects of instruction on elementary- Juel and Minden-Cupp’s (2000) study of first-grade
grade students with varying abilities is exemplified by instruction provides another lens on first-grade profiles
the work of Conner and colleagues (Conner, Morrison, & and instruction. Like Conner et al. (2004a, 2004b), Juel
Katch, 2004a; Conner, Morrison, & Petrella, 2004b) and and Minden-Cupp combined natural classroom observa-
Juel and Minden-Cupp (2000). In general, these studies used tions with assessments of students’ reading abilities so that
classroom observations to document the nature and amount student-instruction interactions could be investigated. How-
of reading instruction occurring in natural classrooms (i.e., ever, unlike Connor et al., they focused on a finer-grained
no intervention or professional development) and employed analysis of instruction, centering on linguistic units of
an assortment of measures to characterize students’ read- instruction (e.g., whole words, rimes, long vowels) and the
ing profiles with respect to phonological processes, word various types of reading experiences of individual children
reading, vocabulary, and comprehension. in the classroom (e.g., materials, instructional strategies,
Connor et al. (2004a, 2004b) investigated the efficacy activities). In addition, students were assessed on a wider
of instruction in first- and third-grade classrooms. They range of reading measures: alphabet knowledge, letter sound
coded observed classroom activities according to three awareness, word recognition, decoding strategies, and oral
dimensions: (a) whether the activity was teacher managed passage reading and comprehension.
or child managed, (b) the focus of the work (decoding or Juel and Minden-Cupp (2000) found significant differ-
meaning-focus), and (c) the change in amount of instruc- ences at the end of the year in both oral passage reading and
tional activities over the school year. In one study of read- comprehension for children across classrooms. However,
ing comprehension in third-grade classrooms, they found there were important interactions between students’ profiles
that children who began the school year with lower read- of reading skills and the type of instruction they received,
ing comprehension skills demonstrated greater growth in even within the same classroom. Children who entered
comprehension when they were provided teacher-managed, first grade with middle-range early literacy skills in alpha-
meaning-based activities such as reading comprehension bet knowledge and spelling-sound knowledge were more
strategies and vocabulary. In contrast, children with higher likely to make exceptional growth in classrooms where
initial comprehension ability made greater gains in com- there was a less-structured phonics curriculum, more read-
prehension when more time was spent on child-managed ing of trade books, and more time for writing. This was in
comprehension activities such as silent reading, partner sharp contrast to students who entered first grade with the
reading, and independent writing. Overall, teacher-managed fewest and lowest level of literacy skills. These low-range
decoding activities did not have a significant effect on chil- first-grade students benefited most from phonics instruction
dren’s comprehension although very little time was spent that included activities such as writing for sounds, hands-
on these types of activities in any of the classrooms. How- on phonics activities involving children in active decision
ever, student-managed decoding activities such as phonics making, comparing and contrasting sounds and spelling
worksheets and spelling activities had a negative effect on patterns, finger pointing while reading, and combining onset
reading comprehension for all children. and rime instruction with sequential letter-sound decoding.
 Reader Profiles and Reading Disabilities 31

Although the children were instructed in small groups, suggest that instruction targeted to students’ areas of need
effective teachers differentiated instruction even further produces gains in that area. However, high-quality instruc-
within those groups to meet students’ needs. And, similar tion is a relative term. What is considered high-quality
to Conner et al.’s (2004a) findings, the low-ability students instruction for one child may be considered poor quality
who had made good progress in word recognition by the for another. Furthermore, when instructional time was spent
middle of the year benefited from the same type of increased on skills and abilities in which a student was strong, no
attention to meaning-based activities, vocabulary, variety of additional growth was detected. So, although instruction
texts, and text discussions as their more skilled peers. that targets a student’s specific needs will increase learn-
An alternative approach to studying student-instruction ing, misdirected instruction may actually waste valuable
interactions is to first determine students’ reading needs, instructional time. As all the studies here demonstrate,
based on their individual reader profiles, and then pro- student abilities and instruction are multidimensional and
vide targeted instruction. So, instead of studying general dynamic over time, making reader profiles, multiple mea-
classroom instruction to determine differential effects on sures, and a knowledgeable teacher even more important.
students with a variety of needs, this approach begins with What is less clear from these studies is the grain size, or
differentiated instruction based on the profile. Few studies the level of specificity, needed to assess students’ reading
have taken this approach but more are likely to emerge abilities. The studies of reader-instruction interactions
as RTI is implemented. Connor et al. (2007) conducted make an important contribution, yet they may be somewhat
a cluster-randomized field trial to test the effects of their difficult to interpret. From one perspective, studies of the
findings discussed above on first-grade students. She and differential impact of instruction on students with varying
colleagues designed a web-based software program to reading needs are generally correlational and leave unan-
calibrate and manage the content (decoding or comprehen- swered the question of whether instructional interventions
sion), structure (teacher-managed or student-managed), and that target students’ weaknesses identified on reader profiles
amount of instruction based on individual students’ word would result in improved student learning. From another
reading and listening vocabulary. Teachers in the experi- perspective, studies that use profiles to target students for
mental group received intensive professional development specific instructional strategies are often accompanied
on individualizing instruction, on-site coaching support, and by considerable professional development for teachers,
training using the program. Using algorithms based on Con- making the contribution of profile information difficult to
nor et al.’s (2004a) earlier work in first grade, the program disentangle from teacher expertise.
provided teachers with recommendations for homogenous
grouping of children and instruction tied to the school’s core
Profiles Underlying Test Performance
reading curriculum. These recommendations were adjusted
throughout the year as students were retested. At the end The research reviewed in this section stems from concerns
of 1 year, experimental students significantly differed on about using scores from large-scale tests to make instruc-
reading comprehension, outperforming control students tional decisions for low-achieving students (Heubert &
by approximately 2 months. The more teachers used the Hauser, 1999; Price & Koretz, 2005). The general concern
software, the greater was their students’ reading compre- is whether scores on these types of tests might mask impor-
hension and this effect was greater for children who began tant information about students’ strengths and weaknesses,
the school year with lower vocabulary scores. However, and consequently, whether students will be assigned to
individualizing student instruction using the software was instructional interventions that do not adequately address
challenging for some teachers. their needs. The two studies reviewed here investigated the
Aaron and colleagues (2008) also examined the effects relation between students’ performance on standards-based
of using reader profiles to plan and deliver instruction. comprehension tests and an assortment of more diagnostic
Students in grades 2–5 were categorized as having a reading measures. The goal was to determine students’
weakness in word identification, comprehension, or both. reading skills and strategies that underlie their performance,
They received small group reading instruction, based on and to gain insight into the nature of instruction that might
their needs, from a trained teacher during an afterschool address their needs. In the process of addressing these ques-
remedial reading program lasting one semester. Students tions, both studies produced reading profiles across several
in the word identification group received instruction from components of reading.
two commercial programs and those in the comprehension Riddle Buly and Valencia (2002) examined the read-
group received instruction in research-based reading strate- ing abilities of fourth-grade students who scored below
gies. Results from several cohorts of students showed that, benchmark on a standards-based comprehension test. They
in comparison to students receiving instruction in learning administered several individual assessments related to
disabilities programs in their schools, children with word three core components of reading: (a) word identification
recognition deficits improved significantly in word recogni- (decoding of real and pseduowords in and out of context),
tion and those who began with deficits in comprehension (b) oral reading fluency (rate and expression), and (c) com-
but not word identification improved in comprehension. prehension (reading comprehension and vocabulary). Their
Overall, these studies of student-instruction interactions analysis revealed that, on average, students were slightly
32 Sheila W. Valencia

TABLE 3.2 comprehension. Furthermore, case studies both within and

Reader Profiles across profile types, indicated that students who were clas-
Reader Profiles – Word Compre- Fluency % EL sified as weak in word identification, for example, did not
% of Sample Identi- hension necessarily need instruction in the same decoding skills.
fication
Some were weak in decoding multisyllabic words and oth-
Automatic Word ++ - ++ 63% ers had difficulty with more basic vowel combinations. The
Callers – 18%
authors concluded that profiles can help distinguish general
Struggling Word - - ++ 56% areas of strengths and weakness for individual students but
Callers – 15%
more in-depth classroom assessment and professional de-
Word Stumblers – - + - 16% velopment are needed to inform instruction. They suggested
17%
a layer approach to using profiles in which students would
Slow + ++ - 19%
be assessed first on the main core components followed by
Comprehenders –
24% more diagnostic assessment for students identified at risk.
Rupp and Lesaux (2006) used an approach similar to
Slow Word Callers – + - - 56%
17% Riddle Buly and Valencia (2002) to examine the relation
Disabled Readers – -- -- -- 20%
between fourth-grade students’ categorical performance on
9% a standards-based comprehension test and their performance
on a diagnostic battery of reading skills. They assessed a
++ above average
+ average somewhat different set of subskills than Riddle Buly and
- below average Valencia that factored into two components: (a) word-level
-- substantially below average skills (untimed and speeded tests of real and pseudowords,
spelling); and (b) working memory and language (working
below grade level in word identification, and significantly
memory for numbers and words, pseudoword spelling, oral
below grade level in fluency and comprehension. However, a
cloze, auditory analysis). Table 3.3 shows the profiles of
cluster analysis indicated that this profile, based on average
students according to the three performance categories and
scores, represented very few of the actual students in the
two reading components.
study. Instead, there were six distinct profiles of students
As expected, most children in the below expectations
who failed to reach benchmark. Table 3.2 shows the six
category scored low on both the word-level and working
profiles, relative strength and weakness across the three
memory and language factors, and most children in the
main reading components, percent of EL students in each
exceeds expectations category scored high on both factors.
profile, and the overall percent of the sample that was cat-
However, the children in the meets expectations displayed
egorized according to each profile. As others have found, the
all four possible combinations of the factors. In addition, a
poor readers in this study were not a homogeneous group.
more in-depth analysis of the children in the below expecta-
Reading performance was multifaceted.
tions category revealed a subgroup whose low performance
Because the profiles included three components of read-
could not be accounted for by either word-level skills or
ing as well as multiple measures within each, analysis of the
linguistic/cognitive skills measured in the study. Overall,
profiles became more complex and the interaction among
Rupp and Lesaux (2006) concluded that classification
the components was explored (Riddle Buly & Valencia,
categories on standards-based tests do not adequately re-
2002; Valencia & Riddle Buly, 2004). Case studies of
flect the diagnostic profiles of students that are needed to
students who fell into each of the six profile clusters pro-
provide instruction. Information from multiple measures,
vided insights about students’ abilities that supplemented
diagnostic classroom assessments, and measures of other
their performance scores in each of the three major reading
reading components need to be considered as instructional
component categories. Additional variability within and
interventions are planned.
across profiles was pronounced. For example, students in
Cluster 1, Automatic Word Callers, were uniformly weak TABLE 3.3
in comprehension according to the three-component profile Classification of Competencies and Test Performance
analysis. However, according to the individual assessments, Class Below Meets Exceeds
some students demonstrated difficulty primarily in inferen- Expectations Expectations Expectations
tial comprehension while others had difficulty in vocabulary Low word, low 77% 30% 6%
or self-monitoring. Many of the English Learners in this memory
profile, who were no longer receiving services, were still Low word, high 7% 12% 10%
acquiring academic language and displayed more difficulty memory
with comprehension of expository texts than narrative. High word, low 10% 43% 7%
Similarly, for students in Cluster 3, Word Stumblers, memory
additional diagnostic information allowed examination of High word, high 7% 41% 77%
the interplay of word identification and fluency. For some memory
students, slow rate of reading was a response to decoding * totals may equal more than 100% due to rounding
problems but, for others, it was a strategy for monitoring Source: Rupp &Lesaux (2006)
 Reader Profiles and Reading Disabilities 33

The two studies in this section are the most similarly con- factors or reading components should be included in a reader
ceptualized and designed of any in this chapter. On the one profile. Clearly, there is a limit to what can be meaningfully
hand, they point in a common direction—toward the value and feasibly assessed. But the choices are worth considering
of reader profiles and limitations of large-scale reading because what gets measured exerts a strong influence on
tests to inform instruction. On the other hand, they clearly the types of subgroups or profiles that are found (Carr et
highlight how the identification of reading components, al., 1990; Kavale & Forness, 1987). For example, if reader
selection of assessments, and definitions of terms such as profiles are confined to word recognition and comprehen-
below expectations or disability can dramatically alter the sion, as they are in many of the studies reviewed here, then
nature and interpretation of reader profiles. reader subtypes or profiles are created that indicate strengths
and weaknesses in those components. Data about how a
student employs metacognitive strategies, or comprehends
Conclusion
with different types of texts would not be considered. If a
The studies reviewed in this chapter sampled literature re- fairly narrow range of reading components is considered in
lated to reader profiles from several perspectives. Overall, constructing a reader profile, important factors contributing
they confirmed the existence of within-reader variability and to reading disability may be overlooked. This may be why
the individual nature of reading disability. They illuminated several studies identified students who did not fit the profiles
the multifaceted nature of reading and possible contributors created from their measures; other components or variables
to students’ reading difficulties. And they suggested that related to a reader’s skills, strategies, or processes may not
reader profiles change with development and instruction, have been included in the profile assessment.
making the task of addressing students’ reading needs even Finally, as the field moves toward RTI, reader profiles or
more challenging. These are important considerations for some type of diagnostic profiling will likely take on a more
both research and practice. important role. After students are screened for intervention,
The studies also raise several issues regarding concep- teachers will need to determine targets for instruction and
tual underpinnings, research methods, and interpretation then monitor student progress on what was taught. Here is
of the research related to reader profiles. Most obvious of where reader profiles may have their greatest contribution
these is the way that reading components and the nature and potentially their greatest problem. They could help
of reading itself is conceptualized. As noted in the review, teachers identify students’ areas of strength and weakness
many of the studies and models of reading disability rest that could then be followed by more diagnostic assess-
on the simple view of reading (Gough & Tunmer, 1986; ments to guide instruction. However, if profiles become
Hoover & Gough, 1990). Although there is a good deal too limited in scope or prescriptive in their application,
of research and support for this model, there is also some the original goal of understanding the multifaceted nature
debate about it as well (Pressley et al., 2009). An interactive reading disability may be lost. Instruction that is too nar-
model takes into account the influence and interaction of a rowly focused may have limited transfer or fail to support
range of text, situational, and reader factors that influence improvements in other aspects of reading (Daneman, 1991).
reading processes and the ultimate outcome of reading— For example, targeted instruction in word recognition
comprehension (Anderson et al., 1985; Cronbach & Snow, may produce improvements in word recognition without
1977; Lipson & Wixson, 1986; RAND, 2002; Snow et al., improvements in comprehension; targeted instruction in
1998). In fact, Leach et al. (2003) and Aaron et al. (2008) speed and automaticity may produce improvements in speed
explicitly acknowledge the complex, interactive nature of without improvements in accuracy or comprehension. This
the reading process in their work on profiles. is a tension that should be monitored.
The issue, then, is how reader profiles might address More research is needed to unpack the profiles of stu-
the complexity of reading to obtain a more complete dents who are experiencing reading difficulties, to inform
understanding of children’s reading strengths and weak- how teachers can best link instruction to profiles, and to
nesses. For example, factors such as text type, background examine profiles of older students, especially those with
knowledge, reader strategies, metacognition, motivation, comprehension difficulties. The real value in this work is not
vocabulary, and English language proficiency are known in classifying students or labeling their reading problems ac-
to influence reading processes and comprehension but cording to new categories; it is in understanding individual
these factors are rarely considered in the research on reader patterns of reading performance so we can turn our attention
profiles. Also rarely considered is how these factors interact to instruction that will make a difference.
with readers’ skills, strategies, and processes. For example,
recent research suggests that motivation may be an “ener-
References
gizer,” helping students to use their cognitive processes
and strategies more effectively (Taboada, Tonks, Wigfield, Aaron, P. G., Joshi, R. M., Gooden, R., & Bentum, K. E. (2008). Diagnosis
and treatment of reading disabilities based on the component model
& Guthrie, 2009). Consideration of additional factors and
of reading: An alternative to the discrepancy model of LD. Journal of
how they interact with other reading skills and processes Learning Disabilities, 41(1), 67–84.
could inform research on reader profiles. Aaron, P. G., Joshi, R. M., & Williams, K. A. (1999). Not all reading dis-
A related issue is how to determine which of the many abilities are alike. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 32, 120–127.
34 Sheila W. Valencia

Adams, M. J. (1990). Beginning to read: Thinking and learning about Langer, J. A. (2001). Beating the odds: Teaching middle and high school
print. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. students to read and write well. American Educational Research
Allington, R. L. (2006). What really matters for struggling readers: Journal, 38(4), 837–880.
Designing research-based programs (2nd ed). Boston: Pearson Leach, J. M., Scarborough, H. S., & Rescorla, L. (2003). Late-emerging
Education. reading disabilities. Journal of Educational Psychology, 95(2),
Allington, R. L., & Wamsley, S. A. (Eds.). (2007). No quick fix: Rethink- 211–224.
ing literacy programs in America’s elementary schools. New York: Lee, J., Grigg, W. S., & Donahue, P. L. (2008). The nation’s report card:
Teachers College. Reading 2007 [Electronic Version]. Retrieved November 20, 2008,
Anderson, R. C., Hiebert, E. H., Scott, J. A., & Wilkinson, I. G. (1985). from http://nces.ed.gov/nationsreportcard/pubs/main2007/2007496.
Becoming a nation of readers: The report of the Commission on Read- asp
ing. Washington DC: The National Institute of Education. Lipson, M. Y., & Wixson, K. K. (1986). Reading disability research: An
Badian, N. A. (1999). Reading disability defined as a discrepancy be- interactionist perspective. Review of Educational Research, 56(1),
tween listening and reading comprehension: A longitudinal study of 111–136.
stability, gender, and prevalence. Journal of Learning Disabilities, National Institute of Child Health and Development (2000). Report of
32, 138–148. the National Read Panel. Teaching children to read: An evidence-
Carr, T. H., Brown, T. L., Vavrus, L. G., & Evans, M. A. (1990). Cogni- based assessment of scientific research literature on reading and its
tive skill maps and cognitive skill profiles: Componential analysis of implication for reading instruction. (NIH Publication No. 00-4769).
individual differences in children’s reading efficiency. In T. H. Carr Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office.
& B. A. Levy (Eds.), Reading and its development: Component skills Pelosi, P. L. (1977a). The origins and development of reading diagnosis
approaches. San Diego, CA: Academic Press. in the United States: 1896–1946. New York: State University of New
Catts, H. W., Hogan, T., & Fey, M. E. (2003). Subgrouping poor readers on York at Buffalo.
the basis of individual differences in reading-related abilities. Journal Pelosi, P. L. (1977b). The roots of reading diagnosis. In H. A. Robinson
of Learning Disabilities, 36(2), 151–164. (Ed.), Reading and writing instruction in the United States: Historical
Chall, J. S. (1983). Stages of reading development. New York: McGraw- trends. Newark, DE: International Reading Association.
Hill. Pressley, M., Duke, N. K., Gaskins, I. W., Fingeret, L., Halladay, J., Hilden,
Clay, M. M. (2001). Change over time in children’s literacy development. K., et al. (2009). Working with struggling readers: Why we must get
Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann. beyond the Simple View of Reading and visions of how it might be
Connor, C. M., Morrison, F. J., Fishman, B. J., Schatschneider, C., & done. In T. Gutkin & C. R. Reynolds (Eds.), The handbook of school
Underwood, P. (2007). Algorithm-guided individualized reading psychology (4th ed.) (pp. 522–554). Hoboken, NJ: Wiley.
instruction [Electronic Version]. Science, 315, 464–465. Retrieved Price, J., & Koretz, D. (2005). Building assessment literacy. In K. Boudett,
December 15, 2008, from http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/ E. City, & R. Murnane (Eds.), Data wise: A step-by-step guide to us-
full/315/5811/464/DC1 ing assessment results to improve teaching and learning (pp. 29–55).
Connor, C. M., Morrison, F. J., & Katch, E. L. (2004a). Beyond the reading Cambridge, MA: Harvard Educational Press.
wars: Exploring the effect of child-instruction interactions on growth RAND Reading Study Group (2002). Reading for understanding. Toward
in early reading. Scientific Studies of Reading, 8, 305–336. an R & D Program in reading comprehension. Santa Monica, CA:
Connor, C. M., Morrison, F. J., & Petrella, J. N. (2004b). Effective reading RAND.
comprehension instruction: Examining child x instruction interactions. Riddle Buly, M., & Valencia, S. W. (2002). Below the bar: Profiles of
Journal of Educational Psychology, 96(4), 682–698. students who fail state assessments. Educational Evaluation and Policy
Cronbach, L. J., & Snow, R. (1977). Aptitudes and instructional methods: Analysis, 24(3), 219–239.
A handbook for research on interactions. New York: Irvington. Rupp, A. A., & Lesaux, N. (2006). Meeting expectations? An empirical
Daneman, M. (1991). Individual differences in reading skills. In R. Barr, M. investigation of a standards-based assessment of reading comprehen-
L. Kamil, P. Mosenthal, & P. D. Pearson (Eds.), Handbook of reading sion. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 28(4), 315–333.
research (Vol. II, pp. 512–538). New York: Longman. Snow, C. E., Burns, M. S., & Griffin, P. (Eds.). (1998). Preventing reading
Fletcher, J. M., Shaywitz, S. E., Shankweiler, D. P., Katz, L., Liberman, difficulties in young children. Washington, DC: National Academy
I. Y., Stuebing, K. K., et al. (1994). Cognitive profiles of reading dis- Press.
ability: Comparisons of discrepancy and low achievement definitions. Spear-Swerling, L. (2004). A road map for understanding reading disability
Journal of Educational Psychology, 86(1), 6–23. and other reading problems: Origins, prevention, and intervention. In
Gough, P. B., & Tunmer, W. E. (1986). Decoding, reading, and reading R. B. Ruddell & N. Unrau, J. (Eds.), Theoretical models and processes
disability. Remedial and Special Education, 7, 16–10. of reading (5th ed., pp. 517–573). Newark: DE: International Reading
Heubert, J. P., & Hauser, R. M. (1999). High stakes testing for tracking, Association.
promotion, and graduation. Washington, DC: National Academy Spear-Swerling, L., & Sternberg, R. J. (1994). The road not taken: An
Press. integrative theoretical model of reading disability. Journal of Learning
Hoff, D. J. (2008). Schools struggling to meet key goal on accountability Disabilities, 27(2), 91–103, 122.
[Electronic Version]. Education Week, 28(1), 14–15. Retrieved January Speece, D. L. (1990). Aptitude-treatment interactions: Bad rap or bad
2, 2009, from http://www.edweek.org/ew/articles/2008/12/18/16ayp. idea? Journal of Special Education, 24, 139–150.
h28.html Stanovich, K. E. (1980). Toward an interactive-compensatory model of
Hoover, W. A., & Gough, P. B. (1990). The simple view of reading. Reading individual differences in the development of reading fluency. Reading
and Writing: An Interdisciplinary Journal, 2, 127–160. Research Quarterly, 16(1), 32–71.
Johnston, P. H. (2002). Commentary on “The interactive strategies ap- Swanson, H., L., Howard, C. B., & Saez, L. (2006). Do different com-
proach to reading intervention.” Contemporary Educational Psychol- ponents of working memory underlie different subgroups of reading
ogy, 27, 636–647. disabilities? Journal of Learning Disabilities, 39(3), 252–269.
Juel, C., & Minden-Cupp, C. (2000). Learning to read words: Linguistic Taboada, A., Tonks, S. M., Wigfield, A., & Guthrie, J. T. (2009). Effects
units and instructional strategies. Reading Research Quarterly, 35, of motivational and cognitive variables on reading comprehension.
458–492. Reading and Writing: An Interdisciplingary Journal, 22, 85–106.
Kavale, K. A., & Forness, S. R. (1987). The far side of heterogeneity: A Taylor, B. M., & Pearson, P. D. (Eds.). (2002). Teaching reading: Effective
critical analysis of empirical subtyping research in learning disabilities. schools, accomplished teachers. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Journal of Learning Disabilities, 20(6), 374–382. Valencia, S. W., & Riddle Buly, M. (2004). Behind test scores: What strug-
LaBerge, D., & Samuels, S. J. (1974). Toward a theory of automatic infor- gling readers really need. The Reading Teacher, 57(6), 520–533.
mation processing in reading. Cognitive Psychology, 6, 293–323. Vellutino, F. R., & Denckla, M. B. (1991). Cognitive and neuropsy-
 Reader Profiles and Reading Disabilities 35

chological foundation of word identification in poor and normally Vellutino, F. R., Scanlon, D. M., Sipay, E., R., Small, S. G., Pratt, A.,
developing readers. In R. Barr, M. L. Kamil, P. Mosenthal, & P. D. Chen, R., et al. (1996). Cognitive profiles of difficult-to-remediate
Pearson (Eds.), Handbook of reading research (Vol. II, pp. 571–608). and readily-remediated poor readers: Early intervention as a vehicle
New York: Longman. for distinguishing between cognitive and experiential deficits as basic
Vellutino, F. R., Fletcher, J. M., Snowling, M. J., & Scanlon, D. M. causes of specific reading disability. Journal of Educational Psychol-
(2004). Specific reading disability (dyslexia): What have we learned ogy, 88(4), 601–638.
in the past four decades. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, Wixson, K. K., & Lipson, M. Y. (1991). Perspectives on reading disabil-
45(1), 2–40. ity research. In R. Barr, M. L. Kamil, P. Mosenthal, & P. D. Pearson
Vellutino, F. R., & Scanlon, D. M. (2002). The interactive strategies ap- (Eds.), Handbook of reading research (Vol. II, pp. 539–570). New
proach to reading intervention. Contemporary Educational Psychol- York: Longman.
ogy, 27, 573–635.
 4
Language Development and Reading Disabilities
LUDO VERHOEVEN
Behavioural Science Institute, Radboud University

This chapter deals with the relationship between language the knowledge of conventions regarding the cohesion and
development and reading disabilities. When describing the coherence of various types of discourse. Grammatical and
language development in children, we assume that there is discourse competence refer to those abilities involved in
continuity between the development of speech and writ- controlling the formal organization of written discourse.
ing skills. In the first years of life, the emphasis is on the The competence to code and decode written text comprises
development of spoken language skills in the context of the the technical abilities of writing and reading. Strategic com-
here-and-now. Gradually, children learn to use language petence refers to the ability to perform planning, execution
not only in interactive situations in which the context is and evaluative functions to implement the communicative
given, but also in situations in which this context is lack- goal of language. Sociolinguistic competence comprises
ing, as is the case in storybook reading. Moreover, children the literacy conventions which are appropriate in a given
spontaneously learn to pay attention to the formal aspects culture and in varying social situations, and the mass body
of language. They gradually develop a metalinguistic aware- of cultural background knowledge.
ness in which implicit knowledge of both the functions and Given the continuities between oral and written lan-
structure of language is made explicit. Objectification of guage, the abilities involved in grammatical and discourse
language enables children to discover written language as a competence constitute basic components of functional
new modality. In the present chapter, we will start out with literacy. Though the linguistic devices used to comprehend
a focus on the continuities between language and literacy. or produce written language are not completely identical
In addition, we go into the processes of early language and to those involved in oral discourse, a close relationship can
literacy development, and the linguistic precursors of word still be expected. Decoding and coding abilities relate to the
decoding, on the one hand, and reading comprehension, mastery of the essentials of the written language code itself.
on the other hand. Individual differences in language an It has been claimed by many educators that orthographies
literacy will also be discussed. Finally, a perspective on differ in degree of learnability. From comparative studies
educational practice is given. of writing systems (see Perfetti, 1998), it can be concluded
that all systems represent spoken language at one level or
another and that readers activate speech codes during the
Continuities Between Language and Literacy
decoding process—even in morphemic writing systems
Literacy has come to be viewed as a complex of skills which such as the Chinese. Alphabetic codes have the advantage
is defined in terms of the print demands of occupational, of a small number number of symbols (letters) needed
educational, civic, community, and personal functioning. to map the phoneme inventory of a language. However,
The question is what psycholinguistic abilities underlie from an extensive body of research (see Seymour, Aro, &
a functional literacy level in the individual. According to Erskine, 2003), it has been shown that alphabetical codes
Verhoeven (1994, 1997), a distinction can be made between are difficult in the sense that phonemes as the constituent
the following types of competences: grammatical com- units can hardly be perceived. The acquisition of alphabe-
petence, discourse competence, (de)coding competence, tic systems appears to be affected by the ‘goodness of it’
strategic competence, and sociolinguistic competence. between oral and written language units which is relatively
Grammatical competence covers the mastery of phonolo- high for Finnish and relatively low for English.
gical rules, lexical items, morphosyntactic rules, and rules With respect to the continuities between langauge and
of sentence formation. Discourse competence refers to literacy, the particular sociolinguistic position of ethnic

36
 Language Development and Reading Disabilities 37

minorities should be recognized (e.g., Geva & Verhoeven, 1996). Further development of communicative skills first
2000). Grammatical and discourse abilities become very of all presupposes that children are willing to cooperate in
critical for people from ethnic minorities who have to terms of speech and listening. In conversations, this coop-
learn to read and write in an unfamiliar (second) language. eration becomes apparent in the appreciation of each other
Children who acquire literacy in a second language are and their open attitude towards each other’s points of view.
faced with a dual task: learning the written code learning Development of speech skills means that children become
grammatical and discourse competency In many cases increasingly better at putting their thoughts and feelings
children learning to read in a second language (L2) are into words. Progress is made in at least four areas. First of
less proficient in the target language than their native all, children become increasingly better at taking into ac-
language speaking peers are. Thus, it can be hypothesized count what their conversation partners already know about
that L2 learners have difficulty in using (meta)linguistic a certain topic. Second, children learn to provide correct
cues while reading. Limited oral proficiency in a second information in a conversation and also to provide not much
language may influence the various subprocesses of read- more information than required. They begin to realize that
ing (see Droop & Verhoeven, 2003). With respect to word making up information can lead to all kinds of misunder-
recognition and word spelling, there can be difficulties in standings. Third, they learn to provide only information
phonic mediation, resulting in a slow rate of acquisition of that is relevant at the moment of speaking. They become
graphemephoneme correspondency rules. There can also be increasingly better at keeping their minds focused on a
difficulties in the use of orthographic constraints, due to a certain topic of conversation, and they express themselves
restricted awareness of phoneme distribution rules in the in less ambiguous terms.
second language. Furthermore, there may be differences Development of listening skills presupposes that children
between first and second language readers as to higher are able to focus their attention and keep it focused over
order processes which follow the identification of words. a certain period of time. While listening, children need to
Due to restricted lexical and syntactic knowledge, or limited structure the message conveyed by the speaker. This entails
background knowledge, L2 learners may have difficulty in that, at decisive moments, conclusions are drawn on the
parsing sentences into their constituents and in finding their basis of the knowledge of the world that the children possess
underlying propositions. already. They also need to learn how to distinguish between
central and peripheral information and to determine and fol-
low the main line of reasoning in a conversation. Simultane-
Early Language and Literacy Development
ously, their knowledge of reference words is put to the test.
It is interesting to note how the development of language Speakers often use pronouns that point back to something
and literacy interact in the course of primary school. In the mentioned previously. Furthermore, children learn to use
first years of life, the emphasis is on the development of language not only in interactive situations in which the
speech skills in the context of the here-and-now. Gradu- context is given, but also in situations in which this context
ally, a number of major shifts take place in the language is lacking. This is the case when they process monologues
acquisition process. To begin with, children make consider- such as stories and informative texts. Monologues are
able progress in their conceptual development. As a result, marked by hierarchically structured representations of ideas
their vocabulary grows rapidly. To increase their stock of and logical relations between these ideas, while dialogues
content words, children need to link the correct meanings possess much more informal characteristics. In a dialogue,
to word forms (cf. Clark, 2002). In the first stage, children the listener has access to a wide range of contextual cues,
use words to refer to a much larger class of objects, acts, or which are almost entirely lacking in monologues. Research
events than adults do. Step by step, children learn to demar- has shown that text structures confront children with dif-
cate the meaning of each word. With regard to the attempt ferent degrees of complexity (cf. Karmiloff-Smith, 1997).
to increase the stock of content words, it should be noted Relatively easy are descriptions of the here-and-now in a
that children do not learn by making simple associations given context. This is the case, for example, when they are
between specific sound patterns and meanings. Research asked to describe a concrete situation. Somewhat more
into the vocabulary development has actually shown that complex are narrative texts that refer to a concrete experi-
children continuously use information from the context to ence, which is not or only partially shared by the child and
make assumptions as to the possible semantic boundaries the other participant. Taking into account the listener’s
that characterize the underlying concept of a certain word prior knowledge, the child needs to separate main issues
form. It is therefore generally assumed that vocabulary from side-issues, and to explicitate information on persons,
acquisition proves particularly successful when words are time and space as well as cause-effect relations. Even more
being offered in a context-rich environment. complex are narrative and informative texts that do not refer
In the course of elementary education, children also show to the child’s personal experience.
an increasing ability to apply language functionally in a Children spontaneously learn to pay attention to the
wide variety of language-use situations. They learn to use formal aspects of language. They gradually develop a meta-
various language functions such as explaining, requesting, linguistic awareness in which implicit knowledge of both
reasoning, and providing arguments (cf. Ninio & Snow, the functions and structure of language is made explicit.
38 Ludo Verhoeven

They learn to make language the object of their thinking. these findings should not overshadow the crucial role of
Objectification of language enables children to explicitate direct instruction in the alphabeic code (National Reading
their implicit knowledge of the functions and structure of Panel (NRP), 2000). It is one of the most well documented
language. In this type of knowledge, the emphasis shifts facts in educational psychology that direct instruction in the
from the communicative content of language to the gram- orthographic code is more helpful for children than indirect
matical design of language. Metalinguistic awareness instruction where children are left to infer the grapheme-
includes in any case behaviors that presuppose a certain phoneme mappings on their own. This is true especially for
degree of abstraction of language use aspects, and, ide- children with relatively poor language abilities while other
ally, it is reflected in the explicit formulation of linguistic children appear to be able to learn to read with practicaly
knowledge. In view of becoming literate, the development any method of teaching.
of word awareness and phonological awareness are par-
ticularly important. Word awareness involves the insight
Language Precursors of Word Decoding
that words are not concrete things, but labels referring to
abstract concepts (objectification) and that words constitute Word decoding, or the accurate and fast retrieval of the
the building blocks of sentences. Phonological awareness phonological code for written word forms, is commonly
refers to reflection on the distinguishable word components. assumed to play a central role in children’s reading de-
This finds expression in the ability to divide words up into velopment. More specifically, the automatization of word
syllables or phonemes, to recognize rhyme (end rhyme and decoding skills and attainment of fluent reading levels is
alliteration), to use syllables and phonemes to form words, considered essential for the development of reading com-
and to omit, add, or replace phonemes in words. Children prehension (Perfetti, 1992; Stanovich, 2000). In learning
find it particularly hard to make phonological judgments. to read, children acquire elementary decoding skills and
What makes phonological judgments so complex is primar- gradually apply these skills with greater speed and accuracy.
ily the problematic character of our alphabetic writing sys- The word recognition process becomes increasingly auto-
tem. The speech sounds to which our letters refer, prove to mated with the direct recognition of such multiletter units as
be very abstract and hardly perceivable in spoken language consonant clusters, morphemes, syllables, and entire words
(Adams, 1990). Research has shown that children develop as the result (Ziegler & Goswami, 2005). From first grade
word awareness before they develop phonological aware- on, individual differences in the word decoding abilities of
ness. Particularly reflection on phonemes as the smallest children have also been shown to clearly predict their later
units of speech proves to be very difficult for children. word decoding abilities (Foorman, Francis, Shaywitz, Shay-
Notwithstanding the complexity of written language, witz, & Fletcher, 1997). Automated word recognition frees
many children know a great deal about reading before mental resources for closer consideration of the meaning
formal reading instruction starts. Through interactions with of a text and thereby allows readers to employ reading as a
their parents, they discover the uses and functions of print, tool for the acquisition of new information and knowledge
know something about orthography, and know something (NRP, 2000; Perfetti, 1998).
about the different forms of discourse. This process of There is general agreement that in the case of alphabetic
emergent literacy mainly develops in rich literate contexts writing systems the acquisition of literacy involves the
and through meaningful interactions with adults. Research rediscovering of the principles of phonological recoding
on emergent literacy has indeed shown that interactive ac- (Jorm & Share, 1983; Ehri, 1994, 1999). In the process
tivities, such as storybook reading, communicative writing of understanding written language, children begin with a
and language games, have some impact on children’s oral rough approach of a limited collection of words that have
and written language development (see Yaden, Rowe, & personal meaning to them. Subsequently, they discover the
MacGillivray, 2000; Scarborough, 2005). The interaction alphabetic principle on the basis of an analysis of familiar
with symbols in their environment with literate others helps words involving their constituent sounds and letters. Pho-
children to learn that print carries meaning, that written texts nological recoding can be seen as an inductive learning
may have various forms and functions, and that ideas can be mechanism on the basis of which children learn to crack the
expressed with (non)conventional writing. Moreover, from code by mapping letters to sounds (see Share, 1995), while
interactive storybook reading children learn new vocabulary phonological mediation remains an obligatory component
and gain insight into the structure of narrative text. Condi- of lexical access which is routinely activated in advanced
tions that strengthen the relevance and purpose of literacy reading (see Perfetti, 1992). Given the fact that visual word
turned out to be quite important for the development of pre- identification consists in making a familiar phonological
school literacy. Empirical studies have made clear that the form connected to an orthographic form, it can be assumed
attainment of literacy can be stimulated aand extended by that the quality of phonological processing plays an essen-
offering children a school environment where valid under- tial role in children’s early understanding of the alphabetic
standings about literacy can continue to emerge (cf. Snow, principle (Anthony & Francis, 2005).
Burns, & Griffin, 1998). In such an environment, children In the literature, word decoding problems turn out to be
have the opportunity to enhance the positive literacy experi- highly associated with problems in phonological awareness.
ences they have had prior to school. However encouraging, Phonological awareness refers to the understanding of and
 Language Development and Reading Disabilities 39

access to the sound structure of spoken language, that is the 2008). Interactive models of reading comprehension there-
consciousness that oral language can be broken down into fore provide the best framework for the study of individual
individual words, and words into phonemes (cf. Wagner et variation in the development of reading comprehension.
al., 1997). A large body of research has been conducted on Interactive models of reading state that the reader uses both
the relation between phonological awareness and learning graphic and contextual information to grasp the meaning
to read. Numerous correlation studies in primarily English of a text (see Rayner & Pollatsek, 1989). In other words,
speaking countries have shown a substantial relation be- the processing of text involves the flexible use of different
tween measures of phonemic awareness administered to sources of information. Information from higher levels of
5-year-olds and tests of word recognition and word spelling processing can influence the processing of information at
among the same children in primary school (cf. Blachman, lower levels and vice versa. And the development of reading
2000; Swanson, Trainin, Necoechea, & Hammill, 2003). comprehension presumably reflects the development of all
There is also research evidence from training studies that these underlying processes (cf. Hoover & Tunmer, 1993;
phonemic awareness can be seen as a critical component in Perfetti, Landi, & Oakhill, 2005).
understanding the alphabetic principle (Bus & IJzendoorn, To be able to comprehend a text, children must also
1999; Troia, 1999). learn to make inferences, integrate information, utilize the
Strong support has also been provided to show that the text structure, and monitor their comprehension. Research
lack of phonological awareness can cause difficulties with showed younger and poorer readers to have more prob-
the acquisition of reading and writing skills (de Jong & lems with these processes than older and better readers
van der Leij, 2003). Being able to distinguish and identify (e.g., Oakhill & Cain, 2003; Yuill & Oakhill, 1991). In a
the different phonemes in a word is part of this awareness. longitudinal study, Vauras, Kinnunen, and Kuusela (1994)
Research in the past decades has provided ample evidence examined the development of text processing skills in third
that dyslexic children have problems with phonological to fifth-grade children. They found that young children tend
awareness and certain other aspects of phonological to process text in a linear, element by element fashion and
processing. There is a general agreement that this initial that higher level processing skills are increasingly utilized
processing deficit has to do with problems in phonological with age. The most critical development took place for use
encoding (Snowling, 2000). Poor readers are less precise in of local and global processing skills (i.e., making inferences,
phonemic discrimination; they have problems on a variety integrating the information from different text parts, and
of phoneme segmentation and awareness tasks (Vellutino, forming a general representation of the text). The specific
Fletcher, Snowling, & Scanlon, 2004), and they are slower developmental patterns were dependent on the initial read-
in rapid naming of objects, digits, and letters (Wolf & ing and achievement level of a child. Average and high
O’Brien, 2001), as well as in producing rhyming words achievers made clear progress, while low achieving children
(Lundberg & Høien, 2001). It can be hypothesized that showed little or only slow progression.
dyslexia is fundamentally a linguistic problem that involves In Perfetti’s verbal efficiency model (1992), the possible
a deficit in phonological encoding. A lack of full auditory interaction between decoding and comprehension processes
discrimination of speech sounds may hamper the assign- is elaborated. In the “bottleneck hypothesis” both speed and
ment of a full range of correct pronunciations to individual automaticity of decoding and semantic access are viewed
letters. A limited perception of the categorical distribution of as central to the explanation of comprehension failure. It
phonemes may hamper the onset of the inductive learning is assumed that the processes of decoding and comprehen-
mechanism which is able to acquire new letter names and sion compete for a limited amount of space in short term
to form words with them. It was indeed found that particu- memory. If decoding is slow, then less short-term processing
lar difficulties with the discrimination of synthetic speech room is available for comprehension processes, and com-
stimuli containing a fast formant transition, such as /ba/ prehension will consequently be hampered. Following this
and /da/, may indeed lead to subsequent literacy problems train of thought, knowledge of word meanings or, in other
(Stackhouse, 2000). It can also be assumed that phonemic words, vocabulary skill can be seen as critical for reading
awareness and alphabetic understanding are at least partially comprehension. Both the reading comprehension of chil-
dependent on the distinctness of representation of lexical dren and adults are supported by knowledge of words, which
items. Elbro, Borstrøm, and Petersen (1998) found indeed may include the precision of the reader’s orthographic,
that the quality of phonological representations in young phonological, and semantic representations. Skilled readers
children is a determinant of phonemic awareness and of are better able than less skilled readers to take advantage
the development of phonological recoding skills in later of word training events by remembering a new association
reading. between an orthographic form and a meaning.
According to the so-called lexical quality hypothesis
(Perfetti & Hart, 2001), moreover, not only the quality of the
Linguistic Predictors of Reading Comprehension
reader’s lexical representations but also the sheer number
It is well known that the understanding of written text calls of available words may directly affect reading compre-
upon both bottom-up word recognition processes and top- hension. In fact, there is strong evidence of an association
down comprehension processes (e.g., Verhoeven & Perfetti, between vocabulary size and reading comprehension (cf.
40 Ludo Verhoeven

Nation, 2005; Verhoeven, 2000). Estimates of vocabulary listening comprehension is found to be more prominent for
knowledge further show large individual differences in proficient readers (cf. Chen & Vellutino, 1997; Tunmer &
the vocabulary knowledge of children and other learners Hoover, 1993; Bast & Reitsma, 1998). Just as for vocabulary
(Vermeer, 2001), and these differences can have major skill and reading comprehension, however, it is also possible
consequences for reading comprehension. Carver (1994), that the association between listening comprehension and
for example, has suggested that deep comprehension of a reading comprehension is a reciprocal one as both types of
text may require knowledge of virtually all the words in comprehension depend on the same underlying linguistic
the text. According to Wilson and Anderson (1986), large capacities (cf. Sears & Keogh, 1993).
vocabularies provide increased opportunities for ideational In most of the studies concerned with individual variation
scaffolding; inferential elaboration; orderly searches of in children’s reading comprehension to date, a longitudinal
memory; efficient editing and summary; and inferential approach has not been adopted. In only a very few studies,
reconstruction. In groups of people with high versus low moreover, has an attempt been made to examine the inter-
knowledge of a particular domain, a strongly facilitating action between bottom-up word recognition processes and
effect of vocabulary size on reading comprehension was top-down processes requiring the use of word knowledge
similarly found (Voss & Bisanz, 1985; Adams, Bell, & Per- and other linguistic skills in relation to the development of
fetti, 1995). It should be noted that the association between reading comprehension. In a recent study by Muter, Hulme,
vocabulary and reading comprehension may be reciprocal: Snowling, and Stevenson (2004), for example, children were
The more one reads, the more one can deduce word mean- followed across a period of 2 years after elementary school
ings from the surrounding text and, conversely, the more entry. By the end of second grade, the children’s reading
one comprehends, the more one’s vocabulary may grow. comprehension could be predicted by their word identifica-
In any case, reading comprehension can only be successful tion skills, vocabulary skills, and age six linguistic skills.
when word forms are readily identified and word meanings In a longitudinal study by Oakhill and colleagues (2003),
are easily accessed, which places considerable demands on verbal IQ, vocabulary, inference skills, and monitoring
the underlying linguistic capacities of the child (cf. Oakhill, abilities were found to predict the reading comprehension
Cain, & Bryant, 2003). of children in grades three, four, and six. When Goff, Pratt,
In the simple view of reading proposed by Hoover and and Ong (2005) recently related the reading comprehen-
Gough (1990), reading comprehension is defined as the sion of children in grades three through five to their word
product of word decoding and listening comprehension. decoding skills, oral language skills, and working memory
More specifically, it is claimed that listening comprehension skills, they found word decoding and oral language skills to
or the linguistic processes involved in the comprehension of be far more important predictors of reading comprehension
oral language strongly constrain the process of reading com- than working memory. Moreover, de Jong and van der Leij
prehension, or, in other words, the parsing of sentences into (2003) showed third-grade word decoding, vocabulary, and
their constituent components; the drawing of inferences to listening comprehension skill to predict fifth-grade reading
make the relations within and between sentences sufficiently comprehension even after third-grade reading comprehen-
explicit and thereby facilitate the integration of informa- sion was controlled for.
tion; and the identification of underlying text structure, the In a recent study by Verhoeven and van Leeuwe (2008),
propositions within a text (micro structure), and the global the roles of word recognition skills, vocabulary skills,
gist of a text (macro structure) (see Balota, Flores d’Arcais, and listening comprehension skills in the development of
& Rayner, 1990). Research has indeed shown both younger reading comprehension were examined among a represen-
and poorer readers to have more problems with these pro- tative sample of elementary school children learning to
cesses during listening comprehension than older and better read Dutch. In the Netherlands, children enter elementary
readers (e.g., Oakhill & Cain, 1998; Yuill & Oakhill, 1991). school at the age of four. After 2 years of kindergarten
In a longitudinal study of the text processing skills of third (or the equivalent of 1 year of preschool and 1 year of
through fifth grade children, moreover, Vauras and col- kindergarten), formal reading and writing instruction are
leagues (1994) found a general tendency for young children initiated. In order to be disentangle the possibly reciprocal
to process text in a linear element-by-element manner and relations between word decoding, vocabulary, listening
a general tendency for higher level processing skills to be comprehension, and reading comprehension, a longitudinal
increasingly utilized with age; the specific developmental design was adopted. The children were followed from the
patterns they observed, however, were found to depend on Dutch equivalents of first through sixth grades and tested
the initial listening comprehension skills of the children: half-way through each grade. With the use of linear equation
Low achieving children showed very slow or no progress modeling, the cross-lagged effects between the criterion and
while average and high achieving children showed clear predictor variables were examined.
progress. Other studies testing the simple reading view show It is shown that the quantity and quality of word repre-
a clear word decoding by listening comprehension interac- sentations is essential for word identification processes in
tion for beginning versus proficient readers. The role of reading development to take place. The higher the number
word decoding in the explanation of reading comprehension of lexical entries and the more fully these are specified in
is found to be large for beginning readers while the role of memory the more successful the word identification process
 Language Development and Reading Disabilities 41

will be. Furthermore, the present data show that a rich vo- In addition to the preceding factors, a match between the
cabulary along with a high level of listening comprehension linguistic experiences of the child at home and the linguistic
helps children to become competent in word-to-text integra- demands of the classroom is essential for academic progress
tion. Vocabulary and listening comprehension can thus be (Wells, 1985). It is clear that the development of literacy
seen as critical factors for developing the ability to efficiently cannot be seen as an autonomous process of learning uni-
build up text models during reading comprehension. versal cognitive or technical skills independently of specific
contexts or cultural frameworks. From national surveys it
has indeed become clear that the cultural and socioeconomic
Individual Differences in Language and Literacy
background of children is an important predictor of their
Development
degree of success in school. Literacy seems to correlate with
Individual differences in literacy development may arise unequal structures and experiences of poverties in societies
from the interplay between child characteristics, home throughout Europe (e.g., Barton & Hamilton, 1990). Wells
characteristics, and school/teacher characteristics. The (1990) has shown that a match between linguistic experi-
simple view of reading predicts that problems with either ence in children’s home and the linguistic demands in the
(lower order) decoding skill or (higher order) linguistic classroom is essential for academic progress. He found
comprehension or a combination of these factors may that the degree of experience with literate practices in the
cause difficulties in reading comprehension. Difficulties in home had a positive influence on the understanding of the
decoding ability may arise from a specific bottom-up pho- functions and the mechanisms of literacy. In a longitudinal
nological deficit (Vellutino et al., 2004). However, studies study by Snow et al. (1991) on the literacy development of
on children with specific language impairment pointed out children with lower SES, it was shown that different home
that difficulties with semantics, syntax, and discourse may factors predict various literacy skills. The most powerful
also affect literacy acquisition (Bishop & Snowling, 2004). predictors of children’s word recognition and vocabulary
And in some cases these problems may occur without any development were the literacy environment of the home,
phonological impairment. In so-called poor comprehenders, the mother’s education, and the mother’s expectations for
children show specific comprehension difficulties in the the child. Variables relating to the emotional organizational
absence of word decoding problems. In a recent study by dimensions of the family strongly predicted the children’s
Cain and Oakhill (2006) with this target group of readers, writing skills. Reading comprehension was related to a wide
it was concluded that a single underlying source of poor range of home variables. Furthermore, contacts between
comprehension is unlikely. Poor comprehenders were parents and teachers regarding academic matters turned
found to be at risk of generally poor educational attainment out to be related with improved schoolwork and progress
although weak verbal skills or cognitive skills related to in reading.
making inferences appear to affect their reading develop-
ment in different ways.
Perspective
The development of language comprehension skills is
generally associated with contextual home factors (Snow The present research review clearly shows that language and
et al., 1998). As a group factor, low socioeconomic status literacy development are highly related. With respect to the
(SES) of families and indications of low educational level emergence of literacy, clear evidence has been found for
and low vocational level for parents are found to be related the claim that phonological skills, including phonological
to comprehension problems. At an individual level, apti- awareness, along with listening comprehension can be seen
tude for learning is primarily transacted to the child by the as crucial predictors for the insight into the alphabetical
quantity and quality of the interactions at home within the principle which underlies written language. An impor-
context of educational goals of the parents and their cultural tant implication of such findings is that the attainment of
participation in the literate society. The quantity and quality literacy could be stimulated by offering children a school
of the interactions at home and the negotiation of meaning in environment where valid understandings about literacy
particular have been found to be important determinants of could continue to emerge. In such an environment children
literacy development (Wells, 1985). Furthermore, the degree have the opportunity to build on the positive literacy expe-
to which literacy activities are stimulated and the language riences they have had prior to school. The development of
use during these activities have been found to be important. a broad literacy curriculum in which language experiences
Snow et al. (1998) mentioned the manner in which parents are highly emphasized has therefore been widely promoted.
help children reduce the complexity of a task (scaffolding) Though it is clear that a language experience approach to
and the manner in which they elaborate the content of literacy acquisition is appropriate prior to formal reading
children’s utterances (semantic contingency) as interac- instruction, it is also generally accepted that a naturalistic
tional characteristics relating to literacy development. Such model, which relies exclusively on exposure and immersion,
factors as the value placed on literacy, pressure to achieve, does not ensure universal success at the complex task of
availability and instrumental use of reading materials, and learning to read and write. Accumulated research evidence
actually reading with children have also been found to be indicates that many children need and most benefit from
related to literacy development (Snow et al., 1998). sequentially structured activities that are mediated by a
42 Ludo Verhoeven

teacher or by skilled peers in order to become fluent read- ful experiences and to stimulate critical thinking in reading
ers (Adams, 1990; Perfetti, 1998; Snow et al., 1998). Our and creative expression in writing. Advanced reading and
endorsement of formal and structured reading instruction writing demands the development of vocabulary, insight
does not conflict, though, with our conviction that children into the structure of sentences and larger textual structures,
are active learners who need to participate meaningfully in such as episodes and paragraphs, and knowledge of rules for
literacy to progress optimally. Children with low abilities punctuation. Comparisons between expert and novice learn-
especially benefit if they believe they can control their ers have also called attention to the importance of control
academic progress through effort. Instruction must thus processes, such as planning and monitoring reading and
teach students to use strategies to accomplish literacy tasks, writing processes. Literacy in advanced classes is fostered
and, at the same time, to persuade them that their successes by teachers who plan lessons that have a clear conceptual
and failures on literacy tasks are due to their efforts to use focus. Students should be given time to reflect, to practice
appropriate strategies (cf. Pressley, 2006). relevant strategies, and to achieve depth of meaning and
With respect to more advanced reading processes, understanding. Instruction should focus on principles and
previous research makes it clear that as children develop ideas that help children make connections between prior
better word-decoding skills, their reading comprehension knowledge and the new information in the text. However,
becomes more constrained by their vocabulary and listening from observation studies we know that very little time is de-
comprehension skills. Nevertheless, for even children in the voted to explicit or direct instruction of reading and writing
highest elementary grades, the association between word strategies. Strategies, such as comprehension monitoring,
decoding and reading comprehension prevails. It can thus using graphic organizers and activating prior knowledge
be concluded that continued attention to the speed and auto- must be taught not just as recipes for learning but as flexible
maticity of word decoding and lexical access throughout the learning devices (see Pressley, 2000). Students should come
elementary school years is essential to avoid comprehension to realize that they can use written language as a foundation
problems or delays. Furthermore, it is shown that the levels for building new concepts and new structures of meaning.
of vocabulary and listening comprehension characteristic By doing so, they will gain more and more inner control
of a child at the onset of reading instruction highly predict and become less dependent on others and more confident
his or her later reading development. Children with lim- in using their own strategies for reading and writing.
ited vocabularies or other linguistic skills at the preschool
level should therefore be given abundant opportunities
to strengthen these skills prior to the initiation of formal References
reading instruction. Given the reciprocal relations between Adams, B. C., Bell, L. C., & Perfetti, C. A. (1995). A trading relation-
vocabulary skills, listening comprehension, and reading ship between reading skill and domain knowledge in children’s text
comprehension, all of these abilities should be emphasized comprehension. Discourse Processes, 20, 307–323.
during children’s reading instruction. Adams, M. J. (1990). Beginning to read: Thinking and learning about
print. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Teachers should recognize that the content of most Anthony, J. L., & Francis, D. (2005). Development of phonological aware-
textbooks is not equally familiar to all children. Such pre- ness. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 14, 255–259.
reading activities as preparatory discussion of the content Balota, D. A., Flores d’Arcais, G. B., & Rayner, K. (Eds.). (1990). Compre-
of a story, the provision of background information, the hension processes in reading. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
establishment of shared experiences, and the explanation Barton, D., & Hamilton, M. E. (1990). Researching literacy in industr-
ialised countries: Trends and prospects. UIE Reports 2. Hamburg,
of difficult words are therefore recommended. Children’s Germany: Unesco Institute for Education.
vocabulary knowledge appears to be an extremely important Bast, J., & Reitsma, P. (1998). Analyzing the development of individual dif-
factor for effective reading comprehension. Intense vocabu- ferences in terms of Matthew effects in reading: Results from a Dutch
lary training should therefore be provided throughout the longitudinal study. Developmental Psychology, 34, 1373–1399.
elementary school years. Children should be encouraged to Bishop, D. V. M., & Snowling, M. J. (2004). Developmental dyslexia
and specific language impairment: Same or different? Psychological
build a large sight vocabulary in order to automatically ac- Bulletin, 130, 858–886.
cess word meanings. Low frequency words should be made Blachman, B. (2000). Phonological awareness. In M. Kamil, P. Mosenthal,
particularly relevant. And, in order to encourage children P. Pearson, & R. Barr (Eds.), Handbook of reading research, vol. III
to not avoid difficult words, lessons should be specifically (pp. 483–501). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
devoted to the issue of how to tackle less frequent or tricky Bus, A. G., & Van IJzendoorn, M. H. (1999). Phonological awareness
and early reading: A meta-analysis of experimental training studies.
words in addition to high frequency but otherwise unfamil- Journal of Educational Psychology, 91, 403–414.
iar words (Snow et al., 1998). Reading instruction should Cain, K., & Oakhill, J. (2006). Profiles of children with specific reading
be explicitly devoted to promotion of deeper levels of pro- comprehension difficulties. British Journal of Educational Psychol-
cessing. Numerous encounters with a word in a variety of ogy, 76, 683–696.
contexts should also occur in order to foster the elaborate Carver, R.P. (1994). Percentage of unknown vocabulary words in text
as a function of the relative difficulty of the text. Journal of Reading
encoding of a word and deeper semantic processing of a Behavior, 26 (4), 413–437.
word (Cunningham & Allington, 2007). Chen, R. S., & Vellutino, F. R. (1997). Prediction of reading ability: A
Finally, for the child to develop a sustained motivation cross-validation study of the simple view of reading. Journal of Lit-
and interest in literacy, it is important to focus on meaning- eracy Research, 29, 1–24
 Language Development and Reading Disabilities 43

Clark, E. V. (2002). Making use of pragmatic inferences in the acquisition Perfetti, C. A., Landi, N., & Oakhill, J (2005). The acquisition of read-
of meaning. In D. Beaver, S. Kaufmann, B. Clark, & L. Casillas (Eds.), ing comprehension skill. In M. J. Snowling & C. Hulme (Eds.),
The construction of meaning (pp. 45–58). Stanford, CA: CSLI. The science of reading: A handbook (pp. 227–247). Oxford, UK:
Cunningham, P., & Allington, R. (2007). Classrooms that work: They can Blackwell.
all read and write. Boston: Allyn & Bacon Pressley, M. (2000). What should comprehension instruction be the
de Jong, P., & van der Leij, A. (2003). Effects of phonological abilities instruction of? In M. L. Kamil, P. B. Mosenthal, P. D. Pearson, & R.
and linguistic comprehension on the development of reading. Scientific Barr (Eds.), Handbook of reading research, Vol III (pp. 311–336).
Studies of Reading, 6, 51–77. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
Droop, M., & Verhoeven, L. (2003). Language proficiency and reading Pressley, M. (2006). Reading instruction that works: The case for balanced
ability in first- and second-language learners. Reading Research teaching. New York: Guilford.
Quarterly, 38, 78–103. Rayner, K., & Pollatsek, A. (1989). The psychology of reading. New
Ehri, L. C. (1994). Development of the ability to read words: Update. In York: Prentice Hall.
R. B. Ruddell, M. R. Ruddell, & H. Singer (Eds.), Theoretical models Scarborough, H. S. (2005). Developmental relationships between language
and processes of reading (pp. 323–358). Newark, DE: International and reading: Reconciling a beautiful hypothese with some ugly facts. In
Reading Association. H. W. Catts & A. G. Kamhi (Eds.), The connections between language
Ehri, L. C. (1999). Phases of development in learning to read words. In and reading disabilities (pp. 3–24). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
J. Oakhill & R. Beard (Eds.), Reading development and the teaching Sears, S., & Keogh, B. (1993). Predicting reading performance using the
of reading (pp. 79–108). Oxford, UK: Blackwell. Slingerland procedures. Annals of Dyslexia, 43, 78–89.
Elbro, C., Borstrøm, I., & Petersen, D. K. (1998). Predicting dyslexia from Seymour, P. H., Aro, M., & Erskine, J. M. (2003). Foundation lit-
kindergarten. The importance of distinctness of phonological represen- eracy in European orthographies. British Journal of Psychology, 94,
tations of lexical items. Reading Research Quarterly, 33, 36–60. 143–174.
Foorman, B. R., Francis, D. J., Shaywitz, S. E., Shaywitz, B., & Fletcher, Share, D. L. (1995). Phonological recoding and self-teaching: sine qua non
J.M. (1997). The case for early reading intervention. In B. Blachman of reading and spelling acquisition. Cognition, 55, 151–218.
(Ed.), Foundations of reading acquisition: Implications for intervention Snow, C. E., Burns, M. S., & Griffin, P. (1998). Preventing reading difficul-
and dyslexia (pp. 243–264). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum. ties in young children. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.
Geva, E., & Verhoeven, L. (2000). Basic processes in early second language Snowling, M. J. (2000). Language and literacy skills: Who is at risk and
reading. Scientific Studies of reading, 4[Special issue], 261–353. why? In D. V. M. Bishop & L. B. Leonard (Eds.), Speech and language
Goff, D., Pratt, C., & Ong, B. (2005). The relations between childrens impairment in children: Causes, characteristics, interventions and
reading comprehension, working memory, language skills and outcome (pp. 245–260). Hove, UK: Psychology Press.
components of reading decoding in a normal sample. Reading and Stackhouse, J. (2000). Barriers to literacy development in children with
Writing, 18, 583–616. speech and language disabilities In D V. M. Bishop & L. B. Leonard
Hoover, W. A., & Tunmer, W. E. (1993). The components of reading. In G. (Eds.), Speech and language impairment in children: Causes, cha-
B. Thompson, W. E. Tunmer, & T. Nicholson (Eds.), Reading acquisi- racteristics, interventions and outcome (pp. 245–260). Hove, UK:
tion processes (pp. 1–19). Clevedon, PA: Multilingual Matters. Psychology Press.
Hoover, W. A., & Gough, P. B. (1990). The simple view of reading. Reading Stanovich, K. E. (2000). Progress in understanding reading: Scientific
and Writing: An Interdisciplinary Journal, 2, 127–160. foundations and new frontiers. New York: Guilford.
Jorm, A. F., & Share, D. L. (1983). Phonological recoding and reading Swanson, H. L., Trainin, G., Necoechea, D. M., & Hammill, D. D. (2003).
acquisition. Applied Psycholinguistics, 4, 103–147. Rapid naming, phonological awareness, and reading: A meta-analysis
Karmiloff-Smith, A. (1997) Promissory notes, genetic clocks or epigenetic of the correlation evidence. Review of Educational Research, 73,
outcomes? Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 20, 359–377. 407–440.
Lundberg, I., & Høien, T. (2001). Reading disabilities in Scandinavia. In Troia, G. A. (1999). Phonological awareness intervention research: A
D. P. Hallahan & B. K. Keogh (Eds.), Research and global perspectives critical review of the experimental methodology. Reading Research
in learning disabilities: Essays in honor of William M. Criuckshank Quarterly, 34, 28–52.
(pp. 109–123). Mahwah NJ: Erlbaum. Tunmer, W., & Hoover, W. (1993). Components of variance models of
Muter, V., Hulme, C., Snowling, M. J., & Stevenson, J. (2004). Phonemes, language-related factors in reading disability: A conceptual overview.
rimes and language skills as foundations of early reading development: In R. J. Joshi & C. K. Leong (Eds.), Reading disabilities: Diagnosis
Evidence from a longitudinal study. Developmental Psychology, 40, and component processes (pp. 135–173). Dordrecht, The Netherlands:
663–681. Kluwer.
Nation, K. (2005). Children’s reading comprehension difficulties. In M. F. Vauras, M., Kinnunen, R., & Kuusela, L. (1994). Development of learn-
Snolwing & C. Hulme (Eds.), The science of reading (pp. 248–265). ing strategies in high-, average- and low-achieving primary school
Oxford, UK: Basil Blackwell. children. Journal of Reading Behavior, 26, 361–389.
National Reading Panel. (2000). Teaching children to read: An evidence- Vellutino, F. R., Fletcher, J. M., Snowling, M. J., & Scanlon, D. M.
based assessment of the scientific research literature on reading and (2004). Specific reading disability (dyslexia): What we have learned
its implications for reading instruction. Washington, DC: The National in the past four decades? Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry,
Institute of Child Health and Human Development. 45, 2–40.
Ninio, A., & Snow, C. E. (1996). Pragmatic development: Essays in Verhoeven, L. (1994). Modeling and promoting functional literacy. In L.
developmental science. Boulder, CO: Westview Press. Verhoeven (Ed.), Functional literacy. Theoretical issues and educatio-
Oakhill, J., Cain, K., & Bryant, P. E. (2003). The dissociation of word nal implications (pp. 3–34). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
reading and text comprehension: Evidence from component skills. Verhoeven, L. (1997). Functional literacy. In V. Edwards & D. Corson
Language and Cognitive Processes, 18, 443–468. (Eds.), Encyclopedia of language and education (Vol. 2): Literacy
Perfetti, C. A. (1992). The representation problem in reading acquisition. (pp. 127–132). Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Kluwer
In P. B. Gough, L. C. Ehri, & R. Treiman (Eds.), Reading acquisition Verhoeven, L. (2000). Components in early second language reading and
(pp. 145–174). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum. spelling. Scientific Studies of Reading, 4, 313–330.
Perfetti, C. A. (1998). Learning to read. In P. Reitsma & L. Verhoeven Verhoeven, L., & Perfetti, C. (2008). Advances in text comprehension:
(Eds.), Literacy problems and interventions (pp. 15–48). Dordrecht, Model, process and development. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 22,
The Netherlands: Kluwer. 293–301.
Perfetti, C. A., & Hart, L. (2001). The lexical quality hypothesis. In L. Verhoeven, L., & van Leeuwe, J. (2008). Predictors of text comprehension
Verhoeven, C. Elbro, & P. Reitsma (Eds.), Precursors of functional development. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 22, 407–423.
literacy (pp. 189–214). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Vermeer, A. (2001). Breadth and depth of vocabulary in relation to L1/
44 Ludo Verhoeven

L2 acquisition and frequency of input. Applied Psycholinguistics, (Ed.), Reading comprehension: From research to practice (pp. 31–48).
22, 217–234. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Voss, J. F., & Bisanz, G. L. (1985). Knowledge and the processing of nar- Wolf, M., & O’Brien, B. (2001). On issues of time, fluency, and interven-
rative and expository texts. In B. K. Britton & J. B. Black (Eds.), Un- tion. In A. Fawcett & R. Nicolson (Eds.), Dyslexia: Theory and best
derstanding expository text (pp. 173–198). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum. practice (pp. 124–140). London: Whur Publishers.
Wagner, R. K., Torgesen, J. K., Rashotte, C. A., Hecht, S. A., Barker, T. Yaden, D. B., Rowe, D. W., & MacGillivray, L. (2000). Emergent liter-
A., Burgess, et al. (1997). Changing relations between phonological acy: A matter of perspectives. In M. L. Kamil, P. B. Mosenthal, P. D.
processing abilities and word-level reading as children develop from Pearson, & R. Barr (Eds.), Handbook of reading research, Vol III (pp.
beginning to skilled readers: A 5-year longitudinal study. Develop- 425–454). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
mental Psychology, 33, 468–479. Yuill, N., & Oakhill, J. (1991). Children’s problems in text comprehen-
Wells, G. (1985). Language development in the preschool years. Cam- sion: An experimental investigation. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge
bridge, UK: University Press. University Press.
Wells, G. (1990). Talk about text: Where literacy is learned and taught. Ziegler, J. C., & Goswami, U. (2005). Reading acquisition, developmental
Curriculum Inquiry, 20(4), 369–405. dyslexia and skilled reading across languages: A psycholinguistic grain
Wilson, P. T., & Anderson, R. C. (1986). What they don’t know will hurt size theory. Psychological Bulletin, 131, 3–29.
them: The role of prior knowledge in comprehension. In J. Orasanu
 5
Sociocultural Perspectives on Children
with Reading Difficulties
ELLEN MCINTYRE
North Carolina State University

Why do some children struggle with reading? From a socio- general belief that a breakdown in the ability to read in
cultural perspective, a child’s success or failure at learning a conventional sense resulted from something within the
depends on the child’s environment; in particular, it depends brain or mind of the reader. In the wake of the cognitive
on the child’s interactions with others in the context of her revolution, however, a new view of reading began to emerge.
cultural and historical background, the history of which The work of linguists, anthropologists, social psychologists,
is indicated in the learner’s cognitive functioning. Indeed, and educators widened their view to include factors outside
the environment interacts with the child’s cognition during the heads of readers. In particular, the social interactions
learning and development. embedded in the readers’ multiple contexts were seen as
This chapter focuses on reading and reading difficulties essential to understanding the learner and learning. Reading
from a sociocultural perspective. The word disabilities is began to be viewed as a social process, and reading develop-
purposely avoided because the prefix dis, indicating not, ment was studied through a social lens. Researchers focused
seems to have little place within a theoretical and research on readers across school and out-of school contexts and
paradigm that rarely examines what is lacking in the learner. examined both how reading structured social interactions,
Instead, studies of culture and learning have consistently and how social relationships affected reading (Bloome &
illustrated what learners can do, often displaying knowl- Green, 1984; Gee, 2000). These studies contributed to new
edge and abilities not previously recognized. Of course, understandings of the role of reading in cultural transmis-
sociocultural theory does not eliminate the concept of sion as well as how culture affects the reading process.
reading failure but instead argues that failure is a perception This sociocultural view of reading has underscored sev-
contextualized and constructed within a learner’s history, eral dimensions that are vital to understanding why some
culture, institutions, and interactions. How the perception children struggle with reading. These dimensions have
of failure is constructed by schools and other institutions profound implications and include the following assertions:
is essential to understanding why viewing reading from a (a) Old assumptions that cast learners, their families, and
sociocultural lens is so critically important today. their backgrounds as deficient are mistaken; (b) the study
In this chapter I will describe the shift in reading theory of any phenomenon without an examination of its broader
and research toward a socicocultural view of literacy, illus- context will result in an incomplete explanation of that phe-
trating the key dimensions of the perspective with respect to nomenon; (c) all actions, including reading, are mediated
reading and reading development. I will then review recent by tools, of which language is the primary tool; and (d) a
studies that examine sociocultural variables on academic learner’s development occurs through assisted performance.
achievement, especially reading, and conclude with a sec- These dimensions of sociocultural theory will be addressed
tion on implications for teaching, especially in schools. in more detail.

Deficit Perspective Interrupted The simple view of

Dimensions of Sociocultural Theory
reading and the focus on the individual in isolation failed
For much of its history, the field of reading research has to explain why many ordinary children did not learn to
defined reading primarily as a perceptual and/or cognitive read or read well in the conventional sense (Labov, 2003).
process, and research on reading focused on the individual Many of these children did not have health, neurological,
and what happens inside his head as he reads. This simple or language difficulties, and yet they did not perform as
view of reading (Pearson & Stevens, 1994) led to the others did on tests of reading. Many happened to come

45
46 Ellen McIntyre

from poor or minority communities, and common expla- an individual without an examination of the historical and
nations for their achievement differences suggested that cultural influences will result in an incomplete understand-
these populations in the United States were inherently ing of that learner.
intellectually deficient (e.g., Herrnstein & Murray, 1994). During this time, the concept of the reading context
Other explanations suggested that children from poor and changed (Pearson & Stevens, 1994). Reading researchers
minority groups lacked the proper experiences necessary moved from viewing context as the larger text surrounding a
to learn, that particular dialects were barriers to learning to point in the text to viewing the context of the reading process
read, and that families of learners in these populations were as everything outside the mind of the reader—the teacher’s
themselves deficient parents and caretakers and perhaps words, the text read, the broader classroom setting, the
could not assist their children in learning. This deficit view school and district policies, the learner’s prior experiences
of learners prevailed and has only recently been interrupted with text, her home and community environment, the larger
by some educators. national political movements, and more. Many researchers
Today, sociocultural theory and the research disputes from the fields of anthropology, psychology, sociology,
these deficit perspectives by describing and critiquing the language, ecology, and education have contributed to this
misevaluation of learners (Heath, 1983, 1994; Michaels, view and have shown how learners affected their context
1981; Moll, 1994) and arguing for alternative ways of view- even as their context affected them. Rogoff’s (e.g., 2003)
ing what counts as knowing (Stone, 2004; Rogoff, 2003; work in particular illustrated how multiple fields or planes
Moll, 1994). Studies have shown that classroom practices intersect and transform the child as the child, in turn, affects
can often constrain—and educators often underestimate— his world. James Wertsch, a Vygotskian scholar who has
what children from poor and minority groups are able to written extensively on the primacy of context, suggests, “the
display intelligently (Heath, 1994; Moll, 1994). At the same ideal unit of analysis preserves in a microcosm as many di-
time, linguistic studies have illustrated that non-standard mensions of the general phenomenon under consideration as
forms of dialects are not sloppily half-formed variations of possible, thereby allowing one to move from one dimension
English, but instead are well developed and rule governed to another without losing sight of how they fit together into
language forms. Moll (1994) suggests that the rejection of a more complex whole” (Wertsch, 1991, p. 121).
deficit views, in particular the view that poor and minority From a sociocultural view, reading success or failure is
children are devoid of proper experiences necessary for grounded in analyses of each child’s history, culture, and
learning, is perhaps the most important construct that has environment, including her schooling and instructional
governed a sociocultural view of learning. interactions within her school. Thus, the questions about
why some children struggle and why whole populations
The Primacy of Context The emergence of sociocultural of children perform less well than others led researchers
theory and research was especially marked by the discovery to look both deep and wide for contextual answers to this
by Americans and Europeans of the work conducted in the serious, perplexing problem.
1930s by Russian psychologist Lev Vygotsky. Vygotsky’s
work (1978, 1987) emphasized both history and culture as Mediation and Tools As reading began to be viewed as
influential in how and what is learned. Because culture is a social process, the study of social interactions and what
not a static construct, it is impractical to study it without an mediates the interactions became prominent. Vygotsky had
historical view. A study of a person or a phenomenon cannot been interested in the use of signs and tools in mediating
be captured in one moment in time, but must include the learning, including and especially the role of speech. He
background and history of the person or phenomenon. Much conducted a series of small scale studies (although not de-
has been written about how major historical movements or signed in the manner in which many psychologists design
events worldwide affected literacy practices of particular them today) that examined learning, remembering, and
groups and individuals (Brandt, 2001; Heath, 1991, 1994; generalizing words/concepts. Vygotsky referred to his own
Miller, 1995; Street, 1985). In the United States, the civil method as “experimental-developmental” (1978, p. 61) in
rights movement affected literacy practices of minority that the experiments he conducted with learners provoked
populations (Heath, 1994) and later educational policies their development and thus illustrated it for analysis. His
(e.g., separate schools for African Americans) and has been studies involved both qualitative and quantitative observa-
shown to affect achievement patterns across generations tions and measures of small numbers of learners, and he
of populations (Miller, 1995). Studies also illuminated the based his theoretical explanations on these experiments.
power of community institutions, such as the black church, These studies illustrated that when a child learns some-
in raising literacy levels of its members. Heath (1994) il- thing, she uses signs and tools to accomplish tasks, such
lustrated how desegregation affected the literacy practices as reading a passage. Wertsch (1991, 1998) explained that
of two young African American mothers in the mid-1980s a learner’s cultural tools are his mediators of action, and
during a time when they witnessed little overt political one cannot truly understand the learner or development
action as they struggled to keep their jobs, feed their chil- without attention to the tools. Wertsch used the example of
dren, and provide better living conditions for their families. the pole for the pole vaulter to illustrate this relationship.
Thus, a study of the reading practices or development of For instance, there is a dynamic tension between a learner
 Sociocultural Perspectives on Children with Reading Difficulties 47

and an appropriate tool, in that certain tools necessarily gradually takes on more of the responsibility (self-control).
affect the learner; the tool might “do some of the thinking” For example, the teacher might first read a book aloud to a
(1998, p. 29) involved in the activity. Vygotsky would refer child; then, the teacher reads it again, and this time has the
to mnemonics or a teacher’s interactions as psychological child join in reading some passages in choral fashion; then,
tools or signs, and a pole or book as a technical tool. the teacher models how to read by decoding, phrasing, and
The use of tools in learning to read at school often occurs visualizing certain parts of the text; and then, the teacher
on the interpersonal plane when the teacher is scaffolding assists the child in using those strategies while the teacher
the learner in the learner’s zone of proximal development provides coaching, questioning, and feedback for support.
(ZPD), one of Vygotsky’s (1978) most celebrated concepts. In the second stage of the ZPD, the child self-assists; the
He defines ZPD as “The distance between the actual de- teacher provides time for independent practice, monitoring
velopmental level as determined by independent problem the reading by observing the student carefully while the
solving and the level of potential development as deter- reader uses self-speech to take herself through the task. If
mined through problem solving under adult guidance or in the child does not remain engaged, the teacher intervenes
collaboration with more capable peers” (p. 86). Vygotsky with strategies from Stage 1. Finally, the child moves into
claimed that what children can do with the assistance of Stage 3, when reading becomes fossilized. In this stage, the
others might be more indicative of their mental develop- teacher primarily encourages reading and provides more
ment that what they can do alone (p. 85). He theorized and different texts.
development from the interpersonal to the personal plane On any given day, the teacher knows the text, strategy,
through the use of tools such as self-talk. He used the term and verbal assistance it might take to engage the learner in
fossilized to indicate that the learning is permanent. Later, his ZPD. She knows when she must explicitly demonstrate
when the learner is just able to complete the task alone, the or explain a concept or strategy and which subskills need
behaviors becomes internal. Vygotsky (1978) explained: daily systematic attention for a particular child. The teacher
“The entire operation of mediated activity (for example, knows the student and something about his background,
memorizing) begins to take place as a purely internal pro- interests, attitudes, and ways of communicating and par-
cess” (pp. 55–56). “We call the internal reconstruction of an ticipating. She uses this knowledge about the learner in
external operation internalization” (p. 56). Vygotsky further planning the sequence of instruction and in her interactions
explains that “What was initially done externally, is then during the teaching episodes. This social/cultural/historical
done internally.… An interpersonal process is transformed knowledge of the learner helps the teacher determine the
into an intrapersonal process” (p. 57). Later, he refers to the child’s developmental level and how best to assist him. This
internalization process in relation to the zone of proximal theoretical developmental instructional sequence is complex
development as he states, “What is in the ZPD today will because it takes knowing what is going on inside the heads
be the actual developmental level tomorrow” (p. 87). of the readers. It requires knowing where beginning readers
These concepts of mediation, tools, and the zone of are in their development, and thus which kind of support is
proximal development affected multiple studies on the read- needed. From a sociocultural perspective, of course, it also
ing process and how educational researchers conceptualize requires knowing something about the child’s history and
reading development and instruction that assists the perfor- culture, such as whether the child has observed reading in
mance of the reader. The following section theorizes reading the home, how reading is perceived there, and who reads.
development through the concept of assisted performance, It requires knowing something about the child’s cultural
a fourth key dimension of sociocultural theory. language use, including speech patterns and participation
structures. Unfortunately, this is a lot for any teacher to
Assisted Performance and Reading Development The know about all her students. Hence, there may be more
process of learning to read, or learning a sub-skill of ordinary students who struggle with reading.
reading such as decoding or predicting the end of a story,
occurs when the learner works as an apprentice alongside
Sociolinguistic Variables and Reading Success
the teacher (Lave & Wenger, 1991; Rogoff, 2003; Tharp &
Gallimore, 1993). Assisted performance occurs naturally While historical shifts in literacy practices have been docu-
in all cultures as children grow and learn in their early mented, it has not always clear why or how certain events
years; novices learn from experts as they work together affected literacy. Many studies have been conducted world-
on meaningful, purposeful tasks. Tharp and Gallimore wide that examined the specific variables that affect reading
(1993) lamented that learning as assisted performance is or general academic development. These variables fall into
easily identified in homes and communities but less so in three broad categories: (a) historical and political variables
classrooms. They explicate assisted performance by theo- affecting the community; (b) family variables such as race/
rizing Vygotsky’s ZPD as occurring in stages representing ethnicity, language, family, income, and literacy practices;
a change from social regulation (provided by the teacher) and (c) school variables, including curriculum, instruction,
to self-regulation. In the first stage of the zone, assistance dispositions of teachers, identity and agency of the students
is given with the teacher doing the work of reading (social in the school context, the cultural compatibility of home and
control) while the child participates as an apprentice and school discourses, expectations teachers have for students’
48 Ellen McIntyre

reading success, and the level of expertise in scaffolding Miller, 1995; Rothstein, 2002; Wells, 1987), although
provided by the teacher. These categories overlap, intersect poverty is in no way a causal factor for lack of literacy
and affect one another. They are addressed separately for achievement. Further, even though cultural differences
convenience. among ethnic groups of similar income exist (Miller, 1995;
Ogbu, 2003; Rothstein, 2002), and children’s everyday
Community Variables The social and cultural history of experiences related to print differ despite income (Hart &
any community affects literacy practices, development, and Risley, 1995; Purcell-Gates, 1996; Taylor & Dorsey-Gaines,
achievement. Although an historical examination of literacy 1988; Teale, 1986), the pattern of SES and achievement is
trends is beyond the scope of this chapter, it is essential most resilient. Indeed, the differences in resources among
from a sociocultural perspective to mention that the broad families are much greater than the differences among
historical and cultural context of literacy is essential to schools (Linnakyla et al., 2004; Miller, 1995).
understanding reading development and why some children Combinations of home literacy variables are more highly
struggle with reading. Indeed, throughout the history of the correlated with literacy achievement than any one spe-
United States, societal movements and laws have affected cific factor, even when individual factors are disaggregated
literacy practice in qualitative and quantitative ways. For (Aram & Levin, 2001; Lee and Bowen, 2006; Leseman & de
example, removal of children from the work force into Jong, 1998; Weinberger, 1996). Importantly, Leseman and
schools raised literacy levels (Heath, 1994), and people’s de Jong (1998) found that SES differences across families
interest in their own civil rights increased reading and writ- were less important than the parents’ literacy practices in
ing for social purposes (Brandt, 2001). Any sizable increase correlating with achievement. Aram and Levin (2001) found
in literacy levels for a population depended upon changes in that the factors closest to the child—literacy tools and activi-
community organizations such as churches, or changes in ties and maternal mediation—were those that most directly
economic patterns that provide more leisure time, which, at affected achievement. Lee and Bowen (2006) illustrated
least until the last few decades, meant more time for literacy the educated middle class parents’ school involvement
(Brandt, 2001; Heath, 1994). practices correlated with school learning processes more
As more students were tested on standardized measures, than the practices of poor or working class families. In
achievement patterns by demographic groups emerged, and these studies, the contributions of individual factors were
reading skill varied widely by group. In general, students calculated after controlling for other sociocultural factors.
from middle class families performed better on these mea- It was the inter-correlations among the sociocultural factors
sures than those from poor or working class backgrounds; that resulted in failure or achievement.
majority populations performed better than minority Studies of home literacy variables are not confined to
populations (i.e., in the U.S., whites performed better than young children. Several recent studies of adolescents (Ar-
non-whites, but this is confounded by variables suggested zubiaga et al., 2002; Hall, in press; Lee & Bowen, 2006;
below); and native-born students performed better than im- Levinson, 2007; Linnakyla et al., 2004; Love & Hamston,
migrants. Group achievement differences led researchers 2003; Lewis, Enciso, & Moje, 2007; Ogbu, 2003) illustrate
to examine why these differences exist. Many researchers the complexity of factors that interact to result in ordinary
sought to understand what was happening within these students of low socioeconomic status failing in school. At-
populations to explain differences. titudes, identities, personalities, dispositions, and agency
contribute to how students see themselves as readers. Hall
Family Variables With the emergence of sociocultural (in press) illustrated a pattern of students who did not want
theory, educators have moved away from genetic, neurologi- to be publicly identified as struggling readers. In Levinson’s
cal, or perceptual explanations of reading success and fail- study (2007) of teens living in a gypsy culture, highly ca-
ure and, to some extent, away from explanations of whole pable students saw little value in school-related reading and
demographic groups because those explanations tended to thus participated in literate activity only when necessary.
stereotype or blame groups. Yet, group achievement patterns Linnakyla et al. (2004) illustrated that readers’ personal
do exist, and researchers from multiple paradigms continue characteristics and attitudes, such as low self esteem, has
to attempt to unpack the factors that might explain these also been shown to affect achievement. Love and Hamston
differences (Arzubiaga, Rueda, & Monzo, 2002; Grissmer, (2003) studied putatively reluctant readers who rejected par-
Flanagan, & Williamson, 1998; Linnakyla, Malin, & Taube, ents’ school-based forms of literacy for their own practices
2004; Marks, Cresswell, & Ainley, 2006; McGill-Franzen, (mainly digital), illustrating the role agency has in affecting
1987; Miller, 1995; Portes, 1999; Golden, Rueda, & August, literacy practices and the sociocultural contexts in which
2006; van Steensel, 2006; Wasik & Hendrickson, 2004). those practices occur.
Most studies conclude that explanations lie primarily with John Ogbu, a leading linguist of the latter 20th century,
factors related or embedded within families’ socioeconmic studied affective and cultural factors of low-achieving stu-
status (SES), such as cultural practices, literacy access, or dents in the United States, and his 2003 study shed light
race/ethnicity and immigration status. A family’s SES ap- on the role of families on school achievement, stirring
pears to be the best predictor of academic achievement and some controversy among educators. He asked the question,
failure for a student (Lareau, 2000; Hart & Risley, 1995; What is it about African Americans and other “involuntary
 Sociocultural Perspectives on Children with Reading Difficulties 49

minorities” (1992) that determine their relative lack of outside of school function to aid the exchange of resources
success in public schools in this country? Ogbu studied and transmission of knowledge, cultural values, and norms.
middle- and upper-middle-class students in the Shaker Moll (1994) illustrated that the application of cultural
Heights school district in Ohio, which historically has resources in classroom instruction is one way of inviting
had an excellent reputation and overall high test scores. change in students’ performance. The instructional implica-
The African American students in the district were not tions of this will be addressed elsewhere in the chapter.
performing as well as their white peers or as well as the
immigrant minorities in the school, thus illustrating that a School Variables The sociocultural turn in education
class-based or race-based analysis of the problem is not research led to studies of how school and classroom con-
sufficient. His study delineated several influences that went texts affect reading and reading development. Because
beyond race or SES to cultural practices and identity. For reading was viewed as a social process, the teacher-student
instance, some of the students refused to become engaged interactions provided the context for when, why, and how
with school for fear of acting white; doing so implied the much students learned. Studies began to show differential
renouncing of black identity, which was greatly affected by treatment of readers such that some students received a
peer pressure. Further, Ogbu showed that while the parents very different education than others (Allington, 1977,
of these students had high expectations for their children’s 1983; Anyon, 1997; McDermott, 1977; Michaels, 1981;
school success, these parents were less involved in schools Rist, 1970). These differences included differences in
because they worked more hours than white parents (in teachers’ expectations for some children and differences in
order to live in the neighborhood) and they monitored curriculum and instruction. These studies excited the field
their children’s homework and leisure practices less than and moved it toward a better understanding of why some
the white parents. ordinary children struggle with reading.
Ogbu’s explanation is not meant to exonerate schools Sometimes, the explanations for school interactions
and certainly not to blame minority parents, nor does his came from teachers’ perceptions and expectations for learn-
study neglect school factors as contributing to the students’ ers (Anyon, 1997; Finn, 1999; Rist, 1970; Weinstein, 2004).
disengagement. But, Ogbu argues, the role of family and There is substantial evidence that teachers’ expectations of
community forces should be incorporated into the discus- particular students’ abilities affect their academic achieve-
sion of academic achievement by researchers, theoreticians, ment, including reading (Rist, 1970; Rothstein, 2002;
policy makers, educators, and minorities themselves who Weinstein, 2002) resulting in a self-fulfilling prophecy
genuinely want to improve academic achievement of their (Stanovich, 1986; Weinstein, 2004). Some teachers believe
children. Other studies of the role of parent involvement that poor students are in dire need of being rescued from
in school are equally complex (Epstein, Coates, Salinas, their communities, families, and cultures (Finn, 1999; Lee,
Sanders, & Simon, 1997; Lareau, 2000) but will not be ad- 2008; Marx, 2006). Many well-meaning teachers believe
dressed in detail here. However, it is evident that the types that students living in poverty and/or minority groups cannot
and amount of school involvement, as well as when it oc- achieve as capably as can middle-class students, largely due
curs in a child’s development, appear to relate to academic to their backgrounds, families, and life circumstances, and
achievement in school. that they need to be remediated with basic skills (Delpit,
Some studies that examined sociocultural variables ne- 1986, 1988; Ferguson, 1998; Weinstein, 2004). Expecta-
glected to assess literacy in homes and families over time, tions can be heard in educators’ comments about particular
thus eliminating the crucial cultural/historical element. student populations, such as “They need the structure,”
When studies are conducted from a sociocultural perspec- “They need phonics,” “They don’t have language,” and
tive methodologically, they often focus on what is there and “They need direct instruction.” This problem extends to
what happens as opposed to what is not there, what does the families of the groups as well, such as, “They don’t
not happen, and how the lack of something may correlate care about education,” “They don’t care about their kids,”
with achievement levels. Moll and González (2003), their “They are never home,” and “They spend all their extra
colleagues, and many researchers since (McIntyre, Kyle, & money on videos” (McIntyre & Hulan, 2008). These “overly
Rightmyer, 2005; McIntyre, Rosebery, & González, 2001) deterministic pronouncements” (Lee, 2008, p. 275) reflect
sought to document literacy and understandings in homes stereotypes of poor people and their children.
and families, referring to the knowledge that families hold Beyond teacher expectations, many studies illuminated
in order to function successfully as “funds of knowledge” differential access to literacy based on curricular and in-
(Moll & Greenburg,1992, p. 322). They documented what structional practices afforded to some children and not
the families knew and were able to do in order for teachers others. One of the most documented patterns in U.S. public
to build on these skills and understandings. They found schools is that education for students from middle- and
that literacy was embedded within the acquisition and de- upper-middle-class backgrounds generally looks quite dif-
velopment of funds of knowledge; people used reading and ferent from schools primarily serving poor students (Anyon,
writing to mobilize relationships and to teach one another 1997; Finn, 1999). Even today, looking into classrooms, we
valuable concepts and skills for survival and prosperity. find that, in general, the children in schools serving students
Moll and González (2003) theorize that the social networks of poverty receive rote, scripted, or programmed instruction,
50 Ellen McIntyre

even as those in the suburbs receive instruction focused on the effects of a scripted reading program, Success for All,
high-level thinking and creativity. on pre-schoolers through third graders, 76% of whom
Anyon’s 1997 study was only one of many that illustrated were recipients of the federal free lunch program. The
this sort of curricular inequity across SES groups. It is com- researchers found that primary grade children, especially
mon for educators to recommend programs focused on basic kindergartners and third graders, scored significantly better
skills for struggling readers. The argument is that struggling on individually-scored reading and language assessments
readers cannot do high-level thinking because they do than did children in control groups after only 1 year. While
not have the requisite basic skills. The other argument is the children in this study did not score better on standardized
that some of these programs have been shown to work, as tests, a later study (Ross, Smith, & Casey, 1997) showed
described below. Yet, a curriculum focused on basic skills that children receiving Success for All instruction scored
arguably limits what students can learn by limiting access better than students in a control group on both standardized
to high quality instruction (Allington & McGill-Franzen, and individually administered tests through second grade,
2003; McGill-Franzen & Allington, 1991; Miller, 1995) although not in third grade. This study also showed that
and, in fact, may be one of the causes of school failure. minority students improved at a better rate than white stu-
dents. Similarly, McIntyre et al. (2008) found that first-grade
The Problem of Basic Skills for Struggling Readers There struggling readers who had received scripted instruction
is a widely accepted belief that rudimentary or basic skills in achieved more on phonics measures than a matched group
reading, such as the ability to decode words or comprehend of students who had received what teachers called balanced
sequentially ordered information, is learned prior to being instruction. There were no significant differences found in
able to search for information, make generalizations from reading achievement.
reading, summarize or synthesize information from multiple Researchers also compared the phonics and reading
sources, or other more advanced reading skills. Indeed, achievement of struggling readers in classrooms in which
the reading test of the National Association of Educational the teachers purposefully planned time for reading con-
Progress (NAEP) is organized in a way that assesses these nected text with students in classrooms in which there was
skills in this hierarchical manner. Further, most reading little reading of connected texts (McIntyre et al., 2006). First
researchers have shown some kind of developmental se- graders in classrooms with less reading performed better
quence to what children learn as they acquire the ability to on phonics than first graders who read more connected
read (Ehri, 1991; Ferriero & Teberosky, 1982). However, text, and there were no differences on the reading measure.
there seems to be no guarantee that learning rudimentary However, the second-grade children in classrooms who
or basic skills leads to more advanced skills in reading. read a lot of connected text for 2 consecutive years gained
Miller (1995) illustrated that while reading achievement significantly more on the reading achievement measure than
for 9-year-olds has gone up for minorities in the past few second graders without 2 consecutive years in classrooms
decades, it has only moved from the most rudimentary level with extensive reading.
to the basic level, suggesting that these students have not In a study in Spain, researchers Castells and Solé (2008)
learned to relate ideas, analyze, summarize, or synthesize. came to similar conclusions. They examined the relation-
Thus, most educators agree that basic skills such as phonics ship between the level of phonological awareness and letter
are a necessary but not sufficient part of a good reading knowledge and the ability to read different kinds of texts
curriculum. and write conventionally in 5-year-old children taught in
Discussions about basic skills can become problematic Catalan, the primary language of Barcelona. Participants
when making curricular decisions for a school serving a included 69 children from 3 different classrooms. Their
large population of students considered at risk for school teachers held different conceptions about teaching early
failure. Because it is widely accepted that phonics and literacy. These conceptions were related to either an ana-
other basics must be learned as part of comprehending, lytical, synthetical, or analytical-synthetical perspective.
educators sometimes choose carefully sequenced, scripted Students’ knowledge was assessed at the beginning and at
reading programs for whole classes of children. Although the end of the school year on a variety of tasks: letter rec-
these programs may have some value for some children ognition, oral word segmentation, reading words, reading a
at some time (McIntyre, Rightmyer, & Petrosko, 2008; sentence, and a dictation. The results showed that the ability
McIntyre, Rightmyer, Powell, Powers, & Petrosko, 2006), to segment a word into syllables orally seemed to be a suf-
the practice of adopting the programs for whole classes of ficient marker for children to start reading in a conventional
schools becomes problematic from a sociocultural perspec- way in Catalan. Furthermore, students used phonological
tive. At no time in these programs can teachers attend to knowledge in relatively different ways depending on the
the individual needs and cultural/linguistic backgrounds of students’ development and skill with reading and writing.
learners. I return to this point later in this section. This study indicated that appropriate instruction is relative
There is evidence that some programs focused on to what the student is able to do at the time.
basic skills do succeed in raising student achievement of Other recent studies that support this contextual and de-
students considered to be struggling. In one study, Slavin, velopmental argument raise additional theoretical, practical,
Madden, Karweit, Livermon, & Nolan (1990) measured and methodological questions about scripted instructional
 Sociocultural Perspectives on Children with Reading Difficulties 51

programs. For instance, some studies have illustrated that Instructional Implications for a Sociocultural
the discourse of the instructional script is exactly what con- Approach to Reading
flicts with the discourse of home and community of minority
groups and some white families (Dudley-Marling & Paugh, In the last few decades, in concert with the upsurge of
2005; Tharp & Gallimore, 1993), thus raising questions research and theory from a sociocultural perspective,
of appropriateness. Some researchers question findings of classroom practices across the country have changed.
school districts reporting positive effects for scripted models Many teachers today cultivate a less competitive and more
by suggesting that the students only perform well with the cooperative classroom environment, build instruction from
scripted models during the first year or two of implementa- students’ prior understandings, and honor home languages.
tion (Land & Moustafa, 2005). And some studies suggest Especially in elementary classrooms, the physical envi-
that the scripted models adversely affect students’ engage- ronment indicates changes in orientation as the space is
ment, creating more disengaged or passive learners (Powell, arranged so that children can interact and learn from one
McIntyre, & Rightmyer, 2006). Finally, Edelsky and Bomer another. Of course, many educators would agree much
(2005) suggest that studies which show positive results for change is still needed.
scripted programs do so because some teachers, who do not Reading instruction from a sociocultural perspective
operate from a deficit model, have supplemented scripted takes the child’s contextual world into account. Ideally,
programs with better practices. educators would learn as much about the reader as possible.
Studies such as these shed light on sociocultural theory Perhaps the teacher might want to know about the reader’s
because they raise questions about the relationship between cultural and historical background. There are numerous
students’ development as readers and the instructional prac- potential questions teachers may ask in this regard, such
tices that did or did not meet their individual needs. Studies as: How does the child’s race/ethnicity play a role in the
of children’s acquisition of reading have shown that many child’s life? What languages are spoken in the home and
children go through a period when they focus exclusively community? How does the family identify themselves
on words and word parts over meaning (Biemiller, 1970; semantically, culturally, socially, and through everyday
Hiebert & Taylor, 2000; Mason, 1984; McIntyre & Frep- routines? What is the family make-up and what character-
pon, 1994; Purcell-Gates, 1995; Sulzby, 1985). There is istics of the family are significant to the child? How much
movement from a great reliance on syntactic and semantic education does the child’s family have? Who reads and
cues when reading to an increased use of graphic informa- writes in the family and for what purpose? What does the
tion (Barr, 1984; Biemiller, 1970; Clay, 1993; Ferriero & family do for a living? What does the family do outside of
Teberosky, 1982; Mason, 1984). Specifically, children move work and school and with whom do they do it? What sorts
through an “aspectual” stage (Sulzby, 1985, p. 471) of read- of material resources does the family have that affect aca-
ing in which they struggle with mastering the code to the demic development? What other interests does the family
exclusion of meaning making. This stage often indicates have? How does the child spend out-of-school time? These
that children are just becoming readers, a period in which sorts of questions assess the student’s history and culture,
much assistance is critical (Tharp & Gallimore, 1993). As including variables that have been shown to correlate with
a group, these studies measured readers who may have school success and failure (e.g., race/ethnicity, language,
been developmentally ripe for the phonics teaching they SES, geography, social capital).
received, as opposed to the other students who were further The teacher must also attempt to understand the reader as
along in their reading development, and this may account a person and as a student. Questions for exploration might
for their achievement. include: What has the child’s school life been like so far?
These studies suggest the possibility that the reading fail- What are the child’s interests? Who are his friends? What is
ure of some children may be in part related to the students’ the child good at? How does the child deal with emotional
reading curriculum over multiple years. Although explicit stress? What does the child like about school? What sorts
instruction in phonics is almost indisputable in terms of its of books does he choose? Does he prefer to read alone or
success in helping most children learn phonics, a phonics- with others? Why? These sorts of questions get at identity,
heavy instructional program may not be beneficial in help- agency, and motivation.
ing children move from the most rudimentary reading skills The teacher must learn about the child’s reading skills
toward more advanced levels, which may contribute toward and behaviors that allow for the assessment of the learner’s
an explanation of achievement differences by population, zones of proximal development. What texts does the child
such as those analyzed by Miller (1995). Our education prefer? What texts can the child read independently? What
system, including educational research, often fails to take can she read successfully with help from a peer? What can
the long view about what students may need across multiple she read somewhat with help from the teacher? What can’t
years. When a program, model, teacher, or intervention ap- she read at all? What strategies does the child use to tackle
pears to be effective for a particular group of children for a text that is challenging? What words can the child encode
short period, it is seen as potentially successful for all and and decode with scaffolding by a knowledgeable teacher?
adopted. But a steady diet of a basic skills curriculum may What can the child write independently? What can she write
indeed be one of the causes of reading failure. with expert scaffolding?
52 Ellen McIntyre

Based on a sociocultural approach, understanding the help students learn school concepts such as metaphor, irony,
learner is the primary tool for teaching. This tool encom- and symbolism. Boykin, Wade, and Others (1986, cited
passes all else and is used in making instructional decisions in Ferguson, 1998, p. 347) found that African American
about the learner. Yet, it is imperative that teachers do not elementary students do better when their teachers allowed
use information gained from assessment of the learner to “verve,” or mixing or switching back and forth between
form lower expectations of the child based on the family’s tasks, rather than focusing on one task at a time for longer
history or education. Indeed, it may be necessary for teach- periods. In her study, all the students improved when tasks
ers to have an avenue to explore their own assumptions were mixed, but the African American students improved
about families before undertaking the goal of visiting homes more. Further, Boykin showed in other studies that physical
or interviewing parents (McIntyre et al., 2005). Further, movement, music in the background, and working in teams
Heath (1994) emphasized that the goal is not to use cultural with group rewards were all highly correlated with higher
knowledge about minorities’ ways of using language and achievement of African American children.
habits of learning to tailor classrooms to fit the daily habits Additional pedagogical strategies that have been ad-
of the each minority group, but to learn about the various vocated by minority scholars and scholars of minorities
ways people use language in order to accept and support include group work and dialogic instruction. Students must
the language learning of all students. Moll (1994) claimed have opportunities to practice academic talk in safe environ-
that when students are encouraged to participate in ways ments and with expert scaffolding by the teacher to clarify
that respect their language and cultural patterns (such as misconceptions or nudge students’ thinking. Students learn
collaboration or overlapping speech), students perform in from one another, should have opportunities for frequent
ways unexpected by their teachers, resulting is less mis- movement and use of manipulatives along with high lev-
evaluation of the learner. The following sections elaborate els of support in the name of direct and explicit teaching
on further instructional implications, each of which extends of skills, small group instruction, tutoring programs, and
from knowledge about the learner. heavy monitoring of individual progress. Hale (2003) also
suggested the curriculum be heavily tied to the arts, while
Culturally Responsive Instruction Culturally responsive Williams (1996) promoted developing resilience-promoting
instruction or culturally relevant pedagogy (Gay, 2000, strategies in students, teachers, and schools where the bur-
2002; Irvine, 2006; Ladson-Billings, 1994; Nieto, 1999; den of adversity is reduced and opportunities for learning
Tharp, Estrada, Dalton, & Yamauchi, 2000; Williams, 1996) advanced.
is based on the idea that teachers can tailor curriculum and Finally, culturally responsive instruction does not com-
instruction to make students’ school experiences more com- municate low standards or an unconstrained approach. Ir-
patible with their natal culture (Tharp, 1989). In the funds vine (2006) emphasized student achievement as the ultimate
of knowledge work discussed earlier, teachers respect what goal. The curriculum ought to be rigorous and focused on
the learner comes to school with and extends that learning high expectations, problem solving, an unwillingness to
(Moll & González, 2003; McIntyre et al., 2001). Teachers give up on any student, an advanced curriculum with regular
attend to students’ language and participation practices by feedback and celebration of progress, and uplifting cur-
taking into account differential practices around competi- ricular materials grounded in students’ experiences. Marva
tion or cooperation (Tharp, 1993) or interactional speech Collins, of Chicago, is an often-cited example of a teacher
styles (Michaels, 1981; Adger, Wolfram, & Christian, 2007) whose rigorous teaching is of something worth being rigor-
that can affect classroom interactions to support or constrain ous about (although most would not describe her approach
learning. For instance, some children grow up in homes as sociocultural): She aims to nurture in students the belief
in which family members speak and react directly, with that they are destined to become important people.
gestures and body language that communicate in ways that In summary, culturally responsive instruction can be
others may view as blunt. Other children are raised in homes characterized by teaching that is meaningful, challenging,
in which overlapping speech is expected; still others would collaborative, dialogic, and connected to the students’ home
be taught that overlapping speech is rude. Most educators and community experiences. Yet, due in part to the many
recommend that teachers attend closely to students’ interac- confounding factors in a child’s sociocultural world, there
tion styles, and at a minimum ask themselves whether styles have been few well-designed studies illustrating achieve-
in which they are unfamiliar might be cultural. ment effects through culturally responsive instruction.
Teachers can learn to modify their own discourse to
build on the students’ styles to reflect, for example, “call Research-Based, Culturally Responsive Reading Instruc-
and response” (Foster & Peele, 2001, p. 33), or “signifying” tion Culturally responsive instruction makes intuitive
(Lee, 1998, p. 193) language patterns of African Ameri- sense. If educators link instruction to what students know
cans. Signifying is a discourse style often called “playin’ from their cultural backgrounds and attend to students’
the dozens,” “rappin’,” “soundin’,” or “talkin’ shit,” and it linguistic communication patterns, students should learn
is characterized by using innuendo and double meanings more. Yet, it is clear from decades of research on what works
to communicate. When students participate in signifying, in reading instruction that culturally responsive instruction
their teacher can honor their capacities and build on them to may not be a sufficient paradigm for raising student achieve-
 Sociocultural Perspectives on Children with Reading Difficulties 53

ment. In the 1990s, when many studies and commentary studies of teachers of high achieving first graders, teams
revealed that many children still were not learning how to of researchers (Pressley, Allington, Wharton-McDonald,
read (Snow, Burns, & Griffin, 1998; Torgesen, 2002), some Collins-Block, & Morrow, 2001; Wharton-McDonald,
reports suggested that students who struggle with reading Pressley, & Hampton, 1998) found that the teachers of the
may need much more explicit instruction than was currently high achieving students often designed their own curricula,
in vogue (Delpit, 1995; McIntyre, Kyle, & Moore, 2006; borrowing from many different resources to address the
McIntyre & Pressley, 1996). As stated earlier, the National needs of the students. They balanced skills instruction with
Reading Panel (NRP) reviewed studies on reading instruc- complex literacy tasks. The teachers knew how to adjust
tion, teacher education in reading, and on technology and and amend group instruction toward the needs of individual
reading. In terms of instruction, the studies focused on students, and they adopted ways to regularly monitor the
alphabetics (phonemic awareness and phonics), reading students’ varied progress. They were educated decision
fluency, and reading comprehension, which included text makers and superb motivators of children, handling the
comprehension and vocabulary (NICHD, 2000). The NRP overlapping events of the classroom with finesse and fo-
delineated the importance of each of these instructional cus. This body of work on teachers’ attention to individual
areas and reported that findings were significant enough students and their contexts has been a major contribution
to recommend the inclusion of a variety of techniques in of the sociocultural perspective in reading. Future research
any reading program, but were not quite fully committed is needed to develop tools and procedures for document-
to endorsing even these unconditionally. The panel’s report ing literacy instructional that is both research-based and
and subsequent publications (e.g., Farstrup & Samuel’s, culturally responsive, such as the protocol developed by
2002) emphasized instructional strategies, largely from Rightmyer and her colleagues (2008).
a cognitive strategy paradigm, that had been examined
in experimental studies. Although these strategies have Intensive Intervention with Opportunity and Access The
been shown to be effective with some populations in some research-based, Vygotskian-based, culturally responsive
contexts, a question remains: Can research-based reading instruction described above is what most scholars advocate
instruction be culturally responsive? The answer seems to for all learners, yet, extra support for struggling learners
be affirmative if teachers learn enough about their students is only implied. Some may argue that in classrooms with
to adapt instruction to individual needs. expert teaching, children do not slip through the cracks. But,
In a recent study (McIntyre & Hulan, 2008), researchers in reality, they do. The conditions for teaching in today’s
used a design-based approach to study whether and how schools, with 25 or sometimes many more students assigned
four teachers implemented research-based reading instruc- to elementary teachers and over 100 or more to middle and
tion while adhering to premises and practices of culturally high school teachers, weekly monitoring of progress and
responsive instruction. The four teachers were participants immediate intervention for the struggling students may
in a graduate class that theorized and illustrated the potential be necessary. The intervention could come in the form of
of this model of instruction, and then the four participated in additional teaching in the needed area. This often means
a post-course study that lasted eight months. The teachers’ intensive, daily instruction in small groups (or one-on-one,
goal was to teach the content of research-based instruction, if that is affordable) for the lagging students before, after,
largely defined by the NRP report, using strategies shown or even during school.
to increase student achievement while also attending to One example of how this approach works in elementary
students’ backgrounds, linguistic patterns, text interests, classrooms is described in a book of studies of effective
participation patterns, and more. These four teachers were early literacy interventions by Hiebert and Taylor (2000).
all successful in hybridizing (Gutiérrez, Baquedano-Lopez, In one intervention, students who are perceived as lagging
& Alvarez, 2001) their practices in these ways, illustrating behind the rest of the class are targeted early in the school
the potential for this kind of teaching. Yet, they spoke of year for an extra reading lesson each day. The teacher begins
the struggles they had in maintaining the balance of this her day with this group when she is freshest, and while the
sort of teaching day in and day out. At times, teachers felt other students are engaged in meaningful, independent
they diluted good reading instruction when they focused on work (reading, research, problem solving). The teacher
students’ interests and texts; or, they became inattentive to has students read and re-read, discuss, read more, work
cultural relevance when teaching phonics because they did on decoding skills, and read more during an intensive 30-
not know how to adapt the instruction culturally. Sometimes minute period. Then, her regular day begins with her usual
it was simply the materials at hand that dictated the reading grouping practices with all her students, again including
instruction. What they all focused on, though, was attention those students in the intervention group. The intervention
to the individual child and being flexible enough to adapt group students may graduate from the group after a few
any lesson to the needs of their students. weeks or months, depending on what is needed. Other
There are many other studies of teachers who have imple- children may be drawn into the group as needed. The key
mented varied, flexible approaches that focus on individuals, is that the teacher works with the bottom 20% of her class
even though they may not have been explicitly designed in the morning when she is freshest and during the time
to attend to both culture and achievement. In one group of when the other students are also freshest and therefore
54 Ellen McIntyre

more likely to remain engaged in quality independent work. Arzubiaga, A., Rueda, R., & Monzo, L. (2002). Family matters related
Planning for this kind of intervention is essential, as the to the reading engagement of Latino children. Journal of Latinos and
Education, 1(4), 231–243.
teacher must ensure that the rest of the class is getting the Barr, R. (1984). Beginning reading instruction: From debate to reforma-
academic support they need. tion. In P. D. Pearson, R. Barr, M. L. Kamil, & P. Mosenthal (Eds.),
There are many other examples of successful interven- Handbook of reading research (pp. 545–582). New York: Longman.
tions to assist struggling readers (Ginsberg, Amendum, Biemiller, A. (1970). The development of the use of graphic and contextual
Mayer, Fedora, & Vernon-Feagans, 2006; McGill-Franzen information as children learn to read. Reading Research Quarterly,
6, 75–96.
& Allington, 1993; McIntyre et al., 2005; Shanahan, 2000). Bloome, D., & Green, J. (1984). Directions in the sociolinguistic study
One promising intervention, Response to Intervention (RTI; of reading. In P. D. Pearson, R. Barr, M. L. Kamil, & P. Mosenthal
2008) invites educators to re-think the practice of automati- (Eds.), Handbook of Reading Research (pp. 395–421). New York:
cally referring students to special education services when Longman.
a child has a reading problem and instead first diagnosing Brandt, D (2001). Literacy in American lives. New York: Cambridge
University Press.
the learning environment of the child. The authors recog- Castells, N., & Solé , I. (2008). Phonological awareness and early literacy
nize the problem of a disproportionate representation of development in Catalan: Characteristics and instructional influence.
minorities into special education and invite educators to Barcelona, Spain: University of Barcelona Press.
look more closely at the sociocultural contexts of learning Clay, M. M. (1993). Becoming literate: The construction of inner control.
to assess the difficulties the learners may have. The model Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann Educational Books.
Delpit, L. D. (1986). Skills and dilemmas of a progressive black educator.
recommends interventions for some students in the form of Harvard Educational Review, 56, 379–385.
supplemental instruction to the core curriculum. Delpit, L. D. (1988). The silenced dialogue: Power and pedagogy n
educating other people’s children. Harvard Educational Review, 58,
280–298.
Conclusion Delpit, L. D. (1995). Other people’s children. Cultural conflict in the
classroom. New York: The New Press.
A sociocultural perspective on children with reading dif- Dudley-Marling, C., & Paugh, P. (2005). The rich get richer; the poor
ficulties does not discount other explanations for reading get direct instruction. In B. Altwerger (Ed.), Reading for profit: How
failure or other recommendations for instruction. The field the bottom line leaves kids behind (pp. 156–171). Portsmouth, NH:
of literacy still needs more studies to unpack the sociocul- Heineman.
tural variables in reading practice and achievement in order Edelsky, C., & Bomer, R. (2005). Heads they win; Tails we lose. In B.
Altwerger (Ed.), Reading for profit: How the bottom line leaves kids
to answer the perplexing problem of why some children fail behind (pp. 11–20). Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.
to learn to read or to become good at reading. More studies Ehri, L. (1991). Development of the ability to read words. In R. Barr, M.
are needed on instructional models that can assist learners in Kamil, P. Mosenthal, & P. D. Pearson (Eds.), Handbook of reading
a variety of contexts, including the complex classrooms of research (vol. 2, pp. 353–417). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
today. Studies have shown that a sociocultural approach to Epstein, J. L., Coates, L., Salinas, K. C., Sanders, M. G., & Simon, B. S.
(1997). School, family, and community partnerships: Your handbook
teaching means taking into account learners’ historical and for action. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.
cultural backgrounds while attending to the social contexts Farstrup, A. E., & Samuels, S.J. (2002). What research has to say about
of classroom interactions, having high expectations, and reading instruction. Newark, DE: International Reading Associa-
practicing research-based, culturally sensitive instruction. tion.
Yet, data are needed on the effectiveness of this model in Ferguson, R. F. (1998). Teachers’ perceptions and expectations and the
black-white test score gap. In C. Jencks & M. Phillips (Eds.), The
real classrooms with a diverse population of students. Data black-white test score gap (pp. 273–317). Washington DC: Brookings
are also needed to help teachers learn how to sustain this sort Institution Press.
of teaching. Struggling readers are like any other group of Ferreiro, E., & Teberosky, A. (1982). Literacy before schooling. Ports-
students and should have access to the richest, most innova- mouth, NH: Heinemann.
tive, and creative curricula. Ensuring these opportunities is Finn, P. J. (1999). Literacy with an attitude: Educating working class
children in their own self-interest. Albany: SUNY Press.
the challenge that faces educators. Foster, M., & Peele, T. (2001). Ring my bell: Contextualizing home and
school in an African American community. In E. McIntyre, A. Rose-
bery, & N. González (Eds.), Classroom diversity: Connecting curricu-
References lum to students’ lives (pp. 27–36). Portsmouth, NH: Hienemann.
Adger, C. T., Wolfram, W., & Christian, D. (2007). Dialects in schools Gay, G. (2000). Culturally responsive instruction: Theory, research, and
and communities (2nd ed.). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum. practice. New York: Teachers College Press.
Allington, R. C. (1977). If they don’t read much, how they ever gonna get Gay, G. (2002). Preparing for culturally responsive teaching. Journal of
good? The Reading Teacher, 36, 556–561. Teacher Education, 53, 106–116.
Allington, R. L. (1983). The reading instruction provided readers of differ- Gee, J. M. (2000). Discourse and sociocultural studies in reading. In M. L.
ing reading abilities. Elementary School Journal, 83, 548–559. Kamil, P. B. Mosenthal, P. D. Pearson, & R. Barr (Eds.), Handbook of
Allington, R. L., & McGill-Franzen, A. (2003). The impact of summer reading research (vol. 3, pp. 195–208). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
reading setback on the reading achievement gap. Phi Delta Kappan, Ginsberg, M. C., Amendum, S., Mayer, K., Fedora, P., & Vernon-Feagans,
85, 68–75. L. (2006). Targeted reading intervention (TRI) professional develop-
Anyon, J. (1997). Ghetto schooling: A political economy of urban educa- ment guide. Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina, National
tion reform. New York: Teachers College Press. Research Center for Rural Education Support.
Aram, D., & Levin, I. (2001). Mother-child joint writing in low SES: Goldenberg, C., Rueda, R. S., & August, D. (2006). Sociocultural in-
Sociocultural factors, maternal mediation, and emergent literacy. fuences on the literacy attainment of language-minority children
Cognitive Development, 16, 831–852. and youth. In D. August & T. Shanahan (Eds.), Developing literacy
 Sociocultural Perspectives on Children with Reading Difficulties 55

in second-language learners: Report of the National Literacy Panel Linnakyla, P., Malin, A., & Taube, K. (2004). Factors behind low reading
on Language-Minority Children and Youth (pp. 269–318). Mahwah, literacy achievement. Scandinavian Journal of Educational Research,
NJ: Erlbaum. 48(3), 231–249.
Grissmer, D., Flanagan, A., & Williamson, S. (1998). Why did the Love, K., & Hamston, J. (2003). Teenage boys’ leisure reading disposi-
Black-white score gap narrow in the 1970s and 1980s? In C. Jencks tions: Juggling male youth culture and family cultural capital. Edu-
& M. Phillips (Eds.), The Black-White test score gap (pp. 182–228). cational Review, 55(2), 161–177.
Washington DC: The Brookings Institute. Marks, G. J., Cresswell, J., & Ainley, J. (2006). Explaining socioeconomic
Gutiérrez, K. D., Baquedano-Lopez, P., & Alvarez, H. H. (2001). Literacy inequalities in student achievement: The role of home and school fac-
as hybridity: Moving beyond bilingualism in urban classrooms. In M. tors. Educational Research and Evaluation, 12 (2): 105–128.
D. L. L. Reyes & J. J. Halcon (Eds.), The best for our children: Critical Marx, S. (2006). Revealing the invisible: Confronting passive racism in
perspectives on literacy for Latino students (pp. 87–93). New York: teacher education. New York: Routledge.
Teachers College Press. Mason, J. M. (1984). Early reading from a developmental perspective. In
Hale, J. E. (2003). Learning while Black: Creating educational excel- P. D. Pearson, R. Barr, M. L. Kamil, & P. Mosenthal (Eds.), Handbook
lence for African American children. Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins of reading research (pp. 505–554). New York: Longman.
University Press. McDermott, R. (1977). Social relations as contexts for learning in school.
Hall, L. A. (in press). The negative consequences of becoming a good Harvard Educational Review, 47, 198–213.
reader: Identity theory as a lens for understanding struggling readers, McGill-Franzen, A. (1987). Failure to learn to read: Formulating a policy
teachers, and reading instruction. Teachers College Record. problem. Reading Research Quarterly, 22, 475–490.
Hart, B., & Risley, T .R. (1995). Meaningful differences in the everyday McGill-Franzen, A., & Allington, R. L. (1991). The gridlock of low read-
experiences of young children. New York: Paul H. Brooks.. ing achievement: Perspectives on practice and policy. Remedial and
Heath, S. B. (1983). Ways with words: Language, life, and work in com- Special Education, 12, 20–30.
munities and classrooms. New York: Cambridge University Press. Mc-Gill-Franzen, A., & Allington, R. L. (1993). Flunk ‘em or get them
Heath, S. B. (1991). The sense of being literate: Historical and cross- classified: The contamination of primary grade accountability data.
cultural features. In R. Barr, M. L. Kamil, P. Mosenthal, & P. D. Educational Researcher, 22, 19–22.
Pearson (Eds.), Handbook of reading research, volume II (pp. 3–25). McIntyre, E., & Freppon, P. A. (1994). A comparison of children’s develop-
Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum. ment of alphabetic knowledge in a skills-based and a whole language
Heath, S. B. (1994). The children of Trackton’s children: Spoken and classroom. Research in the Teaching of English, 28(4), 391–417.
written language in social change. In R. B. Rudell, M. R. Rudell, & McIntyre, E., & Hulan, N. (2008). Teachers developing understandings and
H. Singer (Eds.), Theoretical models and processes of reading (pp. practices of equity pedagogy in reading instruction. Paper presented
208–230). Newark, DE: International Reading Association. at the annual meeting of the National Reading Conference (NRC),
Herrnstein, R. J., & Murray, C. (1994). The bell curve: Intelligence and Orlando, Florida.
class structure in American life. Free Press. McIntyre, E., Kyle, D. W., & Moore, G. (2006). A teacher’s guidance
Hiebert, E., & Taylor, B. (2000). Beginning reading instruction: Research toward small group dialogue in a low-SES primary grade classroom.
on early interventions. In M. L. Kamil, P. B. Mosenthal, P. D. Pearson, Reading Research Quarterly, 4(1), 36–63.
& R. Barr (Eds.), Handbook of reading research (vol. 3, pp. 455–482). McIntyre, E., Kyle, D. W., & Rightmyer, E. C. (2005). Families’ funds of
Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum. knowledge to mediate teaching in rural schools. Cultura y Educacion,
Irvine, J. J. (2006). Educating teachers for diversity: Seeing with a cultural 17(2), 175–195.
eye. New York: Teachers College Press. McIntyre, E., Petrosko, J. P., Powers, S., Jones, D., Bright, K., Powell,
Labov, W. (2003). When ordinary children fail to read. Reading Research R., & Newsome, F. (2005). Supplemental instruction in early read-
Quarterly, 38, 128–131. ing: Does it matter for struggling readers? Journal of Educational
Ladson-Billings, G. (1994). The dreamkeepers: Successful teachers of Research, 99(2), 99–107.
African American children. San Francisco: Jossey Bass. McIntyre, E., & Pressley, M. (1996). Balanced instruction: Strategies and
Land, R., & Moustafa, M. (2005). Scripted reading instruction: Help or skills in whole language. Norwood, NJ: Christopher-Gordon Press.
hindrance? In B. Altwerger (Ed.), Reading for profit: How the bottom McIntyre, E., Rightmyer, E., & Petrosko, J. (2008). Scripted and non-
line leaves kids behind (pp. 63–77). Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann. scripted reading instructional models: Effects on the phonics and
Lareau, A. (2000). Home advantage: Social class and parental intervention reading achievement of first grade struggling readers. Reading Writing
in education. New York: Rowman and Littlefield. Quarterly, 24(4), 377–407.
Lave, J., & Wenger, E. (1991). Situated learning: Legitimate peripheral McIntyre, E., Rightmyer, E. C., Powell, R., Powers, S., & Petrosko, J. P.
participation. New York: Oxford University Press. (2006). How much should young children read? A study of the rela-
Lee, C. D. (1998). Signifying in the zone of proximal development. In C. tionship between development and instruction. Literacy Teaching and
D. Lee & P. Smagorinsky (Eds.), Vygotskian perspectives on literacy Learning: An International Journal of Early Literacy, 11(1), 55–76.
research: Constructing meaning through collaborative inquiry (pp. McIntyre, E., Rosebery, A., & González, N. (2001). Classroom diver-
191–225). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. sity: Connecting curriculum to students’ lives. Portsmouth, NH:
Lee, C. D. (2008). The centrality of culture to the scientific study of Heinemann.
learning and development: How an ecological framework in educa- Michaels, S. (1981). “Sharing time”: Children’s narrative styles and dif-
tion research facilitates civic responsibility. Educational Research, ferential access to literacy. Language in Society, 10, 423–442.
37, 267–279. Miller, L. S. (1995). An American imperative: Accelerating minority educa-
Lee, J. S., & N. K. Bowen (2006). Parent involvement, cultural capital, tional advancement. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
and the achievement gap among elementary school children. American Moll, L. C. (1994). Literacy research in community and classrooms; A
Educational Research Journal, 43(2), 193–215. sociocultural approach. In R. B. Rudell, M. R. Rudell, & H. Singer
Leseman, P. P. M., &. de Jong, P. F. (1998). Home literacy: Opportunity, (Eds.), Theoretical models and processes of reading (pp. 22–43).
instruction, cooperation and social-emotional quality predicting early Newark, DE: International Reading Association.
reading achievement. Reading Research Quarterly, 33(3), 294–318. Moll, L. C., & González, N. (2003). Engaging life: A funds of knowl-
Levinson, M. P. (2007). Literacy in English gypsy communities: Cultural edge approach to multicultural education. In J. Banks & C. A. Banks
capital manifested as negative assets. American Educational Research (Eds.), Handbook of multicultural education (pp. 699–715).vNew
Journal, 44, 5–39. York: Jossey-Bass.
Lewis, C., Enciso, P., & Moje, E. B. (2007). Reframing sociocultural Moll, L. C., & Greenberg, J. B. (1992). Creating zones of possibilities:
research on literacy: Identity, agency, and power. Mahwah, NJ: Combining social contexts for instruction. In L. C. Moll (Ed.), Vy-
Erlbaum. gotsky and Education: Instructional implications and applications
56 Ellen McIntyre

of sociohistorical psychology (pp. 319–348). New York: Cambridge language and literacy: Development and disorders (pp. 3–24). New
University Press. York: Guilford.
Nieto, S. (1999). The light in their eyes: Creating multicultural learning Street, B. (1985). Literacy in theory and practice. New York: Cambridge
communities. New York: Teachers College Press. University Press.
Ogbu, J.U. (2003). Black American students in an affluent suburb: A study Sulzby, E. (1985). Children’s emergent abilities to read favorite storybooks:
of academic disengagement. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum. A developmental study. Reading Research Quarterly, 20, 458–481.
Pearson, P. D., & Stevens, D. (1994). Learning about literacy: A 30-year Taylor, D., & Dorsey-Gaines, C. (1988). Growing up literate: Learning
journey. In R. B. Rudell, M. R. Rudell, & H. Singer (Eds.), Theoretical from inner-city families. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.
models and processes of reading (pp. 22–43). Newark, DE: Interna- Teale, W. H. (1986). Home background and young children’s literacy
tional Reading Association. development. In W. H. Teale & E. Sulzby (Eds.), Emergent literacy:
Portes, P. R. (1999). Social and psychological factors in the academic Writing and reading (pp. 173–206).Norwood, NJ: Ablex.
achievement of children of immigrants: A cultural history puzzle. Tharp, R. G. (1989). Psychocultural variables and constants: Effects
American Educational Research Journal, 36, 489–507. on teaching and learning in schools. American Psychologist, 44,
Powell, R., McIntyre E., & Rightmyer, E.C. (2006). Johnny won’t read, 349–359.
and Susie won’t either: Reading instruction and student resistance. Tharp, R. G. (1993). Institutional and social context of educational prac-
Journal of Early Childhood Literacy, 6, 5–31. tices and reform. In E. A. Forman, N. Minick, & C. A. Stone (Eds.),
Pressley, M., Allington, R. L., Wharton-McDonald, R., Collins-Block, Contexts for learning: Sociocultural dynamics in children’s develop-
C., & Morrow, L. (2001). Learning to read: Lessons from exemplary ment (pp. 269–282). New York: Cambridge University Press.
first-grade classrooms. New York: Guilford. Tharp, R. G., Estrada, P., Dalton, S. S., & Yamauchi, L. (2000). Teaching
Purcell-Gates, V. (1995). Other people’s words: The cycle of low literacy. transformed: Achieving excellence, fairness, inclusion, and harmony.
Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Boulder, CO: Westview Press.
Purcell-Gates, V. (1996). Stories, coupons, and the “TV Guide”: Rela- Tharp, R. G., & Gallimore, R. (1993). Rousing minds to life: Teaching,
tionships between home literacy experiences and emergent literacy learning, and schooling in social context. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge
knowledge. Reading Research Quarterly, 31, 406–428. University Press.
Rist, R. C. (1970). Student social class and teacher expectations: The Torgesen, J. K. (2002). The prevention of reading difficulties. Journal of
self-fulfilling prophecy in ghetto education. Harvard Educational School Psychology, 40, 22–42.
Review, 40, 411–451. van Steensel, R. (2006). Relations between socio-cultural factors, the
Rogoff, B. (2003). The cultural nature of human development. New York: home literacy environment and children’s literacy development in
Oxford University Press. the first years of primary education. Journal of Research in Reading
Ross, S. M., Smith, L. J., & Casey, L. P. (1997). Preventing early school 29(4), 367–382.
failure: Impacts of Success for All on standardized test outcomes, Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). Mind in society: The development of higher psy-
minority group performance, and school effectiveness. Journal for chological processes. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Education for Students Placed at Risk, 2, 29–53. Vygotsky, L. S. (1987). Thought and language (Ed. Alex Kozulin). Cam-
Rothstein, R. (2002). Class and schools using social, economic, and bridge, MA: MIT Press.
educational reform to close the black-white achievement gap. New Wasik, B. H., & Hendrickson, J. S. (2004). Family literacy practices. In
York: Teachers College Press. C. A. Stone, E. R. Silliman, B. J. Ehren, & K. Apel (Eds.), Handbook
Shanahan, T. (2000). Research synthesis: Making sense of the accumula- of language and literacy: Development and disorders (pp. 154–174).
tion of knowledge in reading. In M. L. Kamil, P. B. Mosenthal, P. D. New York: Guilford.
Pearson, & R. Barr (Eds.), Handbook of reading research (vol. 3, pp. Weinberger, J. (1996). A longitudinal study of children’s early literacy
209–228). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum. experiences at home and later literacy development at home and school.
Slavin, R E., Madden, R. A., Karweit, N. L., Livermon, B. J., & Nolan, Journal of Research in Reading, 19, 14–24.
L. (1990). Success for All: First year outcomes of a comprehensive Weinstein, R. (2004). Reaching higher: The power of expectations in
plan for reforming urban education. American Educational Research schooling. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Journal, 27, 255–278. Wells, G. (1987). The meaning makers: Children learning language and
Snow, C. E., Burns, M. S., & Griffith, P. (Eds.). (1998). Preventing using language to learn. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.
reading difficulties in young children. Washington, DC: National Wertsch, J. V. (1991). Voices of the mind: A sociocultural approach to
Academy Press. mediated action. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Stanovich, K. E. (1986). Matthew effects in reading: Some consequences of Wertsch, J. (1998). Mind as action. New York: Oxford University Press.
individual differences in the acquisition of literacy. Reading Research Wharton-McDonald, R., Pressley, M., & Hampton, J. M. (1998). Literacy
Quarterly, 21, 360–406. instruction in nine first grade classrooms: Teacher characteristics and
Stone, C. (2004). Contemporary approaches to the study of language and student achievement. Elementary School Journal, 99, 101–128.
literacy development: A call for the integration of perspectives. In C. Williams, B. (1996). Closing the achievement gap: A vision for changing
A. Stone, E. Silliman, B. J. Ehren, & K. Apel (Eds.), Handbook of beliefs and practices. Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision
and Curriculum Development.
 6
Instructional Texts and the Fluency
of Learning Disabled Readers
SHAILAJA MENON
TextProject

ELFRIEDA H. HIEBERT
University of California, Berkeley

In this chapter, we explore the role played by texts in sup- provide critical scaffolds in helping such students learn to
porting fluent reading in students, especially those with read fluently.
learning disabilities (LD). Our basic premise is that texts
have an important role to play in the acquisition of this
Fluency as a Critical Characteristic of Proficient
knowledge and that, until this role is better understood and
Reading
recognized, interventions will limp along, working hard
to make a difference and often failing to do so. The texts Fluency has been defined in various ways (see Wolf &
of reading instruction, especially for beginning readers, Katzir-Cohen, 2001). For this review, we have chosen
have increased substantially in difficulty over the past two Meyer and Felton’s (1999) definition of fluency as “the
decades. These shifts, we will demonstrate, particularly ability to read connected text rapidly, smoothly, effort-
have consequences for students with LD. The discrep- lessly, and automatically with little conscious attention to
ancy between the proficiency of students with LD and the mechanics of reading such as decoding” (p. 284). We
the demands of the text are great, setting students up for selected this definition of reading fluency over others that
continued failure. Further, current textbooks are not based emphasize comprehension (e.g., Hudson, Lane, & Mercer,
upon an empirical understanding of the kinds of scaffolds 2005) to maintain a distinction between fluent and proficient
needed by beginning or struggling readers to acquire the reading. If proficient reading is accurate reading at an ap-
orthographic proficiency needed for becoming proficient propriate rate with prosody and deep understanding, then
and fluent readers. We describe the empirical basis for a fluent reading is automaticity with the lower level skills that
model of text that can be supportive of fluent reading in permits reading with deep understanding. Fluency, then, is
readers with LD. a critical characteristic of proficient reading and a desired
outcome of reading instruction.
While fluency is a multi-dimensional and developmen-
Fluency and Students with LD
tal rather than a unitary construct (Wolf & Katzir-Cohen,
We begin by reviewing the basic research on reading pro- 2001), accurate recognition of the visual stimuli presented
cesses that underlie our hypothesis that carefully constructed during reading and the rate of recognizing these stimuli
texts are important for learning to read fluently, especially are critical features of fluent reading (Torgesen & Hudson,
for readers with LD. We build our argument by developing 2006). These two characteristics of accuracy and rate have
a working definition of fluency and its link to proficient been combined into an index of oral reading rate—the
reading. Next, we describe difficulties with remediating number of words accurately identified per minute. Oral
fluency in older or struggling readers and hypothesize that reading rate is a significant predictor of comprehension and
lack of word recognition automaticity might be a power- proficient reading (Chard, Vaughn, & Tyler, 2002; Jenkins,
ful explanation for this pattern. Finally, we draw upon the Fuchs, van den Broek, Espin, & Deno, 2003; Schatschneider
double deficit hypothesis to suggest that core deficits in et al., 2004). Schatschneider and colleagues (2004) reported
acquiring automaticity with word recognition skills might that oral reading rate accounted for 56% of the variance on
be an important characteristic that distinguishes dysfluent the Florida Comprehensive Achievement Test (FCAT). The
readers from readers with phonological deficits and from students in the lowest of five reading levels on the FCAT
their normally achieving peers. Well-designed texts might read at half the rate of students who read on an average

57
58 Shailaja Menon and Elfrieda H. Hiebert

level. Among Florida’s third-grade students, 22% fell into dysfluent readers recognize words more slowly than nor-
this group. It is this bottom quartile of students whose needs mally achieving peers. While sight word efficiency has
we speak to in this chapter been found to account for 67% of the variance in fluency
of students of all reading levels, sight word efficiency
Remediating Fluency: The Link to Word Recognition and non-word efficiency together accounted for between
Skills While critical to proficient reading, fluency ap- 68% and 80% of the variance in samples of students in
pears difficult to remediate. Over an 8-week intervention, intensive or preventive interventions (Torgesen, Rashotte,
Torgesen et al. (2001) reported that third- to fifth-grade & Alexander, 2001). Torgesen, Rashotte, et al. (2001) also
students made large gains in phonemic decoding accuracy reported that the gap between reading fluency and reading
(2nd to 39th percentile), text reading accuracy (4th to 23rd accuracy was not as large in the prevention as compared to
percentile), and reading comprehension (13th to 27th per- the remediation samples. This pattern—the more severe the
centile). Reading fluency scores, however, scarcely changed reading disability, the more significant the rate of accurately
(3rd to 5th percentile). At a 2-year follow-up, the group recognizing words in fluent reading—has been confirmed
was at the 4th percentile in reading fluency. Similarly, in by Cramer and Rosenfield (2008) in a study of fourth-grade
a series of interventions that emphasized increased mod- readers. Results such as these suggest that it is inefficiency
eling and practicing of fluent reading, students who had rather than accuracy in word identification that is resistant
moderate reading disabilities (10th percentile) showed only to remediation. Students with such deficits spiral into a
limited growth in age-based percentile ranking for fluency negative feedback loop. They do little reading and end up
(Torgesen, Rashotte, Alexander, Alexander, & MacPhee, having a smaller repertoire of sight words, contributing to
2003). a further decrease in their overall rate of accurate reading
Such results beg the question: Why is fluency so hard as compared to their more normally achieving peers.
to remediate in struggling readers? Torgesen and Hudson
(2006) argue that inefficiencies in identifying single sight Word Recognition and LD Readers: The Double Deficit
words account for individual differences in text reading Hypothesis Having established that automaticity with
fluency in students with LD. Jenkins et al. (2003) reported word recognition skills is impaired in many readers with
that individual differences in students’ ability to read iso- LD, we now briefly examine research on developmental
lated words was the most important factor accounting for dyslexia to gain insight into the role that texts might play
differences in reading fluency at low levels of fluency. In in the remediation of fluency-based problems. Failure to
contrast, differences among students in their performance on acquire automaticity in lower-level reading processes has
a reading comprehension measure accounted for the largest long been known to be a significant contributor to dys-
share of variance in reading fluency among the more fluent lexia (Denckla & Rudel, 1976), a finding that spawned a
readers in the sample. In other words, sight word recognition long line of research on rapid automatized naming (RAN)
is a critical factor contributing to overall fluency levels of tasks. Naming speed differentiates dyslexic students from
struggling readers. average readers and from “garden variety” poor readers
There are two components to the limitation of sight (Denckla & Rudel, 1976; Meyer, Wood, Hart, & Felton,
word vocabularies in dysfluent readers: the range of words 1998). These differences are apparent as early as the be-
that can be recognized by sight (size of sight word lexicon ginning of kindergarten and are the most pronounced for
available to the student), and the rate of accurately recogniz- letter naming tasks (Wolf, Bally, & Morris, 1986). Further,
ing these words. The size of sight word lexicon is directly naming speed is a powerful predictor of reading success
influenced by the amount of accurate reading practice in and impairments in languages such as German, Dutch,
which students engage. Students who have difficulties with Finnish, and Spanish with more transparent orthographies
acquiring reading skills spend less overall time reading, than English (e.g., Korhonen, 1995). These findings suggest
such that skilled readers read three times as many words that, when phonological skills play a less important role,
weekly as less-skilled readers (Allington, 1984). These dif- naming speed becomes an even stronger predictor of reading
ferences begin early and are exacerbated over time, such that performance and is relatively independent of phonological
students with poor reading skills spend only a fraction of the processing skills.
time reading as students with normally developing reading Empirical work and theoretical speculation have raised
skills (Cunningham & Stanovich, 1998). This lack of read- the possibility that the ability to form, store, and access
ing practice results in severe limitations in the number of orthographic representations may account for some of the
words that students with reading disabilities can recognize residual variance in word recognition skills not explained
automatically (Ehri, 2002) and of which they know the by phonological factors (Cunningham & Stanovich, 1990;
meaning (Stanovich & West, 1989). Further, the amount of Stanovich & West, 1989). This “double deficit” model
accurate reading practice is also less for students with LD of reading disabilities (Wolf & Bowers, 1999; Wolf &
(Anderson, Evertson, & Brophy, 1979; Sindelar, Monda, Katzir-Cohen, 2001) postulates that efficient phonological
& O’Shea, 1990). We will elaborate upon this theme later processing is a necessary, but not sufficient condition for
when describing a model of text as fluency intervention. orthographic learning. Phonological awareness and naming
As well as having smaller sight word vocabularies, speed appear to contribute relatively separately to success-
 Instructional Texts and the Fluency of Learning Disabled Readers 59

ful reading, such that the former contributes significantly have dyslexia lies in the establishment of efficient process-
to word attack skills in reading, while the latter contributes ing at a small grain size (i.e., at the phoneme-level). Based
more to the orthographic aspects of word identification on an extensive review of the literature on developmental
(Bowers & Swanson, 1991). dyslexia across languages, Ziegler and Goswami suggest
Wolf and Bowers (1999) describe four discrete groups of that children with phonological difficulties may never attain
children based on this classification system: the first group automaticity at the smallest grain sizes, regardless of the
has no deficits; the second and third groups have single orthography being learned. However, when small grain-size
deficits in either phonological processing or in naming correspondences are inconsistent (e.g., English), beginning
speed; and the last group has deficits in both phonological readers have to learn additional correspondences for larger
processing and naming speed. The latter double deficit orthographic units, such as syllables, rimes, or whole words.
group consists of the most impaired readers. Students with There are many more orthographic units to learn when
phonological deficits will almost certainly end up as dysflu- consistency is achieved at larger grain sizes, than at smaller
ent readers but they might be responsive to interventions that grain sizes. For instance, to decode the most frequent 3,000
focus on word attack skills or decoding. Students who have monosyllabic English words at the level of the rime, a child
a rate deficit or double deficits likely require multi-pronged needs to learn mappings between approximately 600 dif-
efforts to compensate for their dysfluent reading skills. ferent orthographic patterns and 400 phonological rimes
It is probable that neuronal aberrations in visual pro- (Ziegler & Goswami, 2005, p. 19).
cessing in the brains of dyslexic students lead to a slowing Regardless of whether dyslexia is attributed to a single
down of lower-level processes that ultimately contribute to a (phonological) deficit or to a double deficit, the findings
disruption of fluency, particularly in the reading and under- reviewed in this section lend themselves to suggestions for
standing of connected text. Wolf (1999) hypothesizes that the texts used in fluency interventions for dysfluent readers.
this delayed processing speed could manifest in a number From the vantage point of the double-deficit hypothesis,
of related ways during reading as “...(1) slower letter-pattern students with a single phonological deficit who need to
identification; (2) slower naming speed for visual stimuli; develop word attack skills would benefit most from highly
(3) delayed induction of common orthographic patterns in decodable texts, students with rate deficits an approach
written language; and (4) the need for multiple exposures emphasizing automaticity and fluency, and those with
before a letter pattern is adequately represented in the double-deficits texts that incorporate both approaches. The
child’s repertoire” (p. 17). Ehri and Saltmarsh’s (1995) work results of brain imaging and cross-linguistic studies would
confirms that sight word learning is significantly different lead to the hypothesis that most, if not all, dyslexic readers
in normal and dyslexic readers, with the latter group being lack the ability to gain automaticity with smaller grain-sizes
similar to beginning readers in that they process only partial (i.e., phonemes), making difficulties with fluent reading
alphabetic information in words. Disabled readers require more pronounced in orthographies such as English where
more trials—approximately nine—to learn words by sight the units of smaller grain sizes are inconsistent. Texts that
than average or garden variety poor readers who needed aid in compensating for this deficit would need to provide
between six to seven trials to acquire words by sight. opportunities to acquire automaticity with units of larger
Additional insight into the pivotal role played by sight grain sizes (i.e., rimes, whole words) that appear more
word recognition in dyslexics is provided by recent studies amenable to compensation than individual phonemes. We
using functional brain imaging techniques (fMRI) (e.g., will develop these ideas in a later section on texts as flu-
Shaywitz & Shaywitz, 2007). Some adults who were dys- ency interventions. Prior to doing that, we examine what
lexic as children have compensated by learning to recognize is known about the features of current texts and how these
the most familiar words. These compensating readers have texts match with proficiencies of struggling readers.
more pronounced activity in the occipito-temporal region
of their brains—an area of the brain responsible for recog-
The Task of Current Texts
nizing words as wholes, rather than by sounding out—as
compared to adult dyslexics who do not recognize familiar In the previous section, we established that students with
words. Normal readers, on the other hand, have stronger LD have critical needs with developing fluency and that
connections between the part of the brain responsible for gaining automaticity with larger orthographic grain sizes
the repeated sounding out of words and that responsible for is key to achieving fluency for such readers. In this section,
recognizing words as wholes. Normal readers likely first we ask: How do these understandings match with the texts
sound out whole words and, over repeated encounters, come currently available in American classrooms? Analyses of
to recognize words by sight (Share, 1995), while compen- the features of texts for beginning readers have a fairly long
sating dyslexics may learn whole words without engaging history (see Chall, 1967/1983). We are not going to review
in analyzing the smaller orthographic patterns within the the historical nature of these changes from texts controlled
words (Lovett, 1991). by high-frequency words, to texts selected for their literary
Contesting the validity of orthographic processing defi- quality, to (most recently) texts controlled by phonemes,
cits as a separate category of dyslexia, Ziegler and Goswami since these patterns have been described elsewhere (Hiebert,
(2005) suggest that the key difficulty for all readers who 2005). What we focus on here is the match between text
60 Shailaja Menon and Elfrieda H. Hiebert

features and the needs of readers with LD—that is, how well highly frequent words than the texts of later grades. The
do these texts support automaticity with word identification decodability of rare words at first grade was somewhat lower
for these readers? than that in the higher grades, indicating that more of the
rare words in the grade-six texts were multisyllabic than in
Features of Current Texts Literature-based anthologies the first-grade text. Even in the first-grade texts, however,
and texts based on predictable sentence patterns were the many monosyllabic words with complex and variant vowel
mainstays of American reading instruction in the 1990s patterns were present.
(Hoffman et al., 1994). Hoffman, Roser, Patterson, Salas,
and Pennington (2001) investigated first-graders’ ability to Features of Current Texts and Reading Proficiencies of
read texts selected for their literary engagingness and found Students with LD As well as analyzing features of cur-
that a full 40% of the students were not highly accurate with rent texts, Hiebert (2008) compared the word-level features
any of the texts, including those at the earliest levels. Cun- of current texts with students’ performances on the sight
ningham et al. (2005) analyzed the supports provided for word efficiency sub-test of the Test of Word Reading Ef-
word recognition learning in a set of the texts that Hoffman ficiency (TOWRE) (Torgesen, Wagner, & Rashotte, 1999).
et al. described as prototypical of literary engagingness. The sight word efficiency sub-test of the TOWRE assesses
Cunningham et al. concluded that these texts provided only students’ recognition of a particular set of words within a
moderate support for word recognition instruction and al- 45-second period. Hiebert established that the recognition of
most none for decoding instruction in the use of onsets and approximately 30 words served as a benchmark in terms of
rimes. Johnston’s (2000) analyses of student performances content. Up to this point, words came exclusively from the
with predictable texts confirm that, even after at least 10 1,000 most-frequent words; after this point, less common,
readings of a text, most beginning readers learned only multisyllabic words became prominent. Hiebert reported
4%–5% of unfamiliar words. that students at the 90th percentile attained that benchmark
As the shortcomings of predictable texts for begin- in Grade 1, students at the 50th percentile in Grade 3, and
ning readers were recognized, state-wide adoptions those at the 10th percentile had yet to attain this level by
mandated decodable texts—texts that present only words Grade 6. Next, Hiebert compared the tasks of the texts of a
with grapheme-phoneme correspondences that have been basal reading program to the performance patterns on the
introduced in lessons in the accompanying teachers’ guides TOWRE. Already at Grade 1, approximately 20 of every
of a reading program. Following the Texas mandates for 100 running words were moderately frequent or rare words,
such texts, Foorman, Francis, Davidson, Harm, & Griffin falling beyond the 1,000 most-frequent words.
(2004) divided first-grade textbooks from six programs Foorman et al.’s (2004) and Hiebert’s (2005) analyses
into six instructional blocks and analyzed phonics patterns, of the decodable text-based programs reveal that they have
high-frequency word status, and the number of repetitions several problematic aspects, especially in light of the profi-
within and across these blocks. They reported that as much ciencies and needs of learners with LD. First, these texts are
as 70%–84% of the words appeared only a single time based on the assumption that the systematic presentation of
across the instructional blocks of the six different programs. individual phonemes will aid with word recognition efforts
Foorman et al. concluded their analyses with the question by beginning and struggling readers. Yet, we have been
of how first graders can be expected to acquire letter-sound unable to locate any large-scale interventions that attest to
correspondence knowledge when only 20% of the words in the efficacy of this text type over others. Jenkins, Peyton,
texts are repeated two or three times. Sanders, and Vadasy (2004) assigned at-risk first graders
Hiebert (2005) analyzed the texts of a prominent basal to tutoring in more or less decodable texts, and failed to
program (one of two that Chall (1967/1983) identified as find any post-test differences between the two groups on
a prototypical mainstream basal reading program) over a an array of decoding, word reading, passage reading, and
40-year period from 1962 to 2000. From 1983 to 1993, the comprehension measures.
rate of new, unique words increased substantially in both Second, the rapid pace of introduction of new linguistic
first- and second-grade texts and it stayed at that rate even information in such programs is alarming. A textbook’s
with the move to decodable texts in 2000. The percentage accessibility is decided solely on the basis of the match
of words falling within the 1000 most highly frequent words between phonemes in the student texts and their appearance
fell from 60% at the end of first grade in the 1962 copyright, in the teacher’s manuals. As a result, even the kindergarten
to 37% in the 2000 copyright of the program. Exposure to components of basal reading programs are considerably
this set of highly frequent words would presumably improve more ramped up than the programs of the late 1980s (Hie-
the rate of word recognition of dysfluent readers. Subse- bert, 2008). Whereas the kindergarten component of the late
quently, Hiebert (2008) analyzed the 2007/2008 copyright 1980s copyright of a basal reading program had no student
of the same prominent basal reading program that she had texts, the current copyright requires students to apply at least
previously examined for shifts across time. The profile of 30 different grapheme-phoneme correspondences without
linguistic information, at least with regard to high frequency any seeming mandate on the number of repetitions of these
words, flattened out by the middle of first grade—that is, phonemes within or across texts (Hiebert, 2008). Third,
these texts paid no more attention to the presentation of there is no developmental progression in the presentation of
 Instructional Texts and the Fluency of Learning Disabled Readers 61

linguistic information that is discernible in these programs. ing that suggests that readers must simultaneously recognize
That is, the demands of second-grade texts are not substan- the words in text while constructing meaning. As readers
tially different than the demands of fourth-grade texts, and have a limited amount of attention available for any given
so on. Finally, even in “decodable” textbook programs, the task, the amount of attention spent on a single process
texts of the anthologies shift to authentic children’s litera- means that less attention is available for the other process.
ture after the first semester of first grade. Literature-based Similarly, Perfetti’s (1977) verbal efficiency model theorizes
programs have high vocabulary loads, low repetition of that a slow rate of word recognition obstructs ability to hold
words and word patterns, and no clear progression in the large units of text in working memory. Aiding students to
word-level curriculum across individual grade levels or achieve automaticity with word recognition processes will
across grade levels (Hiebert, Martin, & Menon, 2005). free up resources for comprehension. Automaticity can be
Current textbook programs appear to be based on the as- best achieved through successive exposures to print.
sumption that the speed with which phonemes are presented The repeated reading approach is the instructional instan-
doesn’t have to be controlled or developmentally sensitive. tiation of this line of thinking (Samuels, 1979). The basic
If a high percentage of phonemes can be covered in kin- repeated reading approach calls for the reading of text at a
dergarten, then more interesting texts can be presented in student’s instructional level repeatedly, until a desired rate
the anthologies (and decodable texts) at an earlier point. of reading (measured in words per minute) is achieved. This
The evidence that has been reviewed suggests that this is followed by reading another passage at the same level
assumption may be contributing to a considerable gap repeatedly, and so on. Variations of this method include
between the tasks of the texts and students’ reading profi- repeated reading with a model versus without. Moderate
ciencies, especially those of students with LD. Irrespective effect sizes have been reported in meta-analyses of repeated
of whether literature-based anthologies or decodable texts reading studies (e.g., Chard et al., 2002; Meyer & Felton,
are the focus of the analysis, approximately 40% of the 1999; NICHD, 2000; Yang, 2006).
students are unsuccessful on these texts—the percentage
of students who fail to reach the basic reading benchmark Repeated Reading and Readers with LD Most of the
on the National Assessment of Educational Progress (Pe- repeated reading studies have been with populations of aver-
rie, Grigg, & Donahue, 2005). How can texts be designed age readers (second grade and above) or older, struggling
to be more considerate of the instructional needs of these readers (Kuhn & Stahl, 2003). Two recent reviews have
students (and of their teachers), especially as related to focused specifically on the efficacy of the repeated reading
acquiring automaticity with word recognition? What role technique with readers with LD. Based on 24 published
have texts traditionally played in fluency interventions and unpublished studies conducted with students with
and what role could they play in future efforts to develop LD, Chard et al. (2002) concluded that repeated reading
fluency? Answers to these questions are considered in the was effective with this population of readers. The effective
following section. interventions that they reviewed included explicit modeling
of fluent reading, multiple opportunities to repeatedly read
familiar text independently and with corrective feedback,
Texts as Fluency Interventions
and performance criteria for increasing the difficulty of
In this section, we take a closer look at the role of texts with- texts. Yang (2006), in a meta-analysis of repeated reading
in the repeated reading approach that has been identified as studies, concluded that interventions involving remedial
facilitating fluency (NICHD, 2000). We focus in particular readers and students with disabilities produced larger effects
on the recommendation that difficult, even frustration level, than interventions involving normal readers. Yang observed
texts be used for repeated reading (Kuhn & Stahl, 2003). that these larger effects could reflect longer training periods
Drawing upon insights from our review and knowledge of and/or easier texts and assessments in interventions for
dyslexic readers, we ask: How can texts be used to create students with LD than for average students.
generalizable fluency gains for such students? While repeated reading appears to have potential as an
intervention technique for readers with LD, much remains
Repeated Reading Revisited While a number of reviews to be understood about whether it may need to be adjusted
are available that consider the efficacy of fluency interven- to optimally address the unique needs of these children. In
tions (Chard et al., 2002; Kuhn & Stahl, 2003; Meyer & their review of fluency interventions, Kuhn and Stahl (2003)
Felton, 1999; Yang, 2006), the role of texts is rarely exam- note an irony in that repeated reading was developed as a
ined systematically either in reviews or the interventions technique to aid the automatic recognition of words, yet,
themselves. In this section, we examine the repeated reading while effective in improving a number of reading related
research with an eye on two dimensions of this research: skills including accuracy, rate, and comprehension at the
(a) its effectiveness in developing fluency for struggling passage level, it has not been effective in improving the
readers, and (b) insights into the role played by texts in rapid recognition of isolated words. It is possible that aver-
instruction. age and poor readers who are non-dyslexic (such as those
The repeated reading approach has its roots in the included in many of the studies reviewed by Kuhn & Stahl,
LaBerge and Samuels (1974) model of information process- 2003) are able to use higher-order semantic and syntactic
62 Shailaja Menon and Elfrieda H. Hiebert

connections to achieve better rate and accuracy through the ficult texts work better than easier texts (later published as
repeated reading of passages in spite of not being able to Stahl and Heubach, 2005). In FORI, students read grade-
recognize isolated words faster. This leaves open the ques- level texts repeatedly with assistance (i.e., teachers, peers,
tion of whether dyslexic readers, who struggle with word aides, parents). Overall, students in the FORI intervention
analysis at a small grain size and compensate by acquiring made a 2-year gain on an informal reading inventory over
whole sight words (as described in an earlier section), are a school year. Even with this instructional support, students
at a disadvantage with the repeated reading method, if it is who were reading below primer level did not make much
currently not effective in facilitating isolated word recog- progress. It is likely that these students are the ones who
nition. We would hope that the fluency gains achieved on are the focus of this chapter—students with LD. Further,
one set of passages will hold for both near and far transfer a closer examination of the texts in the Stahl and Heubach
tasks. This premise has yet to be demonstrated with dyslexic implementation indicates that students who made gains
readers through the repeated reading method. rarely read texts on which they had less than 85% accuracy
and very often read texts in the 90%–92% accuracy range—
Repeated Reading: Does Text Difficulty Matter? Kuhn that is, texts within or close to their instructional levels.
and Stahl (2003) concluded their review on fluency interven- This begs the question: would larger gaps in accuracy levels
tions with the statement: “Some have argued that having be bridgeable by the considerable instructional support
children read easy text improves fluency...but it seems that described in the FORI intervention? It is conceivable that
the most successful approaches involved children read- students with LD will have accuracy levels of far less than
ing instructional-level text or even text at the frustration the average of 85% accuracy on grade-level texts reported
level with strong support...” (pp. 17–18). This conclusion in the FORI studies.
has been cited frequently, including in documents aimed Even more pertinently, is it realistic to expect that the
at practitioners and policy makers (e.g., Snow, Griffin, considerable instructional support that was available to
& Burns, 2007). Consequently, we examined the studies poor readers in the FORI intervention would be available
reviewed by Kuhn and Stahl to examine the basis for their to poor readers in typical American classrooms? Swanson,
conclusion. Wexler, and Vaughn (2009), in a syntheses of instructional
Only two studies in their review focused on the efficacy research, report that students with LD are engaged in oral
of repeated readings over control or baseline conditions and reading from between 1.1 minutes and 7.47 minutes in
attended to text features or difficulty. The first was Mathes regular classrooms. The range is only a little higher in the
and Fuchs’s (1993) comparison of the use of easy and resource room: 4.4 minutes to 13.4 minutes. Clearly, this
difficult texts. Neither text difficulty nor repeated reading is a far cry from the levels of text reading and instructional
made significant differences. In the second study, Rashotte support described in the FORI intervention. Such find-
and Torgesen (1985) compared the use of texts with a high ings suggest that the reality of text reading conditions
overlap of words with texts with a low overlap of words, in American classrooms require consideration when it is
and found that texts with a high overlap of words facilitated recommended that poor readers be given difficult texts
the development of fluency more than did texts with a low (Kuhn & Stahl, 2003).
overlap of words. Further, it is a fairly well-established pedagogical
An examination of the remaining studies showed that principle that task completion, on-task behavior, and task
approximately half (55%) employed texts that were at the comprehension are related to the difficulty level of the task
students’ instructional levels (i.e., “easier” text); 32% of (Gickling & Armstrong, 1978). Vygotsky (1978) proposed
studies used texts that were at grade level or above students’ that learners are best able to learn when working in their
instructional levels (i.e., “difficult” text); and information on zones of proximal development (ZPD) with the help of an
text level was missing from the remainder of the studies. Of adult or a more capable peer. It is possible that this ZPD
the studies that used easier texts, approximately two thirds (or, instructional level) extends to as low as 85% accuracy
reported significant gains over time for the treatment group. on certain texts for certain students with the right kinds of
Approximately 70% of the studies using difficult texts instructional support. Yet, to dismiss the existence of such
reported gains over time for the treatment group. In other a zone would be foolhardy. The difficulty level of the text
words, gains for treatment group over the control group was read by students may be reciprocally linked to the amount
the predominant trend, irrespective of the difficulty level of and kinds of instructional support available—within cer-
the texts used. It should be noted that many of the studies tain limits set by the ZPDs of students. We would argue
that reported significant gains did not compare gains to a that current evidence that instructional support alone can
criterion. Using gains as a measure of success, independent compensate for text difficulty is sparse. Further validation
of set criteria, is problematic and can be misleading. We are is needed before such a conclusion becomes the accepted
left with less than conclusive evidence on the role of text wisdom of the field.
difficulty from this review. We located several studies that were not included in the
Kuhn and Stahl (2003) also cited a study from their own Kuhn and Stahl (2003) review. Young and Bowers (1995)
line of research on fluency—Fluency-Oriented Reading evaluated the impact of text difficulty on oral reading flu-
Instruction (FORI)—as support for the argument that dif- ency in fifth-grade average and poor readers. Poor readers
 Instructional Texts and the Fluency of Learning Disabled Readers 63

were significantly slower than average readers on even the reader eventually responds automatically to these familiar
easiest stories, even when accuracy was not a factor. Further, orthographic configurations. This happens through a process
significant declines in reading rate, accuracy, and prosody of phonological recoding of the information present in the
occurred with each increase in text difficulty. Similar orthographic representations encountered in text. Share
findings were reported by O’Connor, Bell, Harty, Larkin, (2004) suggests that the first encounter with a novel word
Sackor, and Zigmond (2002), who studied the effects of results in the most learning, giving as evidence the letter-
texts that were matched for reading- or grade-level on the by-letter strategy of third graders on the first encounter
growth of poor readers’ reading ability over 18 weeks of with a novel word and their more fluent recognition on
one-to-one tutoring. Forty-six third to fifth graders, includ- subsequent encounters.
ing 25 with disabilities, were assigned randomly to one of Drawing upon connectionist models (e.g., Ehri, 2002),
two tutoring approaches or a control condition. Between Hiebert and Martin (2008) have theorized that the initial
approaches, the only significant difference was oral read- encounter with a novel word or orthographic pattern may
ing fluency, which favored students who read material at form partial representations in the reader’s memory, while
their reading level. Students who began with lower fluency subsequent encounters with the same word or pattern may
made stronger gains in text matched to reading level; stu- enable a refinement of that representation. While in shal-
dents with higher fluency profited from both treatments. lower orthographies, such as Hebrew, increasing the number
Cramer and Rosenfield (2008) reached a similar conclu- of repetitions of the target word did not result in greater ac-
sion in studying fourth graders’ reading of texts at their curacy of word identification on the orthographic measure,
independent, instructional, and frustrational levels, finding in deeper orthographies, such as English, more exposures to
a positive, significant correlation between word recognition target words may be needed to form detailed orthographic
accuracy and rate. Further, students with LD have a faster representations within memory (Sindelar et al., 1990).
rate of word identification on mastery-level as compared to The question of whether orthographic processing skills
instructional-level texts (Sindelar et al., 1990). The findings are entirely parasitic upon phonological processing abili-
of this handful of studies lend support to the recommen- ties or is a relatively independent ability is an open one.
dation that poor readers should be given texts for fluency Evidence from a long line of research led by Stanovich
training with which they are fairly accurate. and Cunningham (e.g., Cunningham & Stanovich, 1998)
provides support for the dual processing model underly-
Creating Generalizable Gains Fluency interventions will ing the double deficit hypothesis of dyslexia. Stanovich
ultimately be as successful as the transfer they facilitate—is and West (1989) demonstrated that exposure to print alone
the automaticity acquired on one set of texts transferable was a significant predictor of variance in the orthographic
to other texts and other contexts? Multiple studies attest to processing ability of adults, after factoring out the variance
the effectiveness of repeated reading as a fluency interven- contributed by phonological processing abilities. Given that
tion (typically over business-as-usual reading instruction) print exposure is an environmentally mediated variable, the
(NICHD, 2000). But not only have the effect sizes rarely authors concluded that differences in orthographic process-
been higher than moderate (NICHD, 2000; Yang, 2006), ing skills were not simply indirect products of differences in
it is not entirely clear what these effect sizes represent. phonological processing ability. This result has since been
Automaticity with word recognition processes was the validated with children (Cunningham & Stanovich, 1990).
originally hypothesized mechanism (Samuels, 1979), but Based on an extensive review, Cunningham and Stanovich
as Kuhn and Stahl (2003) noted, the irony is that word (1998) concluded that the primary contribution of print
recognition in isolation does not become faster or more exposure to word recognition is via the build up of the
automatic with repeated reading as it is practiced today. An orthographic lexicon and is only insignificantly correlated
alternative hypothesis is that repeated reading increases the to phonological processing skills. It is highly possible that
total amount of text read and that increases to print exposure a certain level of phonemic awareness is necessary before
alone contribute to fluency development. We examine the print exposure can foster the growth of orthographic knowl-
evidence for this idea in the following section. edge. Once this critical milestone of phonemic awareness
is achieved, however, exposure to print can contribute
Increasing the total amount of text read: Repeated Read- relatively independently to the growth of orthographic
ing and the self-teaching hypothesis. Robust evidence processing skills. What these findings imply for fluency
indicates that print exposure alone contributes to the acqui- development is that orthographic deficits in dyslexic read-
sition of reading-specific knowledge. An early elaboration ers cannot be remediated via phonological training alone.
of this view was Jorm and Share’s (1983) self-teaching Many dysfluent readers may need specific help to acquire
hypothesis that suggested that beginning readers learn (in the orthographic representations of English.
part) to read by successful decoding encounters with novel
words (Share, 1995). As the reader encounters and suc- Attention to orthographic features of text. If students
cessfully decodes familiar orthographic patterns and then learn (in part) to read by successful encounters with print,
whole words, these orthographic patterns and whole words it stands to reason that what they encounter—the linguistic
are added to the sight lexicon of the reader, such that the content of the texts—will matter in what they learn and how
64 Shailaja Menon and Elfrieda H. Hiebert

well they learn it. Only a handful of studies speak to this is- with 204 average achieving and 44 low achieving second
sue, and all of them establish that this is, indeed, the case. graders. The readability, decodability, percentage of high
As already described, Rashotte and Torgesen (1985) frequency words and of multisyllabic words, and average
compared repeated readings of a sample of dysfluent readers words per sentence were established for each text. Accuracy
under different text conditions. When texts had few shared of text reading was uniquely predicted by the percentage
words, repeated reading was not more effective for improv- of high frequency words in the text, whereas both the
ing speed than an equivalent amount of nonrepetitive read- percentage of high frequency words and text decodability
ing. Rashotte and Torgesen’s study raises the possibility that made unique contributions to variance in text-reading flu-
Kuhn and Stahl’s (2003) conclusions are true of repeated ency. The relationship between text-leveling variables and
reading as it is currently practiced where little, or no at- reading performance was similar for both average and low
tention is paid to the linguistic content in the selection of groups.
texts. Indeed, in a comparison of wide reading (comparable In a subsequent study, Hiebert and Fisher (2006) as-
amount of reading but with different texts) and repeated signed first-grade English Language Learners to one of
reading of the same texts, Kuhn et al. (2006) reported that three groups: Decodable texts created on a phoneme model,
wide reading was as effective as repeated reading. texts that systematically introduced phonetically regular,
Hiebert et al. (2005) found that only approximately 28% high-frequency, and high-imagery words, or typical class-
of the words were shared across the first-grade texts of two room decodable texts based on a phoneme model. Students
mainstream basal reading programs, a majority of which who received the “multiple-criteria” texts had a gain of 2.8
belonged to the 300 most highly frequent words. Such words correct per minute for every week of instruction as
low word overlap across texts likely encourages highly compared to 2.4 words gained by students who read the
localized word recognition skills (restricted to the text on experimental decodable texts and 2.0 words per week by
which repeated readings was performed), such that the rate classroom decodable texts.
of word recognition beyond a given text is not enhanced These findings represent an emerging line of research
significantly. This could be especially true of disabled read- that considers whether text features can be carefully selected
ers, who have core deficits with establishing efficient word to optimize generalizable fluency gains, especially for be-
recognition skills. ginning and struggling readers. It is not our intent to suggest
To address the need for designing texts supportive of that text selection alone can succeed in creating significant
word recognition for beginning and struggling readers, fluency gains for struggling readers. However, we believe
Hiebert (2002) created the Text Elements by Task (TExT) that there is sufficient evidence to argue that text is one of
model. The model attends to two aspects of text, the first several critical variables that contribute to fluency. There
of which is cognitive load—the number of different words is additional evidence that transfer effects during repeated
that need to be recognized within a text. The logic of at- reading with predictable texts can be facilitated by explicit
tending to the repetition of words within texts is similar to word study (Johnston, 2000). Further, even when using texts
that of repeated readings of texts: when fewer words are with a high percentage of shared words, assisted reading
repeated more often, chances for developing automaticity conditions may produce stronger gains than unassisted
with these words becomes greater. Summarizing results conditions (Young, Bowers, & MacKinnon, 1996), point-
on fluency interventions conducted with readers with LD, ing to the importance of high quality instruction along with
Lovett (1991) concluded that “...when the attention and well designed texts.
practice allocated individual words is increased by including
a large number of consolidation and practice opportunities Implications for a model of text. The evidence pre-
in training, the learning of disabled readers appears to be sented in this section has multiple implications for a model
facilitated” (p. 302). The second component is linguistic of text for beginning and/or struggling readers. Since the
content which refers to knowledge about words and word self-teaching hypothesis suggests that successful decoding
components. The frequency of a word’s appearance in writ- encounters with novel words leads to the formation of stable
ten English is one aspect of linguistic content. A second orthographic representations, both adequate exposure to
consists of common, consistent vowel patterns such as the print and successful encounters with print are critical. It
orthographic representations with larger grain sizes (such also suggests that multiple exposures to novel words are
as rimes) (Ziegler & Goswami, 2005). needed to form stable orthographic representations in deep
Menon and Hiebert (2005) conducted a 15-week inter- orthographies (e.g., English). We are challenged to think
vention for first graders with books that had been reordered about how this process would differ for students with LD
to conform approximately to the guidelines of the TExT who possibly have core deficits in acquiring extensive,
model. Intervention students at all levels—struggling, automatic sight word lexicons, and may, additionally, have
average, and high—performed significantly higher than difficulties with phonologically recoding the subsyllabic
comparison students on reading of texts and of isolated linguistic features of words. For such students, the self
words in word lists. teaching mechanism may not work as it does in normal
Extending Menon and Hiebert’s model of text, Compton, readers. Repetition of words and larger word chunks in texts
Appleton, and Hosp (2004) conducted a 15-week study may be even more critical than for their average achieving
 Instructional Texts and the Fluency of Learning Disabled Readers 65

peers. The current instructional solution—decodable texts might be more accessible to readers with LD than individual
that are based on the introduction of individual phonemic phonemes. Considering the features of the instructional
elements—may not be a good match for the abilities of texts read by beginning and struggling readers is especially
these readers, given their difficulties with fine-grained critical in light of the difficulties investigators have had in
phonological analysis. At the same time, the typical version remediating fluency. Torgesen and Hudson (2006) have
of repeated reading may not be optimally adjusted to the argued compellingly that attempts at remediating fluency
needs of dysfluent readers, given the lack of attention to text must aim at closing the gap in the sight word vocabularies
features that may facilitate transfer and automaticity. between struggling readers and their peers. Repeated read-
ing is moderately successful at remediating fluency but it has
proved to be ineffective thus far in remediating the rate of
Conclusions
isolated word recognition skills (Kuhn & Stahl, 2003)—an
Torgesen (1998) noted that work on teaching decoding area of particular need for readers with LD, many of whom
skills has been accomplished; now attention needs to turn struggle with automaticity in word recognition.
to whether fluency can be amenable to intervention. A de- The question remains: How can repeated reading be
cade later, the question of how to move beyond effective modified so that the primary locus of its effect shifts to
decoding interventions to effective fluency interventions for aiding automaticity in word reading efficiency? Support-
struggling readers remains perplexing. This question has ing the development of sight word lexicons seems to be the
been the focus of this chapter, particularly as it pertains to critical missing link at present in classrooms and in fluency
the role of instructional texts in supporting fluency develop- intervention efforts involving repeated readings of text. We
ment in readers with LDs. We have delved into the empirical have attempted to demonstrate in this chapter that attend-
and theoretical literature to construct an argument that links ing to the orthographic features of the texts used in fluency
several key ideas: (a) English is a language with low ortho- interventions (and in the regular classroom) is crucial to this
graphic consistency; (b) many readers with LD have specific effort. Along with Torgesen and Hudson (2006), we believe
orthographic processing deficits linked to inefficiencies in that “...effective interventions for students struggling with
the rate of word identification, suggesting that remediation reading fluency must substantially increase the number of
should go beyond teaching word attack skills to facilitating opportunities these students have to accurately practice
automaticity and fluency with word recognition processes; reading previously unknown words” (p. 137).
(c) current American instructional textbooks fail to provide
supportive practice with connected text to beginning and
struggling readers; and (d) fluency interventions, such as References
those involving the repeated reading of text, also pay scant Allington, R. L. (1984). The reading instruction provided readers of differ-
attention to the features of the texts. Taken together, these ent reading abilities. Elementary School Journal, 83, 549–559.
ideas point to a critical gap in current attempts at supporting Anderson, L. M., Evertson, C. M., & Brophy, J. E. (1979). An experimental
study of effective teaching in first-grade reading group. The Elementary
and remediating fluency acquisition.
School Journal, 79(4), 193–223.
While some have argued that the focus should be on the Bowers, P. G., & Swanson, L. B. (1991). Naming speed deficits in read-
nature of high-quality instruction and not on curricular ma- ing disability: Multiple measures of a singular process. Journal of
terials, Ziegler and Goswami (2005) argue that “The slower Experimental Child Psychology, 51, 195–219.
average rate of learning to read in English does not seem to Chall, J. S. (1967/1983). Learning to read: The great debate (3rd ed.).
Fort Worth, TX: Harcourt Brace.
occur because of variations in teaching method.... Rather, it
Chard, D., Vaughn, S., & Tyler, B. J. (2002). A synthesis of research on
seems due to the relatively low orthographic consistency of effective interventions for building reading fluency with elementary
English” (p. 13). This low orthographic consistency makes it students with learning disabilities. Journal of Learning Disabilities,
critical that teachers are not asked to compensate for poorly 35, 386–406.
constructed texts. If print exposure significantly contributes Compton, D. L., Appleton, A. C., & Hosp, M. K. (2004). Exploring the
relationship between text-leveling systems and reading accuracy and
to reading skills (Cunningham & Stanovich, 1998), then it
fluency in second-grade students who are average and poor decoders.
stands to reason that closer attention needs to be paid to Learning Disabilities Research & Practice, 19(3), 176–184.
what students are reading, particularly the orthographic Cramer, K., & Rosenfield, S. (2008). Effect of degree of challenge on
features of texts. Yet, as described in this chapter, there have reading performance. Reading & Writing Quarterly, 24, 119–137.
been large and dramatic shifts in the textbooks of reading Cunningham, A. E., & Stanovich, K. E. (1990). Assessing print exposure
and orthographic processing skill in children: A quick measure of read-
instruction—shifts that have gone largely unexamined, and
ing experience. Journal of Educational Psychology, 82, 733–740.
with particular consequences for students with LD. Cunningham, A. E., & Stanovich, K. E. (1998). What reading does for the
Policy makers view decodable texts as the key to provid- mind. American Educator, 22(1-2), 8–15.
ing struggling readers with texts that scaffold the acquisition Cunningham, J. W., Spadorcia, S. A., Erickson, K. A., Koppenhaver, D.
of word recognition skills. Yet two aspects of decodable A., Sturm, J. M., & Yoder, D. E. (2005). Investigating the instruc-
tional supportiveness of leveled texts. Reading Research Quarterly,
texts may be problematic for dysfluent readers: the unit of
40, 410–427.
emphasis (the individual phoneme) and the pace of introduc- Denckla, M. B., & Rudel, R. G. (1976). Rapid automatized naming
tion of new linguistic information. The research reviewed (R.A.N.): Dyslexia differentiated from other learning disabilities.
here suggests that orthographic units with larger grain sizes Neuropsychologia, 14, 471–479.
66 Shailaja Menon and Elfrieda H. Hiebert

Ehri, L. C. (2002). Sight word learning. In B. Blachman (Ed.), Foundations Mathes, P. G., & Fuchs, L. S. (1993). Peer-mediated reading instruction
of reading acquisition and dyslexia: Implications for early Intervention in special education resource rooms. Learning Disabilities Research
(pp. 163–190). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum. and Practice, 8, 233–243.
Ehri, L. C., & Saltmarsh, J. (1995). Beginning readers outperform older Menon, S., & Hiebert, E. H. (2005). A comparison of first graders’ read-
disabled readers in learning to read words by sight. Reading and Writ- ing with little books or literature-based basal anthologies. Reading
ing: An Interdisciplinary Journal, 7, 295–326. Research Quarterly, 40(1), 12–38.
Foorman, B. R., Francis, D. J., Davidson, K. C., Harm, M. W., & Grif- Meyer, M. S., & Felton, R. H. (1999). Repeated reading to enhance flu-
fin, J. (2004). Variability in text features in six grade 1 basal reading ency: Old approaches and new directions. Annals of Dyslexia, 49,
programs. Scientific Studies of Reading, 8, 167–197. 283–306.
Gickling, E. E., & Armstrong, D. L. (1978). Levels of instructional dif- Meyer, M. S., Wood, F. B., Hart, L. A., & Felton, R. H. (1998). The selec-
ficulty as related to on-task behavior, task completion, and comprehen- tive predictive values in rapid automatized naming within poor readers.
sion. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 11(9), 32–39. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 3, 106–117.
Hiebert, E. H. (2002). Standards, assessment, and text difficulty. In A. National Institute of Child Health and Human Development (NICHD).
E. Farstrup & S. J. Samuels (Eds.), What research has to say about (2000). Report of the National Reading Panel. Teaching children
reading instruction (3rd ed., pp. 337–369). Newark, DE: International to read: An evidence-based assessment of the scientific research
Reading Association. literature on reading and its implications for reading instruction
Hiebert, E. H. (2005). State reform policies and the reading task for first (NIH Publication No. 00-4769). Washington, DC: U.S. Government
graders. Elementary School Journal, 105, 245–266. Printing Office.
Hiebert, E. H. (2008). The (mis)match between texts and students who O’Connor, R. E., Bell, K. M., Harty, K. R., Larkin, L. K., Sackor, S. M., &
depend on schools to become literate. In E. H. Hiebert & M. Sailors Zigmond, N. (2002). Teaching reading to poor readers in the interme-
(Eds.), Finding the right texts for beginning and struggling readers: diate grades: A comparison of text difficulty. Journal of Educational
Research-based solutions (pp. 1–20). New York: Guilford. Psychology, 94(3), 474–485.
Hiebert, E. H., & Fisher, C. W. (2006, July 7). A comparison of two types Perfetti, C. A. (1977). Language comprehension and fast decoding: Some
of text on the fluency of first-grade English language learners. Paper psycholinguistic prerequisites for skilled reading comprehension. In
presented at the annual meeting of the Society for the Scientific Study J. T. Guthrie (Ed.), Cognition, curriculum, and comprehension (pp.
of Reading, Vancouver, BC. 20–41). Newark, DE: International Reading Association.
Hiebert, E. H., & Martin, L. A. (2008). Repetition of words: The forgot- Perie, M., Grigg, W. S., & Donahue, P. L. (2005). The nation’s report
ten variable in texts for beginning and struggling readers. In E. H. card: Fourth-grade reading 2005. Washington, DC: U.S. Department
Hiebert & M. Sailors (Eds.), Finding the right texts for beginning of Education, Institute of Education Sciences.
and struggling readers: Research-based solutions (pp. 1–21). New Rashotte, C. A., & Torgesen, J. K. (1985). Repeated reading and reading
York: Guilford. fluency in learning-disabled children. Reading Research Quarterly,
Hiebert, E. H., Martin, L. A., & Menon, S. (2005). Are there alternatives 20, 180–188.
in reading textbooks? An examination of three beginning reading Samuels, S. J. (1979). The method of repeated readings. The Reading
programs. Reading and Writing Quarterly, 21, 7–32. Teacher, 32, 403–408.
Hoffman, J. V., McCarthey, S. J., Abbott, J., Christian, C., Corman, L., Schatschneider, C., Buck, J., Torgesen, J. K., Wagner, R. K., Hassler, L.,
Curry, C., et al. (1994). So what’s new in the new basals? A focus on Hecht, S., et al. (2004). A multivariate study of factors that contribute
first grade. Journal of Reading Behavior, 26, 47–73. to individual differences in performance on the Florida Comprehensive
Hoffman, J., Roser, N., Patterson, E., Salas, R., & Pennington, J. (2001). Reading Assessment Test. Technical Report # 5, Florida Center for
Text leveling and little books in first-grade reading. Journal of Literacy Reading Research, Tallahassee, FL.
Research, 33, 507–528. Share, D. L. (1995). Phonological recoding and self-teaching: sine qua
Hudson, R. F., Lane, H. B., & Mercer, C. D. (2005). Writing prompts: The non of reading acquisition. Cognition, 55, 151–218.
role of various priming conditions in the compositional fluency of Share, D. L. (2004). Orthographic learning at a glance: On the time course
developing writers. Reading and Writing: An Interdisciplinary Jour- and developmental onset of self-teaching. Journal of Experimental
nal, 18, 473–495. Child Psychology, 87, 267–298.
Jenkins, J. R., Fuchs, L. S., van den Broek, P., Espin, C., & Deno, S. L. Shaywitz, S. E., & Shaywitz, B. A. (2007). What neuroscience really tells
(2003). Sources of individual differences in reading comprehension and us about reading instruction. Educational Leadership, 64(5), 74–76.
reading fluency. Journal of Educational Psychology, 95, 719–729. Sindelar, P. T., Monda, L. E., & O’Shea, L. J. (1990). Effects of repeated
Jenkins, J. R., Peyton, J. A., Sanders, E. A., & Vadasy, P. F. (2004). Ef- readings on instructional-and mastery-level readers. Journal of Edu-
fects of reading decodable texts in supplemental first-grade tutoring. cational Research, 83, 220–226.
Scientific Studies of Reading, 8, 53–85. Snow, C., Griffin, P., & Burns, M. S. (2007). Knowledge to support the
Johnston, F. R. (2000). Word learning in predictable text. Journal of teaching of reading: Preparing teachers for a changing world. San
Educational Psychology, 92(2), 248–255. Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Jorm, A., & Share, D. (1983). Phonological recoding and reading acquisi- Stahl, S. A., & Heubach, K. (2005). Fluency-oriented reading instruction.
tion. Applied Psycholinguistics, 4, 103–147. Journal of Literacy Research, 37, 25–60.
Korhonen, T. T. (1995). The persistence of rapid naming problems in Stanovich, K. E., & West, R. F. (1989). Exposure to print and orthographic
children with reading disablities: A nine-year follow-up. Journal of processing. Reading Research Quarterly, 24, 402–433.
Learning Disabilities, 28(4), 232–239. Swanson, E., Wexler, J., & Vaughn, S. (2009). Text reading and students
Kuhn, M. R., & Stahl, S. A. (2003). Fluency: A review of developmen- with learning disabilities. In E. H.Hiebert (Ed.), Reading more, reading
tal and remedial practices. Journal of Educational Psychology, 95, better (pp. 210–230). New York: Guilford.
3–21. Torgesen, J. K., Alexander, A. W., Wagner, R. K., Rashotte, C. A., Voeller,
Kuhn, M. R., Schwanenflugel, P. J., Morris, R. D., Morrow, L. M., K., Conway, T., & Rose, E. (2001). Intensive remedial instruction for
Woo, D., Meisinger, B., et al. (2006). Teaching children to be- children with severe reading disabilities: Immediate and long-term
come fluent and automatic readers. Journal of Literacy Research outcomes from two instructional approaches. Journal of Learning
38, 357–387. Disabilities, 34, 33–58.
LaBerge, D., & Samuels, S. J. (1974). Toward a theory of automatic infor- Torgesen, J. K., & Hudson, R. F. (2006). Reading fluency: Critical issues
mation processing in reading. Cognitive Psychology, 6, 293–323. for struggling readers. In S. J. Samuels & A. Farstrup (Eds.). What
Lovett, M. W. (1991). Reading, writing, and remediation: perspectives on research has to say about fluency instruction (pp. 130–158). Newark,
the dyslexic learning disability from remedial outcome data. Learning DE: International Reading Association.
and Individual Differences, 3(4), 295–305. Torgesen, J. K., Rashotte, C. A., & Alexander, A. (2001). Principles of
 Instructional Texts and the Fluency of Learning Disabled Readers 67

fluency instruction in reading: Relationships with established empiri- Wolf, M., & Bowers, P. (1999). The “Double-Deficit Hypothesis” for
cal outcomes. In M. Wolf (Ed.), Dyslexia, fluency, and the brain (pp. the developmental dyslexias. Journal of Educational Psychology,
333–356). Parkton, MD: York Press. 91(3), 1–24.
Torgesen, J. K., Rashotte, C., Alexander, A., Alexander, J., & MacPhee, Wolf, M., & Katzir-Cohen, T. (2001). Reading fluency and its intervention.
K. (2003). Progress towards understanding the instructional conditions Scientific Studies of Reading, 5, 211–239.
necessary for remediating reading difficulties in older children. In B. Yang, J. (2006). A meta-analysis of the effects of interventions to increase
Foorman (Ed.), Preventing and remediating reading difficulties: Bring- reading fluency among elementary school students. Unpublished doc-
ing science to scale (pp. 275–298). Baltimore, MD: York Press. toral dissertation, Vanderbilt University, Nashville, TN.
Torgesen, J. K., Wagner, R. K., & Rashotte, C. A. (1999). Test of word Young, A., & Bowers, P. (1995). Individual differences and text difficulty
reading efficiency. Austin, TX: PRO-ED. determinants of reading fluency and expressiveness. Journal of Ex-
Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). Mind in society: The development of higher psy- perimental Child Psychology, 60, 428–454.
chological processes. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Young, A., Bowers, P., & MacKinnon, G. (1996). Effects of prosodic
Wolf, M. (1999). What time may tell: Towards a new conceptualization of modeling and repeated reading on poor readers’ fluency and compre-
developmental dyslexia. Annals of Dyslexia, 49, 3–28. hension. Applied Psycholinguistics, 17, 59–84.
Wolf, M., Bally, H., & Morris, R. (1986). Automaticity, retrieval processes, Ziegler, J. C., & Goswami, U. (2005). Reading acquisition, developmental
and reading: A longitudinal study in average and impaired readers. dyslexia, and skilled reading across languages: A psycholinguistic
Child Development, 57, 988–1000. grain size theory. Psychological Bulletin, 131(1), 3–29.
 7
Teacher Education and Reading Disabilities
SUSAN M. BENNER, SHERRY MEE BELL, AND AMY D. BROEMMEL
University of Tennessee

Introduction Beliefs Underlying Common Instructional

Approaches
Many types of teachers and specialists have instructional
responsibilities for students with reading disabilities. What is the source of a reading disability? Do reading dis-
The standards set for the preparation of different types abilities really exist, or do some children just need more
of teachers have distinctions separating them from one time and attention than others while learning to read?
another. Teacher preparation paths may even conflict with Does a child who is struggling to learn to read need better
one another for those preparing to work with students who instruction, more instruction, or different instruction? Does
have reading disabilities. Nonetheless, the preparation of a child’s struggle to read ever become severe enough to be
all teachers should be centered on three primary concerns: considered a disability? These questions set the stage for
what kinds of knowledge, what skills, and what profes- the differing beliefs held and interpretations of research
sional commitments are needed to be effective (Bransford, findings by educators.
Darling-Hammond, & LePage, 2005). For preparation of While there is not an extensive line of research regarding
teachers who instruct children with reading disabilities, how teacher education programs influence teacher beliefs
these three concerns vary depending upon who is doing about reading disabilities, what is available is informative.
the preparation and his or her understanding of the needs Mallette, Kile, Smith, McKinney, and Readence (2000)
of children experiencing difficulty in learning to read. conducted case studies of six elementary education pre-
In classrooms today inclusion of students with disabili- service teachers and found that stances each took toward
ties is a common practice. Teachers from general education, reading difficulties predisposed them to construct reading
reading education, and special education find themselves difficulties in different ways even though these preservice
working beside one another with the same children. In the teachers were initially unaware of their stances.
past, classroom teachers have reported that their educa- Bondy (1990) reported that children’s responses when
tion prepared them to teach the average student, not those asked why people read matched the instructional approaches
with special needs (Lewis et al., 1999). There has been an used by their teacher for reading instruction. Children identi-
increasing push to advance the achievement level of poorly fied as having low reading ability indicated that reading was
performing students to a minimally acceptable level, so about word calling and associated reading with school work.
greater attention is now being given to working with stu- For these children, reading was not related to pleasure. Chil-
dents at the lower end of the achievement scale. Multitiered dren considered high ability readers indicated that reading
models of reading intervention mandated in Reading First, was about making meaning from what is read. Reading could
a federal reading initiative launched in the early 2000s, are be social, something one could enjoy with a friend. Preservice
gaining prominence in the form of Response to Intervention teachers hold beliefs about reading based upon their own life
(RTI) as a result of the Individuals with Disabilities Edu- experiences with reading. Such beliefs then influence their
cation Improvement Act of 2004 (IDEA 2004). Although behaviors in the classroom. However, as McMahon (1996)
teacher preparation for RTI is too new to have a depth of found, given support, preservice teachers can deepen their
research related specifically to its efficacy, we do explore understanding of the meaning of reading difficulties.
collaborative models of teacher preparation, which have The reading research is characterized by a belief that, in
been in place much longer. general, teachers can be successful with the vast majority

68
 Teacher Education and Reading Disabilities 69

of students if they simply pay attention to student needs abilities and academic skills. Further, Shaywitz (2003) as-
(Allington & Walmsley, 1995). Snow, Burns, and Griffin serted that dyslexia, a reading disability characterized by
(1998) indicated that it is commonly accepted that most differences in brain functioning related to phonological and
students who struggle with reading do not need significantly rapid naming deficits, is the most common of all learning
different instruction. In fact, Spear-Swerling and Sternberg disabilities.
(1996) went so far as to state that, “there is currently little Despite special education’s adherence to a within-the-
educational basis for differentiating school-labeled stu- child model, increasingly, inclusive education is the pre-
dents with Reading Disability (RD) from other kinds of ferred approach for teaching students with mild disabilities.
poor readers” (p. 4). As such, it is understandable that the Research that questions the efficacy of pull-out programs
standards set forth by the International Reading Association (e.g., McGill-Franzen, 1987; Vaughn, Moody, & Schumm,
(IRA) focus on teachers’ knowledge and understanding of 1998; Walmsley & Allington, 1995), poor performance of
a wide range of teaching strategies rather than specialized students with disabilities on group achievement tests, and
instructional techniques. rising costs of special education services, have combined
Students in the lower grades spend considerable time to create an impetus toward inclusion.
learning to read. Students in the middle grades are expected
to be able to read to learn (Chall, 1996). English, a phoneti-
Standards, Content, and Courses
cally and orthographically complex language, is challenging
and takes most students several years to master sufficiently What does effective teacher preparation look like for teach-
to read independently for meaning. Students with reading ers of students with reading disabilities? What content is the
disabilities tend to struggle learning to read after they are right content to prepare such teachers? What should be the
expected to be able to read to learn (Mastropieri, Scruggs, nature of preservice clinical experiences? What should be
& Graetz, 2003; McCray, Vaughn, & Neal, 2001). the relationship between local models of intervention and
Teacher preparation for middle and secondary grades program adoptions and teacher preparation?
has a much stronger emphasis on content and content The work of the Teacher Education Subgroup of the
teaching than elementary preparation (Floden & Meniketti, National Reading Panel as reported by the National Insti-
2005; Vacca, 2002). Struggling readers at this level might tute for Child Health and Human Development (NICHD)
receive additional reading instruction though a remedial (2000), indicated that there has been little systematic re-
reading class or from a special education resource teacher, search to determine the most effective methods and content
but the bulk of their academic content instruction comes to prepare teachers for reading, much less interventions
from content-prepared teachers who have typically taken for struggling readers. However, they did note that we are
one course in teaching reading in the content fields and one beginning to have research that can document efficacy of
introductory special education course (Bean, 2000; Blanton teacher education.
& Pugach, 2007). In her review of research on pedagogical approaches
The role of reading specialists as teacher leaders seems used in teacher education, Grossman (2005) emphasized
to be taking hold as many report doing more than just teach- the strong connection between the field of teacher educa-
ing. In one survey, over 90% of reading specialists indicated tion and the approaches used to prepare future teachers.
that they were involved with both instructing students and She reviewed a wide array of research on pedagogical
serving as a resource to teachers (Bean, Cassidy, Grumet, approaches ranging from case-based instruction, action
Shelton, & Wallis, 2002). There appears to be agreement research, portfolios, to inquiry. Clift and Brady (2005)
that they must be both expert classroom teachers who can identified 24 research studies focused on methods courses
identify and implement the instruction needed by individual and field experiences related to English, which included
children and effectively communicate with classroom teach- reading education. Of these, five studies were related to
ers (Dole, 2004). reading education; two particularly focused on reading
Though the field of special education has generally em- education for struggling readers. Bowman and McCormick
braced efforts toward collaboration with general education, (2000) compared the effects of peer coaching to a traditional
teacher preparation remains grounded in a within-the-child model of supervision for reading education. Under the peer
orientation. Of the 13 disability categories identified in coaching model, preservice teachers were placed together in
IDEA, the learning disability (LD) category is arguably the same classrooms for a field experience. They observed
the most controversial. Some critics contend that LD is and provided feedback to one another. They found the peer
a social construct (Dudley-Marling, 2004; Skrtic, 2005). coaching approach to supervision resulted in significantly
Nonetheless, the Learning Disabilities Roundtable, con- increased use of clarity skills (e.g., stating objectives, using
vened in 2002 and 2004, comprised of representatives from examples, repeating items, and practice time), improved
14 professional associations including IRA, International pedagogical reasoning and action, and expression of more
Dyslexia Association (IDA), and several divisions of Coun- positive attitudes about the field experience.
cil for Exceptional Children (CEC), concluded that there Effective reading instruction depends upon the content
is strong converging evidence that LD is a valid construct, knowledge held by teachers and the opportunities they have
characterized by intra-individual variability in cognitive to work in the field, making decisions about instruction,
70 Susan M. Benner, Sherry Mee Bell, and Amy D. Broemmel

interacting with others and reflecting on the efficacy of organizations including the Division for Early Childhood/
instruction (Swalord, Chapman, Rhodes, & Kullis, 1996). Council for Exceptional Children (DEC/CEC). It included
Through the combination of content knowledge and re- research and recommended practices for use in classrooms,
flective practice, preservice teachers actively participate as well as suggested policies to shape programs and schools.
in building their knowledge and the skills needed to work Shortly thereafter, NAEYC’s (2001) revised standards for
effectively with children learning to read (Roehler, Duffy, initial licensure programs included changes in general stan-
Herrmann, Conley & Johnson, 1988). The importance of dards for teacher education with an impetus for enhanced
having interactions with children to build teacher self- emphasis on subject matter with specific expectations
confidence in their ability to teach a child to read was regarding language and literacy. NAEYC again reached
evident in the research on preservice elementary education across professional organization borders by supporting a
students’ attitudes after completion of a reading education DEC/CEC (2007) position paper incorporating preparation
course (Commeyras, Reinking, Heubach, & Pagnucco, for work with special needs children for early childhood
1993). With a balance of instruction, tutoring opportunities, teacher preparation.
and interactive activities, preservice teachers in a diagnosis IRA (2004), too, has created performance-based Stan-
of a reading problems course grew from relying primarily dards for Reading Professionals, which is organized into
on subjective knowledge to procedural knowledge that re- five categories. IRA recommends that classroom teachers
quired integration and application of their learning (Roskos in grades PreK-5 have a minimum of 12 hours of course-
& Walker, 1994). Without guidance from a strong master work in reading and reading instruction. Through research
teacher, well-intentioned preservice teachers who express supported by IRA, Harmon et al. (2001) identified eight
a commitment to using a rich variety of teaching materials features shared by excellent reading teacher preparation
and instructional strategies grew more and more dependent programs. From those eight, IRA developed six standards
upon the basal reading program that was available to them and associated rubrics for evaluating teacher education
during a student teaching experience. Their limited confi- programs. One standard focuses on diversity, indicating
dence level played a key role in their behavior. the importance of preparing teachers to work effectively
The Holmes Group (1995) reported that evidence was with students from diverse backgrounds; however, the
clear that good teachers were at the heart of good schools. only mention of preparation for working with students of
The members of this group understood the close link be- varied ability levels falls under the standard related to field
tween teacher preparation and the schooling of PreK–12 experiences (IRA, n.d.).
students, emphasizing the futility of attempting to make Authors of the IRA (2000) position statement, Excel-
isolated reforms. They argued the importance of teaching lent Reading Teachers specify six qualities of excellent
being “regarded as intellectually challenging work and classroom reading teachers: (a) they understand reading
that prospective and practicing teachers should be people and writing development and believe all children can read
capable of making informed professional judgments” (p. and write; (b) they continually assess children’s individual
21). It is the combination of a teacher’s knowledge of her progress and relate reading instruction to children’s previous
subject and her students that she then integrates into the experiences; (c) they know a variety of ways to teach reading,
act of teaching. when to use each method, and how to combine the methods
into an effective instructional program; (d) they offer a va-
Early Childhood and Elementary The Association for riety of materials and texts for children to read; (e) they use
Childhood Education International (ACEI) has established flexible grouping strategies to tailor instruction to individual
standards developed in conjunction with the National students; and (f) they are good reading coaches.
Council for Accreditation of Teacher Education (NCATE) Austin and Morrison (1961) offered the first systematic
to identify what elementary teachers should know upon documentation of preservice preparation for the teaching of
completion of their initial licensure program. Of the seven reading in the United States; 15 years later, their follow up
curriculum-related standards, one is dedicated to reading, research indicated that most of their 22 original recommen-
writing, and oral language, and contains seven elements, dations had been implemented (Morrison & Austin, 1977).
one of which relates specifically to supporting language Three hours of coursework in reading appeared to be stan-
development and reading acquisition in diverse popula- dard at that point. Almost 10 years later, Flippo and Hayes
tions. Under the category of instruction, the ACEI (2006) (1985–86) found that 24 states required two reading-related
standards specifically address adapting to meet the needs of courses for elementary certification. Not until nearly 20 years
diverse learners. Supporting materials detail expectations later, when Hoffman & Roller (2001) surveyed over 900
associated with understanding varied learning styles, seek- reading teacher educators from across the United States, did
ing assistance from specialists, and planning appropriate any other researchers attempt to characterize the practices in
instructional tasks. reading teacher preparation. Hoffman’s and Roller’s results
In 1998, IRA and the National Association for the indicated that the mean number of required semester hours
Education of Young Children (NAEYC) issued a posi- of reading courses was 6.36, a substantial increase. Sixty-
tion statement on developmentally appropriate teaching one percent of respondents indicated that reading courses
practices for young children, which was endorsed by other had an accompanying field experience. Over 40% reported
 Teacher Education and Reading Disabilities 71

offering reading specializations requiring an average of 16 Reading Specialists In the 1960s many reading special-
undergraduate hours of reading coursework. ists were hired as “remedial reading teachers” to work with
Hoffman and Roller (2001) found that approximately struggling students (Bean, Swan, & Knaub, 2003). The call
three-quarters of respondents who taught introductory for such specialists was renewed with the publication of
reading methods courses used a basic methods textbook for Preventing Reading Difficulties in Young Children (Snow
the course. Respondents also indicated that their programs et al., 1998). The role of the reading specialist has grown
were meeting or exceeding standards for all content areas from one in which the focus was working with struggling
but one: the structure of the English language. That area students, supplementing or supplanting the work of the
was also the only one not rated in the “very important” or classroom teacher to a multifaceted one in which the spe-
“essential” range. However, Spear-Swerling and Brucker cialist works collaboratively to support and extend the work
(2006) argued that it is important for teacher preparation of the classroom teacher in a variety of ways (Jaeger, 1996;
programs to provide future teachers with knowledge of Bean et al., 2003; Dole, 2004).
word structure. Harmon et al. (2001) further examined eight Requirements for obtaining a reading specialist creden-
excellent reading teacher preparation programs and found tial are set at the state level then translated into practice by
eight common features, one of which identified specific individual institutions offering the coursework, resulting
content-related features including: foundation in research in little consistency from state to state. The influence of
and theory, word-level instructional strategies, text-level NCLB, particularly the pressures associated with increas-
comprehension strategies, reading-writing connections, ing test scores, has affected the goal of literacy coaches;
instructional approaches and materials, and assessment. the associated Reading First grants often provided states
with money to pay reading coaches to train teachers to
Middle and Secondary Grades Though secondary teach- prepare students for testing (Shaw, 2007). However, IRA
ers have a long tradition of content area specialization, and NCATE have collaborated to establish expectations for
middle grades education has evolved more recently and graduate programs preparing students for specialized roles
is defined differently in different states (National Middle in reading education that go beyond basic test-preparation
School Association, 1996). Further, many states historically training. In order to be identified as a recognized program
granted licenses for grades K–8 or 1–8. Consequently, the it must include a minimum of 24 graduate credit hours in
additional requirement of content area competence for sev- reading, language arts, and related areas, plus a 6-hour
enth- and eighth-grade teachers has presented challenges supervised practicum, for a total of no less than 30 credit
to middle school teachers and administrators. hours. The program must meet all five IRA standards, and
Professional organizations develop standards appropriate at least 15 of 19 of the reading specialist elements.
to their specific content area. In the case of reading, English,
and language arts, the National Council for Teachers of Special Education The CEC developed standards for
English (NCTE) and IRA (NCTE and IRA, n.d.) devel- teachers of students with learning disabilities, early child-
oped joint standards to guide curriculum development. The hood students, and other specific disability categories. In ad-
IRA also has standards that include teachers at the middle dition to instructional planning, strategies, and assessment,
and high school levels. IRA’s standards target five areas CEC standards address historical, legal, and philosophical
(foundations, instruction, assessment, environment, and foundations, development and characteristics of learners
professional development). A minimum of 6 credit-hours with disabilities, individual learning differences, learning
in reading and reading instruction is recommended (IRA, environments and social interactions, language, professional
1996–2008). and ethical practice, and collaboration.
Although many adolescents have difficulty reading grade There is scant research on special education teacher
level materials (Hargis, 2006), most middle and secondary preparation (Brownell, Ross, Colón, & McCallum, 2005).
teachers’ preparation focuses on skills and knowledge in Sands, Duffield, and Parsons (2006) noted that some univer-
their particular content area(s) and pedagogy. If a reading sities are approaching the need to prepare future teachers to
course is included in the curriculum, it tends to focus on meet a diverse range of needs through curriculum infusion.
teaching students to read in the content areas (Dynak & That is, special education content is infused into the entire
Smith, 1994). Preservice teachers assume that their stu- teacher preparation program as opposed to stand-alone
dents have already obtained basic reading skills (Ratekin, courses (e.g., Lesar, Benner, Habel, & Coleman, 1997).
Simpson, Alvermann, & Dishner, 1985; Stewart & O’Brien, Blanton and Pugach (2007) described three teacher
1989). Bintz (1998) described the “reading nightmares” of education approaches: (a) discrete, in which there is little
131 middle and secondary teachers who found themselves or no coordination between special and general education
unprepared to assist struggling readers in their content preparation; no expectation for faculty collaboration; dis-
area classes. Despite recognition by experts that reading parate assessments of candidates; dichotomous training that
instruction is critical into the upper grades for students with does not prepare them to collaborate as teachers; licensure
reading disabilities (Manset-Williamson & Nelson, 2005), in both areas essentially requires meeting requirements
most teacher education programs do not emphasize reading of two separate programs; (b) integrated, in which there
instruction at this level. is intentional curriculum overlap; faculty participate in
72 Susan M. Benner, Sherry Mee Bell, and Amy D. Broemmel

ongoing collaboration to deliver an integrated curriculum; The need to prepare future educators to teach students of
assessments are coordinated and aligned; candidates are varying levels of reading achievement appears quite often in
prepared to collaborate; and licensure in special educa- the literature (Allington, 1997; Allington & McGill-Fran-
tion license builds on the base of the general education zen, 1989; O’Sullivan, Ysseldyke, Christenson, & Thurlow,
license; and (c) merged, in which an integrated curriculum 1990). However, instructional needs cannot be determined
is the same for general and special education. In merged based solely on categories or labels, such as “learning
programs, all faculty contribute to the curriculum; program disabled,” “dyslexic,” or “struggling reader” (Allington,
faculty collaborate on routinely and intensively; assess- 2002b; Allington & McGill-Franzen, 1989; McGill-Franzen
ment reflects shared goals, graduates are prepared to share 1987; Spear-Swerling & Sternberg, 1996). Consequently,
roles as teachers; and candidates typically earn licenses in it is generally accepted that well-prepared teachers need
both general and special education. According to Blanton to learn how to identify students’ reading problems and
and Pugach (2007), merged programs are not necessarily generate possible solutions to them based on individual
superior to integrated programs but discrete programs are child characteristics. The consistent focus on meeting the
not considered adequate. needs of individual students espoused by reading research-
ers, then, fits well within the renewed emphasis on multi-
tiered instruction as a result of RTI. Exemplary classroom
Collaborative Teacher Education Models
teachers can reduce the number of children with reading
The increased attention on the performance of students with difficulties in their classes (Allington & Baker, 1999), but
disabilities on high-stakes tests as well as their graduation such instruction requires a solid understanding of varied
rates, combined with the philosophical preference for inclu- assessment and instructional strategies. The IRA (2007)
sion models prevalent in the field of special education has identified six content-related elements of effective reading
increased the availability of collaborative service delivery teacher education programs and suggested that packaging
models in PreK–12 schools. Concurrently, teacher prepara- the pieces of knowledge together in broad principles, like
tion programs have put an emphasis on preparing teachers assessment-driven instruction and responsive and adaptive
to collaborate. In this section we present material in three teaching, principles that are revisited in multiple courses
sections: teacher education for multitiered instruction and and contexts, will solidify the connections between such
RTI, teacher education for co-teaching, and curriculum and knowledge and classroom practice.
instructional development in pull-out programs. Some have suggested more should be done to prepare
teachers specifically for meeting the needs of struggling
Teacher Education for Multitiered Instruction and readers. Duffy and Atkinson (2001) found that despite a
RTI What criteria should determine when a child receives course focused explicitly on effective practices and prin-
additional reading instruction and what should the nature of ciples of reading instruction, most preservice teachers did
such instruction be? Who should provide reading instruction not feel prepared to teach struggling readers. In a study
for these students? of primary level preservice and inservice teachers, Bos,
Mather, Dickson, Podhajski, and Chard (2001) found that
General education. There is some confusion sur- these educators did not demonstrate deep knowledge of
rounding how teachers feel about their preparation for phonological awareness or the terminology associated with
teaching students with special needs. Citing Taylor and language structure and phonics. Moats (1999), too, argued
Sobel, Blanton and Pugach (2007) noted that general edu- that teachers have been consistently unprepared to teach
cation preservice students anticipate working with children the complex process of reading.
who have disabilities and are concerned about their depth Banks et al. (2005) indicated that all teachers need to
of preparation. Citing Cook, they noted that preservice establish classroom environments that are not only ac-
teachers feel more prepared to work with students with cepting of differences, but are also supportive of children.
learning disabilities than with other disabilities. However, They questioned the deficit orientation toward diagnosis
Lewis, Parsad, Carey, Bartfai, Farris, and Smerdon (1999) of disabilities and stressed educational experiences that
indicated that while 71% of teachers teach students with allow students to build on strengths to expand learning,
disabilities, only 21% report feeling well-prepared to do indicating that strategic instruction does impact student
so. Snow, Griffin, and Burns (2005) supported this concern achievement. While there is agreement in what effective
in acknowledging that some developmental challenges elementary teachers should be able to do in terms of meeting
do exceed the knowledge base of the average classroom the needs of diverse learners, controversy lingers about how
teacher, including those with experience. Like others (e.g., to accomplish this task most effectively within preservice
Allington & Baker, 1999; Allington & Johnston, 1989; Al- teacher education.
lington & Walmsley, 1995; Banks, et al., 2005) Snow and
colleagues emphasized the importance of collaboration with Special education. Since the passage of IDEA 2004,
other specialized school personnel; however, they added all special education textbooks, both introductory texts de-
teachers need a basic knowledge base about special needs signed for all educators (e.g., Turnbull, Turnbull, & We-
of some students related to reading instruction. hmeyer, 2007; Vaughn, Bos, & Schumm, 2007) and texts
 Teacher Education and Reading Disabilities 73

designed for special education majors (e.g., Bos & Vaughn, models of co-teaching. For example, Vaughn, Schumm, and
2006; Lerner, 2006) explicitly address RTI as both a model Arguelles (1997) identified four models: (a) one group—one
of instruction and a means of identifying LD. In addition, lead teacher in which one teacher provides whole group
books solely focused on RTI are now in publication (e.g., instruction while a second teacher provides short, targeted
Bender & Shores, 2007; Haager, Klingner, & Vaughn, lessons to one or more students during or after the whole
2007). Multitiered instruction typically includes three or group lesson; (b) two mixed-ability groups—two teachers
four levels, with the first tier delivered by the classroom teaching the same content, which allows teachers to gauge
teacher and the second one delivered either by the classroom student understanding and engagement and may be used
teacher or others, ranging from reading specialists to para- as a follow up to a; (c) two same-ability groups—teachers
professionals. Most models do not suggest that the second teach different content, which allows teachers to differen-
tier be delivered by special educators. In many models, the tiate instruction based on skill levels of the students; and
third tier is special education and may be delivered either (d) whole class—two teachers teach together in which
via inclusion or pull-out services. both teachers cooperate to deliver instruction. The general
educator may focus on content while the special educator
Teacher Preparation for Co-Teaching The increased focuses on strategies.
impetus for including students with disabilities in general Positive benefits of co-teaching may include improved
education classrooms heightens the need for effective col- social skills and academic gains of students with disabilities
laboration among professionals responsible for educating and, for teachers, professional growth, satisfaction, and
these students. Blanton and Pugach (2007) note that the support (Walther-Thomas, 1997). However, Murawski
need for collaboration is a critical component of educa- and Swanson (2001), based on a review of research on
tional services to insure full educational opportunities for co-teaching, concluded that there were strong positive ef-
students with disabilities. Though current texts on special fects on language arts skills, moderate positive effects for
education invariably contain material on models of service mathematics, and no significant effects on social skills. In
delivery, including collaborative, co-teaching and pull-out some studies, special educators have indicated they feel
approaches, these topics are less likely to be addressed in subordinate to the general educator in the co-teaching model
reading/literacy texts. Following is a brief description of (Salend, Gordon, & Lopez-Vona, 2002; Trent, 1998). Salend
the most common instructional models for meeting needs and colleagues (2002) reported that time for planning is
of students with reading and other disabilities. essential to effective co-teaching. To further increase the
chance for success, roles and approaches should be mutually
Collaboration-consultation. According to Bryant, defined by the general and special educator, instructional
Smith, and Bryant (2008), in the collaboration-consultation philosophies compared, expectations discussed, and stu-
model, the general education teacher delivers instruction dents told how instruction and discipline will be addressed
with ongoing support from the special educator. Both are in- (Salend, Gordon, & Lopez-Vona, 2002).
volved in development of lessons and assessments. Schloss,
Smith, and Schloss (2001) identified several advantages of Curriculum and Instructional Development in Pull-Out
this approach for secondary teachers, including reduced Programs For over three decades, the resource room has
stigma for special education students, mutual professional been the most common site for special education service
growth opportunities, and benefits for students who are not delivery for students with LD (Schloss et al., 2001). Though
eligible for special education. Schloss and colleagues noted criticized for failure to deliver on the promise to raise
that true collaboration requires willing participants and that student achievement (Moody, Vaughn, Hughes, & Fischer,
may be a challenge for general and special educators who 2000; Vaughn et al., 1998; Walmsley & Allington, 1995),
have previously taught in separate settings. Idol, Nevin, service delivery in the resource room is still widespread.
and Paolucci-Whitcomb (1994) identified six stages of the Some advantages of resource room placement were noted
collaboration-consultation process: (a) establishing team by Schloss et al. (2001). Resource services allow for stu-
goals; (b) problem identification, based on assessment data; dents with identified disabilities to receive more intensive
(c) intervention recommendations; (d) implementation of services than in the general education classroom while
recommendations; (e) monitoring progress; and (e) follow allowing these same students to remain in classes with
up. Though these recommendations predate RTI’s inclu- nondisabled peers for most of the school day. Further, the
sion in special education law, they are consistent with the special education teacher can provide collaborative support
progress monitoring component of the RTI and multitiered for the general educators with whom these students do have
instructional models. classes. However, several researchers have concluded that
the amount and quality of reading instruction in resource
Co-teaching. Co-teaching involves two teachers rooms is inadequate for many of the students they serve
directly engaged in delivering instruction to a group of (Moody et al., 2000; Vaughn et al., 1998; Walmsley &
students. Successful inclusion is predicated on successful Allington, 1995). Large heterogeneous classes, lack of
co-teaching by the general educator and the special educa- coordination with general education class instruction,
tor. Several researchers have defined and evaluated different massive amounts of paperwork, and limited professional
74 Susan M. Benner, Sherry Mee Bell, and Amy D. Broemmel

development contribute to the lack of effectiveness of some has served as a formal network for such programs. Prior to
pull-out programs. Moody and colleagues concluded that enactment of SBRR-infused legislation, restrictive views of
students in the resource room were not receiving intensive reading research attached to SBRR were being questioned
instruction but also questioned the effectiveness of instruc- (Taylor, 1998). After passage of the Reading Education
tion solely through inclusion. They called for a restructuring Act, others critiqued the SBRR movement and its potential
of the resource room to allow more individualized, intensive encroachment into higher education (e.g., Allington, 2002a;
instruction. The current popularity of RTI is a response in Coles, 2003).
part to perceived lack of effectiveness of traditional special While university-based teacher education programs
education and presents a unique opportunity for collabora- contend with debates about SBRR and an array of accredi-
tion of general educators, special educators, reading special- tation requirements, federal policy has expanded alternative
ists, and other school professionals. routes for persons to become credentialed teachers without
passage through traditional programs (U. S. Department of
Controversies and Critique of Teacher Education for Education, 2004). In particular, three alternative programs
Reading Disabilities The “ownership” of reading dis- have been supported: Troops to Teachers, Transition to
abilities has been contentious at times, as reading educators Teaching, and Teach for America. Concurrently, states
historically placed an emphasis on working with students have been given increasing flexibility over approval of
struggling to read largely due to economic factors while alternative programs. Prospective teachers may bypass
special educators developed services for students with teacher education, receiving much of their instruction from
learning disabilities, which conceptually excludes children publishing companies hired by school districts that have
whose problems in reading are due to environmental fac- purchased their products and other for-profit professional
tors associated with poverty (Allington, 2002b; Klenk & development agencies.
Kibby, 2000; McGill-Franzen, 1987). The LD category, As critics of existing teacher education programs, Lyon
which is predominately comprised of students with difficul- and Fletcher (2001) pronounced that teacher education
ties in reading, expanded exponentially immediately after has often been the cause of reading failure. One of their
its creation in the 1970s through the 1980s. Many federal primary recommendations to prevent reading disabilities
dollars followed students away from remedial reading pro- was to rest no hope in the reformation of existing teacher
grams into special education. Teacher preparation, likewise, education programs. Rather, they considered the answer
splintered between the two fields. Terms, such as remedial to the prevention of reading failure to lie in the develop-
reading, dyslexia, reading disabilities, and learning dis- ment of alternative licensure and specialized professional
abilities, take on so many different meanings that they can development of teachers in the area of reading as delivered
inhibit communication rather than advancing it. in concert with Reading First programs funded through the
Federal policy drove and followed the reconceptualiza- federal Reading Excellence Act.
tion of difficulties in reading as being derived from external The efficacy of such independent training is subject to
forces (e.g., poverty) to internal differences within the child, great variability and well beyond the scope of this chapter.
who was then labeled as disabled. Although Title I programs However, quality, efficacy, and content of teacher prepara-
continued to receive substantial funding, much of the fund- tion programs have been and continue to be challenged (e.g.,
ing for remedial reading programs shifted away from Title I Kanstoroom & Finn, 1999; Walsh, Glaser, & Wilcox, 2006;
to special education. Since remedial reading programs were Levine, 2006). The quality of the critics’ work has, in turn,
an option and special education services became mandatory been the target of critique (e.g., Allington, 2007).
for all students who met eligibility criteria (McGill-Franzen As a part of their work, the National Reading Panel
& Goatley, 2001), educational administrators had to channel (NRP) formed a subgroup charged with review of scien-
funds to serve any student identified with a learning dis- tifically based research on teacher education and reading.
ability, but could maintain waiting lists for those considered (NICHD, 2000). In their work analyzing and synthesizing
in need of remedial reading. teacher education reading research, they focused exclusively
Education and teacher education have become highly on experimental research in which teacher behavior or
political fields, with many arguing on behalf of teacher knowledge was the focus of the study. While the database
preparation directly matched to programs that qualify as upon which they drew their conclusions was sparse, the
grounded in scientifically-based reading research (SBRR) NRP subgroup reached the conclusion that well-designed
per federal policy. For a reading program to be designated teacher education does result in higher student outcomes
SBRR, it has to be proven effective through clinical or em- (NICHD, 2000). They found a consistent trend, where
pirical trials (U. S. Department of Education, 2002). Some data were available, that when teacher change (as a result
in teacher education have been supportive of the concept of preservice or in-service professional development) was
of SBRR and aligned their programs to be consistent with significant so was student achievement. When there were no
the federally funded Reading First initiative (e.g., Hawkins, changes in teacher behavior, there were no gains in student
2006; Hougen, 2006). The National Reading First Higher outcomes. The nature and duration of the inservice training
Education Consortium, based at the Vaughan Gross Center varied so widely across studies that no meaningful conclu-
for Reading and Language Arts at the University of Texas, sions should be drawn from them.
 Teacher Education and Reading Disabilities 75

Conclusions Instruction of students identified with reading disabilities

is the responsibility of classroom teachers, special educa-
Klenk and Kibby (2000), speaking from the orientation of
tors, reading specialists, and other professionals (e.g.,
reading education, characterized the differences in beliefs
speech-language pathologists). Nonetheless, because of
between the various factions who prepare teachers to work
differing standards, professional organizations, theoretical
with struggling readers. They noted that reading educators
and political beliefs, and separate preparation paths, these
generally adhere to the belief that there is no clearly defined
professionals may not be primed to collaborate effectively.
etiology for reading difficulties and identify print-based
It is the challenge of teacher education programs to prepare
reading instruction as the only viable means of correct-
future educators from various fields to communicate and
ing reading problems. In contrast, they note that special
collaborate effectively.
educators view LD and associated reading difficulties as
deriving from perceptual or neurological dysfunction that
requires different types of instruction, including perceptual References
development.
Allington, R. L. (1997). Why does literacy research so often ignore what
Though most special educators would likely endorse really matters? In C. K. Kinzer, K. A. Hinchman, & D. J. Leu (Eds.),
the view that learning disabilities are physiologically based Inquiries in literacy theory and practice (46th yearbook of the Na-
(e.g., dyslexia), it is doubtful that most would endorse tional Reading Conference) (pp 1–12). Chicago: National Reading
the practice of perceptual instruction. Although there are Conference.
differences of opinion regarding the place of perceptual Allington, R. L. (2002a). Big brother and the national reading curriculum:
How ideology trumped evidence. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.
difficulties in the identification of a learning disability,
Allington, R. L. (2002b). Research on reading/learning disability inter-
the mainstream research and recommended interventions ventions. In A. S. Farstrup & S. J. Samuels (Eds.), What research has
prominent in the field of learning disabilities today focus to say about reading instruction (3rd ed., pp 261–290). Newark, DE:
on text-based instruction for reading disabilities rather International Reading Association.
than perceptual activities. While sensorimotor integration Allington, R. L. (2007). What education schools, maybe, aren’t teaching
about reading…: Or maybe not. Journal of Reading Education, 32,
therapy, auditory perception training, and other similar
5–9.
interventions may be part of the comprehensive related Allington, R. L., & Baker, K. (1999). Best practices in literacy instruction
services that children with various types of disabilities for children with special needs. In L. B. Gambrell, L. M. Morrow, S.
receive, such therapies are not typically used by the special B. Neuman, & M. Pressley (Eds.), Best practices in literacy instruction
educator working in a classroom setting with struggling (pp. 292–310). New York: Guilford.
Allington, R. L., & Johnston, P. (1989). Coordination, collaboration, and
readers. According to Zigmond and Baker (1995), the pur-
consistency: The redesign of compensatory and special education
pose of special education is to provide “specific, directed, interventions. In R. E. Slavin, N. L. Karweit, & N. A. Madden (Eds.),
individualized, intensive, remedial instruction” (p. 178). It Effective programs for students at risk (pp. 320–354). Needham
is apparent that the perceptions held by general, reading and Heights, MA: Allyn & Bacon.
special educators about one another are inconsistent with Allington, R. L., & McGill-Franzen, A. (1989). School response to read-
ing failure: Instruction for chapter 1 and special education students in
the beliefs each hold about themselves and others. grades 2, 4, and 8. The Elementary School Journal, 89(5), 529–542.
The research literature available on effective teacher Allington, R. L., & Walmsley, S. A. (Eds.). (1995). No quick fix: Rethink-
preparation recounted throughout this chapter offers a ing literacy programs in America’s elementary schools. Newark, DE:
challenge to the concept of a one-size-fits-all SBRR model International Reading Association.
of teacher preparation. The emphasis found in the research Association for Childhood Education International. (2006). ACEI
Standards. Retrieved April 16, 2008, from http://www.acei.
and professional standards has been on preparing intelligent org/2006StandardsRevision_final.doc.
thoughtful teachers who are capable of collaborating with Austin, M. C., & Morrison, C. (1961). The torch lighters: Tomorrows
one another, reflecting upon their beliefs and integrating teachers of reading. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
knowledge and skills for individual children. Effective edu- Banks, J., Cochran-Smith, M., Moll, L., Richert, A., Zeichner, K., LePage,
cation for struggling readers does not come via a program P., et al. (2005).Teaching diverse learners. In L. Darling-Hammond
&J. Bransford (Eds.) Preparing teachers for a changing world: What
that teachers are asked to implement without deviation or teachers should learn and be able to do (pp. 232–274). San Francisco:
thoughtful consideration of the context and students. Effec- Jossey-Bass.
tive education comes through the development of teachers Bean, R. (2000). Discourse and sociocultural studies in reading. In M. L.
who have content knowledge, pedagogical skills, on-the-spot Kamil, P. B. Mosenthal, P. D. Pearson, & R. Barr (Eds.), Handbook of
decision-making capacity, and high standards for themselves reading research, vol. III (pp. 195–208). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
Bean, R. M., Cassidy, J., Grumet, J. V., Shelton, D., & Wallis, S. R. (2002).
and their students. Teacher education programs that are What do reading specialists do? Results from a national survey. The
effective are based on the premise that graduates become Reading Teacher, 55, 736–744.
increasingly knowledgeable and skilled over time as their Bean, R. M., Swan, A. L., & Knaub, R. (2003). Reading specialists in
own contextualized expertise develops (Bransford, Darling- schools with exemplary reading programs: Functional, versatile, and
Hammond, & LePage, 2005). Effective teachers, especially prepared. The Reading Teacher, 56, 446–455.
Bender, W. N., & Shores, C. (2007). Response to intervention: A practi-
those working with struggling readers, do not simply follow cal guide for every teacher. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press and
the rules set by a publishing company that has added the Council for Exceptional Children.
“scientifically-based” label to its marketing materials. Bintz, W. P. (1998). Exploring reading nightmares of middle and second-
76 Susan M. Benner, Sherry Mee Bell, and Amy D. Broemmel

ary school teachers. Journal of Adolescent and Adult Literacy, 41, education: The report of the AERA Panel on Research and Teacher
12–24. Education (pp. 425–476). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
Blanton, L. P., & Pugach, M. C. (2007). Collaborative programs in general Haager, D., Klingner, J., & Vaughn, S. (Eds.). (2007). Evidence-based prac-
and special teacher education: Action guide for higher education and tices for response to intervention. Baltimore, MD: Paul H. Brookes.
state policy makers. Washington, D C: Council of Chief State School Hargis, C. H. (2006). Setting standards: An exercise in futility? Phi Delta
Officers in partnership with the American Association of Colleges for Kappan, 87(5), 393–395.
Teacher Education Harmon, J., Hedrick, W., Martinez, M., Perez, B., Keehn, S., Fine, J. C.,
Bondy, E. (1990). Seeing it their way: What children’s definitions of et al. (2001). Features of excellence of reading teacher preparation
reading tell us about improving teacher education. Journal of Teacher programs. In J. V. Hoffman, D. L. Schallert, C. M. Fairbanks, J. Worthy,
Education, 41(5), 33–45. & B. Maloch (Eds.), Fiftieth yearbook of the National Reading Confer-
Bos, C., Mather, N., Dickson, S., Podhajski, B., & Chard, D. (2001). Per- ence (pp. 262–274). Chicago: National Reading Conference.
ceptions and knowledge o f preservice and inservice educators about Hawkins, B. (2006). The impact of the Reading First Teacher Education
early reading instruction. Annals of Dyslexia, 51, 97–120. Network on increasing the reading proficiency of American Indian
Bos, C., & Vaughn, S. (2006). Strategies for teaching students with learning children—How a summer reading institute brought together educators,
and behavior problems (6th ed.). Boston: Allyn & Bacon. parents, and a community. Journal of American Indian Education,
Bowman, C., & McCormick, S. (2000). Comparison of peer coaching 45, 72–76.
versus traditional supervision effects. The Journal of Educational Hoffman, J. V., & Roller, C. M. (2001). The IRA excellence in reading
Research, 93, 256–261. teacher preparation commission’s report: Current practices in reading
Bransford, J., Darling-Hammond, L., & LePage, P. (2005). Introduction. teacher education at the undergraduate level in the United States. In C.
In L. Darling-Hammond & J. Bransford (Eds.), Preparing teachers M. Roller (Ed.), Learning to teach reading: Setting the research agenda
for a changing world: What teachers should learn and be able to do (pp. 32–79). Newark, DE: International Reading Association.
(pp. 1- 39). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Holmes Group. (1995). Tomorrow’s schools of education. East Lansing,
Brownell, M. T., Ross, D. D., Colón, E. P., & McCallum, C. L. (2005). MI: The Holmes Group.
Critical features of special education teacher preparation: A compari- Hougen, M. (2006, January 26). The Texas Reading First Higher Educa-
son with general teacher education. The Journal of Special Education, tion Collaborative: Integrating scientifically based reading research
38(4), 242–252. into preservice courses. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the
Bryant, D. P., Smith, D. D., & Bryant, B. R. (2008). Teaching students with American Association of Colleges for Teacher Education. Retrieved
special needs in inclusive classrooms. Boston: Pearson. May 26, 2008, from http://www.allacademic.com/meta/p36132_in-
Chall, J. S. (1996). Stages of reading development (2nd ed.). Fort Worth, dex.html
TX: Harcourt Brace. Idol, L., Nevin, A., & Paolucci-Whitcomb, P. (1994). Collaborative
Clift, R., & Brady, P. (2005). Research on methods courses and field experi- consultation (2nd ed.). Rockville, MD: Aspen Systems.
ences. In M. Cochran-Smith & K. Zeichner (Eds.), Studying teacher Individuals with Disabilities Education Improvement Act of 2004, 20 U. S.
education: The report of the AERA Panel on Research and Teacher C. §§ 1400-1485 (2004 supp. IV), Pub. L. No. 108-446 (2004), 108th
Education (pp. 309–424). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum. Congress, Second Session. Individuals with Disabilities Education
Coles, G. (2003). Reading the naked truth: Literacy, legislation, and lies. Act of 2004 Regulations, 34 C. F. R. § 300.1-.818.
Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann. International Reading Association. (n.d.). Certificate of distinction for the
Commeyras, M., Reinking, D., Heubach, K. M., & Pagnucco, J. (1993). reading preparation of elementary and secondary teachers: Standards
Looking within: A study of an undergraduate reading methods and rubrics. Retrieved April 16, 2008, from http://www.reading.org/
course. In D. J. Leu & C. K. Kinzer, Examining central issues in downloads/resources/quester_application_process.pdf
literacy research, theory, and practice. Forty-second yearbook of International Reading Association. (1996–2008). IRA Style Guide. Stan-
the National Reading Conference (pp. 297–304). Chicago: National dards for reading professionals. Retrieved April 16, 2008, from http://
Reading Conference. www.reading.org/styleguide/standards_reading_profs.html
Division for Early Childhood of the Council for Exceptional Children. International Reading Association. (2000). Excellent reading teachers:
(2007). Promoting positive outcomes for children with disabilities: A position statement of the International Reading Association. Re-
Recommendations for curriculum, assessment, and program evalua- trieved May 27, 2008, from http://reading.org/downloads/positions/
tion. Missoula, MT: Division for Early Childhood. ps1041_excellent.pdf
Dole, J. A. (2004). The changing role of the reading specialist in school International Reading Association. (2004). Standards for reading
reform. The Reading Teacher, 57, 462–471. professionals-revised 2003. Newark, DE: International Reading As-
Dudley-Marling, C. (2004). The social construction of learning disabilities. sociation.
Journal of Learning Disabilities, 37, 482–489. International Reading Association. (2007). Teaching reading well: A
Duffy. A. M., & Atkinson, T. S. (2001). Learning to teach struggling synthesis of the International Reading Association’s research on
(and non-struggling) elementary school readers: An analysis of teacher preparation for reading instruction. Newark, DE: International
preservice teachers’ knowledges. Reading Research and Instruction, Reading Association.
41, 83–102. Jaeger, E. L. (1996). The reading specialist as collaborative consultant.
Dynak, J., & Smith, M. J. (1994). Summarization: Preservice teachers’ The Reading Teacher, 49, 622–629.
abilities and instructional views. In C. K. Kinzer & D. J. Leu (Eds.), Kanstoroom, M., & Finn, C. (Eds.). (1999). Better teachers, better schools.
Multidimensional aspects of literacy research, theory, and practice. Washington, DC: Fordham Foundation.
Forty-third yearbook of the National Reading Conference (pp. Klenk, L., & Kibby, M. W. (2000). Re-Mediating reading difficulties:
387–393). Chicago: National Reading Conference. Appraising the past, reconciling the present, constructing the future.
Flippo, R., & Hayes, D. (1985–1986, Winter). Graduate preparation and In M. L. Kamil, P. B. Mosenthal, P. D. Pearson, & R. Barr (Eds.),
licensure examination for reading specialists. Journal of Reading Handbook of reading research, vol. III (pp. 667–690). Mahwah, NJ:
Education, 11(2), 18–28. Erlbaum.
Floden, R., & Meniketti, M. (2005). Research on the effects of coursework Learning Disabilities Roundtable. (2005). 2004 Learning disabilities
in the arts and sciences and in the foundations of education. In M. roundtable: Comments and recommendations on regulatory issues
Cochran-Smith & K. Zeichner (Eds.), Studying teacher education: under the Individuals with Disabilities Education Improvement Act of
The report of the AERA Panel on Research and Teacher Education 2004 Public Law 108-466. Retrieved December 18, 2006, from http://
(pp. 261–308). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum. www.ncld.org/index.php?option=content&task=view&id=278
Grossman, P. (2005). Research on pedagogical approaches in teacher edu- Lerner, J. (2006). Learning disabilities and related disorders. Character-
cation. In M. Cochran-Smith & K. Zeichner (Eds.), Studying teacher istics and teaching strategies. Boston: Houghton Mifflin.
 Teacher Education and Reading Disabilities 77

Lesar, S., Benner, S. M., Habel, J., & Coleman, L. (1997). Preparing learn during reading instruction in mainstream and special education
general education teachers for inclusive settings: A constructivist settings. Reading Research Quarterly, 25, 131–146.
teacher education program. Teacher Education and Special Educa- Ratekin, N., Simpson, M., Alvermann, D., & Dishner, E. (1985). Why
tion, 20, 203–220. teachers resist content reading instruction. Journal of Reading, 28,
Levine, A. (2006). Educating school teachers. Retrieved May 31, 2007, 432–437.
from http://www.edschools.org/pdf/Educating_Teachers_Report.pdf Roehler, L. R., Duffy, G. D., Herrmann, B. A., Conley, M., & Johnson, J.
Lewis, L., Parsad, N., Carey, N., Bartfai, N., Farris, E., & Smerdon, B. (1988). Knowledge structures as evidence of the &personal’: Bridg-
(1999). Teacher quality: A report on the preparation and qualifica- ing the gap from thought to practice. Journal of Curriculum Studies,
tions of public school teachers. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of 20, 159–165.
Education, National Center for Education Statistics. Roskos, K., & Walker, B. (1994). Preservice teachers’ epistemology in
Lyon, G. R., & Fletcher J. M. (2001). Early warning system: How to the teaching of problem readers. In C. K. Kinzer & D. J. Leu (Eds.),
prevent reading disabilities. Education Matters, 1(2), 23–29. Re- Multidimensional aspects of literacy research, theory, and practice.
trieved May 11, 2008, from http://www.hoover.org/publications/ Forty-third yearbook of the National Reading Conference (pp.
ednext/3389276.html 418–428). Chicago: National Reading Conference.
Mallette, M., Kile, R., Smith, M., McKinney, M., & Readence, J. (2000). Salend, S. J., Gordon, J., & Lopez-Vona, K. (2002). Evaluating cooperative
Constructing meaning about literacy difficulties: Preservice teachers teaching teams. Teaching Exceptional Children, 37, 195–200.
beginning to think about pedagogy. Teaching and Teacher Education, Sands, D. I., Duffield, J. A., & Parsons, B. A. (2006). Evaluating fused
16, 593–612. content in a merged special education and general education teacher
Manset-Williamson, G., & Nelson, J. M. (2005). Balanced strategic read- preparation program. Action in Teacher Education, 28, 92–103.
ing instruction for upper-elementary and middle school students with Schloss, P. J., Smith, M. A., & Schloss, C. N. (2001). Instructional meth-
reading disabilities: A comparative study of two approaches. Learning ods for secondary students with learning and behavior problems (3rd
Disability Quarterly, 28(1), 59–74. ed). Boston: Allyn.
Mastropieri, M. A., Scruggs, T. E., & Graetz, J. E. (2003). Reading compre- Shaw, M. (2007). Preparing reading specialists to be literacy coaches:
hension instruction for secondary students: Challenges for struggling Principles, practices, possibilities. Journal of Language and Literacy
students and teachers. Learning Disability Quarterly, 26, 103–116. Education [Online], 3(1), 6–17. Retrieved from http://coe.uga.edu/
McCray, A. D., Vaughn, S., & Neal, L. I. (2001). Not all students learn to jolle/2007_1/preparing.pdf
ready by third grade: Middle school students speak out about their read- Shaywitz, S. E. (2003). Overcoming dyslexia. A new and complete
ing disabilities. The Journal of Special Education, 35(1), 17–30. science-based program for reading problems at any level. New York:
McGill-Franzen, A. (1987). Failure to learn to read. Formulating a policy Alfred A. Knopf.
problem. Reading Research Quarterly, 22, 475–490. Skrtic, T. (2005). A political economy of learning disabilities. Learning
McGill-Franzen, A., & Goatley, V. (2001). Title I and special education: Disabilities Quarterly, 28, 149–155.
Support for children who struggle to learn to read. In S. Neuman & D. Snow, C. E., Burns, M. S., & Griffin, P. (Eds.). (1998). Preventing reading
Dickinson (Eds.), Handbook of early literacy research (pp. 471–483). difficulties in young children. Washington, DC: National Academy
New York: Guilford. Press.
McMahon, S. I. (1996). Book club: The influence of a Vygotskian per- Snow, C. E., Griffin, P., & Burns, M. S. (Eds.). (2005). Knowledge to
spective on a literature-based reading program. In L. Dixon-Krauss support the teaching of reading: Preparing teacher for a changing
(Ed.), Vygotsky in the classroom: Mediated literacy assessment and world. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
instruction (pp. 59–75). White Plains, NY: Longman. Spear-Swerling, L., & Brucker, P. (2006). Teacher-education students’
Moats, L. C. (1999). Teaching reading IS rocket science: What expert reading abilities and their knowledge about word structure. Teacher
teachers of reading should know and be able to do. Washington, DC: Education and Special Education, 29, 116–126.
American Federation of Teachers. (Item No. 372). Spear-Swerling, L., & Sternberg, R. (1996). Off track: When poor readers
Moody, S. W., Vaughn, S., Hughes, M. T., & Fischer, M. (2000). Read- become “learning disabled.” New York: Westview.
ing instruction in the resource room. Set up for failure. Exceptional Stewart, R., & O’Brien, D. (1989). Resistance to content area reading: A
Children, 66, 305–316. focus on preservice teachers. Journal of Reading, 32, 396–401.
Morrison, C., & Austin, M. C. (1977). The torch lighters revisited. Newark, Swalord, J., Chapman, V., Rhodes, R., & Kullis, M. (1996). A literate
DE: International Reading Association. analysis of trends in literacy education. In D. J. Leu, C. K. Kinzer, &
Murawski, W. W., & Swanson, H. L., (2001). A meta-analysis of co- K. A. Hinchman (Eds.), Literacies for the 21st century: Research and
teaching research: Where are the data? Remedial and Special Educa- practice. Forty-fifth yearbook of the National Reading Conference (pp.
tion, 22(5), 258–267. 437–446). Chicago: National Reading Conference.
National Association for the Education of Young Children. (2001). Taylor, D. T. (1998). Beginning to read and the spin doctors of science:
NAEYC standards for early childhood professional preparation: Initial The political campaign to change America’s mind about how children
licensure programs. Retrieved April 16, 2008 from http://naeyc.org/ learn to read. Urbana, IL: National Council of Teachers of English.
faculty/pdf/2001.pdf Trent, S. C. (1998). False starts and other dilemmas of a secondary general
National Council for Teachers of English and International Reading Asso- education collaborative teacher: A case study. Journal of Learning
ciation. (n.d.). Standards for the English Language Arts. Retrieved April Disabilities, 31(5), 503–513.
16, 2008, from http://www.ncte.org/print.asp?id=110846&node=204 Turnbull, A., Turnbull, R., & Wehmeyer, M. L. (2007). Exceptional
National Institute of Child Health and Human Development. (2000). Report lives: Special education in today’s schools. Upper Saddle River, NJ:
of the National Reading Panel. Teaching children to read: An evidence- Pearson.
based assessment of the scientific research literature on reading and its U.S. Department of Education. (2002). Scientifically-based research.
implications for reading instruction. (NIH Publication No. 00-4754). Retrieved May 8, 2008, from http://www.ed.gov/nclb/methods/what-
Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office. works/research/index.html
National Middle School Association. (1996). NMSA research summary: U.S. Department of Education. (2004). The facts about…good teachers.
Middle level licensure. Retrieved April 16, 2008, from http://www. Retrieved May 8, 2008, from http://www.ed.gov/nclb/methods/teach-
nmsa.org/Research/ResearchSummaries/Summary7/tabid/259/ ers/teachers.html
Default.aspx Vacca, R. T. (2002). Making a difference in adolescents’ school lives:
No Child Left Behind Act of 2001, 20 U. S. C. A. §§ 6301 et. seq., Pub. Visible and invisible aspects of content area reading. In A. E. Farstrup
L. No. 107–110, 115 Stat. 1425 (2002). & S. J. Samuels (Eds.), What research has to say about reading in-
O’Sullivan, P. J., Ysseldyke, J. E., Christenson, S. L., & Thurlow, M. struction, 3rd ed. (pp 184–204). Newark, DE: International Reading
L. (1990). Mildly handicapped elementary students’ opportunity to Association.
78 Susan M. Benner, Sherry Mee Bell, and Amy D. Broemmel

Vaughn, S., Bos, C. S., & Schumm, J. S. (2007). Teaching students who & S. A. Walmsley (Eds.), No quick fix: Rethinking literacy programs in
are exceptional, diverse, and at risk in the general education classroom America’s schools (pp. 19–44). New York: Teachers College Press.
(4th ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall. Walsh, K., Glaser, D., & Wilcox, D., (2006). What education schools aren’t
Vaughn, S., Moody, S. W., & Schumm, J. S. (1998). Broken promises: teaching about reading and what elementary teachers aren’t learning.
Reading instruction in the resource room. Exceptional Children, 64, Retrieved May 30, 2006, from http://www.nctq.org/nctq/
211–225. Walther-Thomas, C. (1997). Co-teaching experiences: The benefits and
Vaughn, S., Schumm, J. S., & Arguelles, M. E. (1997). The ABCDEs of problems that teachers report. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 30(4),
co-teaching. Teaching Exceptional Children, 39(2), 4–10. 395–407.
Walmsley, S. A., & Allington, R. L. (1995). Redefining and reforming Zigmond, N., & Baker, J. M. (1995). Concluding comments: Current and
instructional support programs for at-risk students. In R. L. Allington, future practices in inclusive schooling. Journal of Special Education,
29, 245–250.
 8
Neuroscience and Dyslexia
STEVEN L. STRAUSS
Franklin Square Hospital, Baltimore

Reading disabilities are demonstrated by atypical reading rive at meaning. Top-down models emphasize the meanings
behaviors and presumed cognitive irregularities. These ef- readers already bring with them to the task of reading—their
fects could be attributed to a range of factors or conditions, world knowledge and beliefs, their syntactic and semantic
and necessary conditions could likely include multiple fac- competence, even the meanings partially developed from
tors. But in the disabilities literature the cause of reading having read preceding text—and how these meanings func-
disabilities as indicated by these behaviors and cognitive tion as contextual resources to help analyze the incoming
efforts is often localized in the brain. Neuroscience is the visual orthography. Similarly, in psychology, bottom-up
field of study concerned with the structure and function models emphasize how increasingly abstract concepts are
of the human brain, the most complex example of any derived from component elements. Top-down psychologies,
known neurological system. The brain’s tens of billions of by contrast, begin with an impetus for purposeful behavior
nerve cells, or neurons, enable its possessor to think, plan, as an intentional context for making sense of sensory and
listen—and read. When the brain develops improperly, or perceptual patterns, and the elements they comprise. Both
is traumatized or stricken of its oxygen supply, its capacity behaviorism and information-processing cognitive psychol-
to think, plan, listen, and read may be adversely affected. ogy have a bottom-up thrust, with the former attempting
Thus, a fuller understanding of what enables normal read- to explain how stimuli are responded to and the latter how
ing, and how the reading disability literature describes the information is processed. Gestalt psychology and situated
ways this can break down, should include a review of some cognition are examples of top-down psychology.
fundamental concepts from neuroscience. In neuroscience, theories of bottom-up processing have
prevailed historically, but top-down theories are becoming
more widely accepted and studied. Bottom-up models see
Models of Process
the organism as first collecting sensory information through
The complexity and variety of theoretical paradigms about its sense receptors, then relaying this information to the
reading in neuroscience, psychology, and reading research, thalamus, a collection of neurons deep in the brain, then
including research on reading disorders, is surprisingly finally to the higher-level outer cortex for more global analy-
similar. A fundamental dichotomy in all three fields pres- sis. The notion that the cortex is divided into increasingly
ents a theoretical tension between bottom-up and top-down abstract primary, secondary, and tertiary regions reflects
processing. Bottom-up models assume a succession of this bottom-up view (Luria, 1973; Mesulam, 1998). Top-
processes that begin with the smallest elements of signi- down approaches, on the other hand, draw support from
fication (i.e., images, letters, etc.) and work towards their the notion that neural connections begin in the cortex and
accrual and construction into coherent and meaningful track towards deeper brain regions, far outnumbering con-
wholes (comprehension of situations, texts, etc.). Top-down nections originating at the bottom (Hawkins, 2004; Gilbert
models, conversely, presume the importance of prior knowl- & Sigman, 2007; Strauss, Goodman, & Paulson, 2009).
edge structures about coherent wholes (schemas, scripts, These top-down neural tracts may be part of an intentional
gestalts, etc.) for identifying pertinent smaller elements feed-forward system, rather than a feedback system, as has
and matching them to, and possibly adding to, the existing been traditionally assumed.
knowledge base. Although more sophisticated interactive models have
In reading, bottom-up models emphasize the need to been posited of reading, psychological process, and neu-
begin with the orthographic display in order to eventually ar- rological process, the bottom-up/top-down dichotomy is of

79
80 Steven L. Strauss

longer provenance and seems to continue to inform debate involved in individual word recognition. But Adams’ view
regarding policy, as indicated by the requirements of the might need serious revision if advances in neuroscience
Reading First provision of the No Child Left Behind Act of clearly demonstrated that proficient readers do not fixate
2002. Therefore, in this chapter I will review neuroscience on a substantial number of words in the written text display.
research related to dyslexia with a basic overview of brain Indeed, eye movement research has already suggested this
structure and function as portrayed by these two paradig- (Paulson & Goodman, 2008).
matic models. I will begin with a review of bottom-up In reviewing the field of neuroscience and dyslexia,
models of dyslexia, the more widely discussed of the two therefore, it must be kept in mind that every position in
among neuroscientists. This will allow me to tease out the the field of reading research, including reading disability
neurobiological principles underlying bottom-up models of research, has an associated model within psychology, and
dyslexia. I will then review more recent top-down models that every claim about the structure and functioning of the
from neurobiology with an eye towards understanding human brain also entails a position on how mental life is
their relation to top-down views of reading and reading generated. Although it would be scientifically pleasing for
disorders. models of reading, psychology, and neuroscience to all
cohere, it is precisely in their contradictions that questions
are posed and challenges for further research are raised.
The Role of Psychological Models in Neuroscience
Research
Overview of Brain Structure and Function
Psychology is the point of contact between neuroscience
and dyslexia research. Psychological processes are one From the standpoint of both theory and methodology, sci-
of the chief functions of the brain. And reading itself is entific studies of the structure and psychological function
a psychological event. This means that an understanding of the human brain fall into two broad, mutually supportive
of the connection between neuroscience and reading can- categories. One set of studies entails the localizationist ap-
not proceed without considering implicitly, or explicitly, proach, wherein the goal is to identify the specific locations
stated psychological models. This also means that points in the brain where discrete psychological operations occur.
of disagreement are bound to exist in how to understand The other set of studies seek to identify the anatomic and
the neuroscience of reading and dyslexia. A new psycho- physiologic basis of more global cerebral processes such
logical understanding of how a reader interprets a certain as that which might coordinate localized activity.
category of words does not have to wait for confirmation The psychological processes studied by the localization-
from neuroscientists, for example. Thus, the fields advance ists cross the entire spectrum, from perception of sensory
in parallel, but at uneven tempos and combine unevenly. stimuli to abstract conceptualization. Visual information is
There is always the possibility that some current concep- analyzed and processed in the occipital lobes of the brain,
tualization of the reading process may be tied to an older, auditory information in the posterior temporal lobes, and
and discredited, psychological paradigm. Or there may be touch and temperature sensation in the parietal lobes (see
advances in our understanding of the brain’s structure and Figure 8.1). For most people, expressive language is found
function that would be more compatible with an alternative in the left frontal lobe (Broca’s area) and receptive language
conception of psychological reading processes. in the left temporoparietal lobe (Wernicke’s area). Recog-
The behaviorist linguist Leonard Bloomfield argued in nizing faces and experiencing music, on the other hand, are
the 1940s that a proficient reader of English was someone generally felt to draw largely on the right hemisphere.
who “has an overpracticed and ingrained habit of uttering By contrast, global processes act on specific areas, but
one phoneme of the English language when he sees the are similar from one area to another. For example, all the
letter p, another when he sees the letter i, another when he sensory receptors, including the eyes, ears, and skin, con-
sees the letter n, still another when he sees the letter m, still vert physical stimuli into neurological signals. Most early,
another when he sees the letter d, and so on” (1942, p. 26). rudimentary signals are sent first to the thalamus, then to
This behaviorist view was greatly modified in the wake of their respective homes in primary occipital, temporal, or
the cognitive revolution, with an information processing parietal cortices of the brain. The cortical neurons carrying
approach retaining the primacy of such letter-sound con- the rudimentary signals connect to adjacent secondary neu-
version, even as more constructivist models of cognition rons that represent more abstract properties of the signal—
suggested that such graphophonemic processing was largely recognizable objects from lines, colors, and orientations;
subordinate to the mental construction of meaning. melodies from sounds and timing, and so on.
As another example of paradigmatic contrast, consider The distinct sensory modalities can connect across
the widely accepted view of reading articulated by Marilyn the cortical surface of the brain, into so-called tertiary
Adams according to which “unless the processes involved regions, so that multimodal mental representations can be
in individual word recognition operate properly, nothing constructed—a visual scene with background traffic noise,
else in the system can either” (1990, p. 6). This position an opera singer with a background stage design. Indeed, one
relates to an associated theory of dyslexia, wherein the prominent neuroscientist has commented on the philosophi-
inability to read is tied to the breakdown of the processes cal significance of this arrangement:
 Neuroscience and Dyslexia 81

Parietal Lobe
Frontal (touch and
Lobe temperature)
(movement,
planning)
Occipital
Lobe
(vision)

Temporal
Lobe (sounds Cerebellum
and hearing) (coordination)
Figure 8.1 Lobes and their basic
functions (left hemisphere).

Sensory information undergoes extensive associative but from the top down as well. “Connections from one zone
elaboration and attentional modulation as it becomes to another are reciprocal and allow higher synaptic levels to
incorporated into the texture of cognition…. The resultant exert a feedback (top-down) influence upon earlier levels
synaptic organization … allows each sensory event to initi- of processing” (Mesulam, 1998, p. 1013).
ate multiple cognitive and behavioural outcomes. Upstream Within a bottom-up conception of brain organization
sectors of unimodal association areas encode basic features
and functioning, top-down pathways are believed to play a
of sensation such as colour, motion, form and pitch. More
subordinate role. This explains the use of the term feedback,
complex contents of sensory experience such as objects,
faces, word-forms, spatial locations and sound sequences as if to say that it cannot even operate unless feed-forward
become encoded… by groups of coarsely tuned neurons. electrical activity occurs first. The physiologic function
(Mesulam, 1998, p. 1013) of feedback connections is, presumably, to act as a kind
of brake on the feed-forward pathways. When adequate
Mesulam further notes, impulses from sensory sources arrive to trigger the next
impulse, the feedback mechanism kicks in.
The highest synaptic levels… bind multiple unimodal and
other transmodal areas into distributed but integrated mul-
Bottom-up Localization and Dyslexia Models of dyslexia
timodal representations. Transmodal areas in the midtem-
poral cortex, Wernicke’s area, the hippocampal–entorhinal have been developed within Mesulam’s conceptual frame-
complex and the posterior parietal cortex provide critical work. Such models seek to identify the localizations in the
gateways for transforming perception into recognition, brain where the normal transformation of visual print into
word-forms into meaning, scenes and events into experi- meaning occurs, that is, of sensation into cognition, as well
ences, and spatial locations into targets for exploration. as those sites of breakdown that lead to reading problems.
All cognitive processes arise from analogous associative One important proposal within this framework is due to
transformations of similar sets of sensory inputs. (1998, Shaywitz and colleagues (Shaywitz, 2004; Shaywitz et al.,
p. 1013) 1996). They maintain that, for alphabetic languages, reading
begins with the transformation of visual letters into auditory
Mesulam’s conception of brain organization suggests
phonemes. Phonemes, in turn, are sequenced together to
that cognition is derived from sensation. In regard to mak-
form words. At this point, having identified the spoken form
ing sense of print, one might say that linguistic meaning
of the word, the reader can enter the language system of the
derives from visual processing and its transformations
brain, where the ordinary synaptic transformations of spoken
across unimodal and transmodal cortex. Mesulam’s ac-
language can operate to ultimately generate meanings.
count combines the localizationist perspective of distinct
Referring to this model in their chapter on dyslexia in
pathways for the special senses with a global perspective
a leading pediatrics textbook, Shaywitz, Lyon, and Shay-
of parallel transformations along unimodal routes to more
witz (2006) write that “among investigators in the field, a
complex and abstract levels of mental representation. But
strong consensus now supports the phonological theory”
it is even more than that. It also expresses, in a very clear
(p. 1244). This theory
manner, the bottom-up model of brain organization.
According to this model, “[a]ll cognitive processes arise … recognizes that speech is natural and inherent, whereas
from … sensory inputs” (Mesulam, 1998, p. 1013). This is reading is acquired and must be taught. To read, the begin-
so even when it is recognized, as Mesulam does, that nerve ning reader must recognize that the letters and letter strings
tracts not only travel from the bottom up, that is to say, from (the orthography) represent the sounds of spoken language.
raw sensory neurons to more abstract conceptual neurons, To read, a child has to develop the insight that spoken words
82 Steven L. Strauss

can be pulled apart into the elemental particles of speech The obvious utility in identifying dedicated brain sites
(phonemes) and that the letters in a written word represent that play a role in reading is that they can be used to mea-
these sounds. Such awareness is largely missing in dyslexic sure the effectiveness of various interventions. A number
children and adults. (p. 1244) of studies have used neuroimaging technology to evaluate
Thus, the reason reading must proceed via phonological the effectiveness of intensive phonics instruction or other
processing of the orthographic display is that the brain is interventions claimed to be necessary for accurate phono-
said to be hard-wired to process only oral language, not logical processing (e.g., sound discrimination tasks). The
written language: “The reader must somehow convert the brain image before treatment shows attenuated regions, as
print on a page into a linguistic code—the phonetic code, in Figure 8.3. The brain image following treatment shows
the only code recognized and accepted by the language normal regional recruitment, as in Figure 8.2. These find-
system” (Shaywitz, 2004, p. 50) of the brain. Having been ings have been interpreted as showing that such intervention
“translated into the phonetic code, printed words are now leads to “normalization of the brain activation profiles”
accepted by the neural circuitry already in place for pro- (Simos et al., 2002, p. 1210) in dyslexic children, “ame-
cessing spoken language. Decoded into phonemes, words liorates disrupted function in brain regions associated with
are processed automatically by the language system” phonological processing” (Temple et al., 2003, p. 2860),
(Shaywitz, 2004, p. 51). With this view, Shaywitz’s phono- or leads to “brain repair” (Shaywitz, 2004, p. 86; see also
logical processing model offers a fairly narrow definition Gaab, Gabrieli, Deutsch, Tallal, & Temple, 2007).
of reading and dyslexia. Reading is the conversion of print The final neuroscientific piece of the phonological
to speech and dyslexia is fundamentally an impairment processing puzzle comes from research on the biological
of phonological processing. Following either accurate or basis of failed phonological processing. A variety of studies
impaired phonological conversion, what now technically claim to have identified an anatomic risk factor for dyslexia,
occurs is just spoken language processing. with additional studies arguing even more forcefully for a
Neuroscientific technology has been used to support this mechanism that ties the risk factor to the impairment of
theory. Functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI) is phonological processing. One relatively early anatomic
the machine of choice in most studies, but others are avail- discrepancy claimed to exist between normal and dyslexic
able as well, including positron emission tomography (PET) readers is in the size of the planum temporale, a region of the
and magnetoencephalography (MEG). All are capable of temporal lobe that includes the auditory processing region.
identifying the sites in the brain where the neurological Normal readers tend to have a larger left planum temporale,
correlates to phonological processing occur. with this asymmetry reversed in dyslexics.
Three sites in particular have been identified, all in the A number of studies, however, have challenged this
left hemisphere (see Figure 8.2). According to this schema, alleged asymmetry, but have argued for other anatomic
visual word information is initially sent to the word form distinctions. Eckert and colleagues (2003) measured the
area in the posterior part of the brain. It next travels an- size of various brain regions in normal reading and dyslexic
teriorly for further linguistic analysis. It finally arrives in fourth through sixth graders. They found a significantly
the frontal region for oral articulation. Thus, this model smaller right anterior cerebellar lobe in dyslexic subjects,
combines both localizationist and bottom-up notions. Stud- along with discrepancies in some other areas as well.
ies of phonological processing have revealed that subjects They did not find an alleged reversal of planum temporale
identified as dyslexic underutilize the posterior processing asymmetry. Some studies suggest that the source of these
sites and overutilize the anterior site. anatomic discrepancies lies in genetics. Several candidate
Figure 8.2 The three activated
sites in the left hemisphere of a Word Analysis
proficient, nonimpaired reader. (Parietal-
Temporal Region)

Word Form
Speech (Occipital-
Production Temporal
(Inferior Region)
Frontal
Region)
 Neuroscience and Dyslexia 83

Principle 1. The brain is hard-wired to process oral

language, not written language.
Principle 2. Neuroimaging technology has revealed
specific brain sites recruited for reading, that is,
phonological processing.
Principle 3. Neuroimaging technology has demonstrated
that intensive phonics instruction can repair a patho-
logic brain.
Principle 4. The biological basis of dyslexia is evidenced
by the anatomic size discrepancies of certain regions
of the brain between dyslexic and normal readers.
Principle 5. The biological cause of dyslexia lies in a
genetic abnormality that places the gene carrier at
risk.

None of these principles has gone unchallenged. A

discussion of the most serious challenges follows, treat-
Figure 8.3 Dyslexics underutilize the posterior regions and overutilize ing, in order: (a) The problematic concept of hard-wiring
the anterior region. in the brain, (b) the limits of neuroimaging technology,
(c) issues related to physiology, and (d) issues related to
genes for dyslexia have been proposed. These include genetics.
DCDC2 (Schumacher et al., 2006), and Dyx1c1 (Rosen et
al., 2007). For reviews, see Gibson and Gruen (2008) and Hard-Wiring of the Brain The principle that oral lan-
Wood and Grigorenko (2001). guage is natural and written language is artificial is crucial
The genetics research itself is motivated by a variety of for the phonological processing model, since otherwise
epidemiologic observations, such as that “50% of children there would be no theoretical compulsion to turn visual lan-
of dyslexic parents, 50% of siblings of dyslexics, and guage into oral language. But the principle actually predates
50% of parents of dyslexic children are affected,” with the phonological processing model, having been advanced
“estimates of heritability [that] range from 44% to 75%” in other scientific contexts. For instance, behaviorists main-
(Meng et al., 2005, p. 17053). Suspected dyslexia genes tained that alphabetic letters of writing “conventionally
have been identified on at least 8 of the 23 pairs of human represent” (Bloomfield, 1942, p. 26) the phonemes of the
chromosomes, thus supporting the view that reading dis- spoken language. And some early cognitivists argued that
ability “is a complex phenotype and several, if not many, writing is a cultural phenomenon, whereas spoken language
genes are involved” (Meng et al., 2005, p. 17053). Similarly, is rooted in biology, that is, in the human brain (Lenneberg,
developmental dyslexia has been claimed to be a “complex 1967). A clear contemporary exposition of this viewpoint
genetic disorder in which multiple genes play a role” (Cope can be found in Caplan (1987):
et al., 2005, p. 581).
A leading candidate for the mechanism by which suscep- Reading and writing have often been considered ‘second-
tibility genes generate their effect is via impaired migration ary’ forms of language representation. Though all normal
of neurons to the brain’s specific reading sites (Meng et al., humans exposed to spoken language learn to speak and
2005; Chang et al., 2005). Indeed, Meng et al. have claimed comprehend auditory language, many people do not learn
to write or read, and many languages have never devel-
that DCDC2 “localizes to the regions of the brain where
oped a written form. Normal children learn to use spoken
fluent reading occurs” (p. 17053). Of crucial significance is
language before they learn to use written language. For all
the fact that subjects for these genetics studies are typically these reasons, spoken language is undoubtedly the basic
identified on the basis of screening tests that reveal impaired form of language, and written language a secondary means
phonological processing. Since such subjects generate of expression. (p. 233)
neuroimaging pictures with the usual signal impairments,
researchers have concluded that genetics studies of reading Despite its initial plausibility, the principle is not without
disability “are consistent with the latest clinical imaging certain significant problems. For example, even Lenneberg
data” (Meng et al., 2005, p. 17053). (1967) observed that deaf children develop a fluency with
sign language as effortlessly as do normal hearing children
with oral language. And contemporary linguistic science has
Neurobiological Principles of the Phonological
argued quite cogently that sign language conforms to all the
Processing Model
expected syntactic and semantic laws of human language. It
Implicit in the discussion above are five neurobiological is real human language, not merely a collection of gestures.
principles that together constitute the phonological process- If the phonetic code were truly the only code recognized and
ing model. These are summarized as follows: accepted by the language system, then even sign language
84 Steven L. Strauss

would have be considered a representation of speech. But 248), such as in reading island as /izland/. In deep dyslexia,
it most certainly is not. an individual typically produces a pronounced word that is
Like sign language, written language can be viewed as semantically related to the printed stimulus word, such as
another form of language that retains a rich syntactic and play for act or shut for close (p. 248).
semantic structural topography beneath its outer surface. Caplan noted that cases have been reported in which
Arguably, a system that adheres to universal linguistic laws a surface dyslexic has particular difficulty with irregular
of syntax and semantics, no matter what its outer form, will words, but does significantly better when the words are
be accepted by the language system of the brain, without of high frequency. He concluded that “since irregularly
first having to be translated into a neurologically privileged spelled words can only be recognized by the whole-word
oral form. route, this suggest that the whole-word reading route was
A similar line of argument can be applied to a phenom- operating in the recognition of high-frequency words”
enon like fine motor control in humans. As with spoken (Caplan, 1987, p. 258).
language, all normal humans possess this capability. And all The debate can be found in the area of functional neu-
children go through a documented developmental sequence roimaging. In one study, for example, functional MRI was
in the course of its biological maturation. Interestingly, there used to demonstrate the existence of dual routes in the
is generally no problem for children with polydactyly, that brain for recognition of written words. Fiebach, Friederici,
is, more than five fingers on a hand. Their extra fingers Müller, and von Cramon (2002) used MRI technology and
adapt to the system of fine motor control as seamlessly as a lexical decision task to study the processing differences
do children with five-fingered hands. To some neurologists, among high frequency words, low frequency words, and
this shows that “the brain develops according to what it is phonologically regular nonwords. Words, but not pseudo-
given” (al-Chalabi, Turner, & Delamont, 2006, p. 221). That words, activated bilateral occipito-temporal brain regions
is, it takes the available form and adapts it to the functional as well as the left middle temporal gyrus. Low-frequency
requirements. words (typically more phonologically regular than high-
The notion that written language is real language, and frequency words) and pseudowords showed significantly
not a secondary notation for it, is also implicitly suggested greater activation than high-frequency words of the supe-
even by advocates of the phonological processing model. rior pars opercularis of the left inferior frontal gyrus. The
In arguing for early intervention in pre- and elementary authors concluded that a dual route to the mental lexicon,
school, many have observed that learning to read appears one relying on grapheme-phoneme correspondences and the
to become more difficult past the age of 9 years. But in other on direct lexical access from the visual word form, is
raising this as an argument for early intensive instruction supported by neuroimaging data.
in letter-sound decoding, the question is begged as to why Though the strict phonological processing model is used
such a cut-off should even exist. If a child learning to read to support an instructional emphasis on intensive, direct
is regarded as a type of language learning, then, as with phonics instruction, not all advocates of phonics have
oral language, the brain will impose its critical period supported a strictly bottom-up approach. Richard Venezky
constraints (Lenneberg, 1967), after which the learning (1999), for example, wrote:
process changes.
Phonics is a means to an end, not an end itself. Its functions
Not all advocates of bottom-up, that is to say, orthog-
are somewhat speculative, but most scholars agree that at
raphy-driven, word identification agree that the phonetic least three are crucial to the acquisition of competent read-
code is the only passport to the brain’s language system. ing habits. One is to provide a process for approximating the
Caplan (1987) summarized the view of many that the nu- sound of a word known from listening but not recognized
merous exceptions to English letter-sound patterns means quickly by sight. For this to work, decoding patterns need
that there must be another route from orthography to word not generate perfect representations of speech. Instead they
identification besides the phonological one. He noted that need to get the reader close enough that, with context, the
the secondary nature of written language is what gives correct identification can be made. (p. 231)
the strictly phonological processing route its considerable
intuitive appeal. But he also observed “the existence of This view is based, in part, on Venezky’s extensive study
exception words, which simply cannot be read in their of English orthographic patterns, and his conclusion that
entirety through a phonologically mediated route at all” the system is simply too complex to be the sole practical
(Caplan, 1987, p. 237). route to word identification. It must be supplemented with
He also pointed out that the various observed types of use of contextual information.
acquired dyslexia cannot be fully explained on the basis of a A rigid bottom-up approach eschews all sources of infor-
single, phonologically mediated route from spelling to pro- mation useful for word identification that do not pertain to
nunciation. In phonological dyslexia, an individual is typi- the orthographic display. Thus, Shaywitz, possibly among
cally unable to read aloud phonologically regular nonsense the most ardent of the bottom-up advocates, writes:
words. In surface dyslexia, an individual typically produces The ability to read nonsense words is the best measure
pronunciations that are “phonologically and visually similar of phonological decoding skill in children…. The reader
to the presented written stimulus word” (Caplan, 1987, p. literally has to penetrate the sound structure of the word
 Neuroscience and Dyslexia 85

and sound it out, phoneme by phoneme; there is no other that show the brain sites recruited when a subject is asked
way. Most children generally reach their full capacity to to list words beginning with a particular letter (reported in
sound out nonsense words by adolescence. (2004, pp. al-Chalabi et al., 2006). Indeed, neuroimaging is such a
133–134) powerful technology it can identify sites of cognitive pro-
cessing that are of questionable functional utility in any act
Her methodology sees contextual information as mud-
of ordinary language use. For example Posner and Raichle
dying the attempt to identify a child with dyslexia:
(1997) provide PET scan images of subjects performing
In the schoolage child, the most important element of the the task of identifying false fonts. However beautiful these
psychometric evaluation is how accurately the child can pictures are, and however powerful the technology is, such
decode words — that is, read single words in isolation. studies merely reinforce the notion that, until phonological
Reading passages allows bright children with dyslexia to processing can be independently demonstrated to play a
use the context to guess the meaning of a word they might crucial role in reading, any neuroimaging study that identi-
otherwise have trouble decoding. As a result, readers with fies its special brain location has merely demonstrated that
dyslexia often perform better on measures of comprehen-
the technology is a powerful enough tool to show us where
sion and worse on measures of the ability to decode isolated
yet another meaningless cognitive task occurs in the brain
single words. In practice, the reliance on context makes
such tests as multiple-choice examinations, which typically of subjects asked to carry out that task.
provide scanty context, especially burdensome for readers The claim that intensive phonics instruction can repair
with dyslexia. (Shaywitz, 1998, p. 308) a dyslexic brain is based on neuroimaging studies before
and after the intervention. Before intensive exposure to
Reid Lyon, former director of the reading research divi- letter-sound drills, a dyslexic brain can be imaged to show
sion of the National Institute of Child Health and Human impaired recruitment of the usual sites of phonological
Development, echoes this view, stating that “in contrast to processing. After treatment, the images take on a normal
what conventional wisdom has suggested in the past, expert appearance, in which the now treated dyslexic reader dem-
readers do not use the surrounding context to figure out a onstrates neurological activity correlating to phonological
word they’ve never seen before. The strategy of choice for processing in the same way that a normal reader does (see
expert readers is to actually fixate on that word and decode earlier discussion). The results of these studies have ap-
it to sound using phonics” (Lyon, 1997, cited in Clowes, peared in the popular media.
1999, p. 7). Apparently, this kind of phonological processing Yet Rosenberger and Rottenberg (2002), responding to
model is, in fact, an extreme version of Marilyn Adams’ Simos and colleagues (2002), raised serious objections to
word identification approach to reading. It would seem to these assertions.
permit no top-down processing whatsoever. And all the
bottom-up processing must be tied to the alphabetic letters What, then, should we conclude from the findings of Si-
mos et al.? They suggest that a “deficit in functional brain
and their alleged phonemic values.
organization” has been “reversed” by remedial training.
Some reservations may be in order regarding this conclu-
Limits of Neuroimaging Claims from neuroimaging sion. First, of the eight children studied, six suffered from
research that the brain’s reading sites have been discovered attention deficit disorder and were placed on stimulant
must be weighed against the full spectrum of neuroimaging medication throughout the 2-month study period. Second,
studies. It goes without saying that if a subject is asked investigators using other neuroimaging techniques (MRS
to read a non-word, the only way this can be done is by and functional MRI) and different stimulus paradigms
recruiting one’s knowledge of letter-sound patterns. Then, have reported conflicting results of instructional interven-
if a special brain site is implicated through neuroimaging tion. (p. 1139)
research, all that can be said about this site is that it is
Rosenberger and Rottenberg (2002) further noted:
where letter-sound processing occurs. The further claim
that this is where reading occurs is in no way demonstrated Finally, it is often difficult to know how “increased activity”
by the research, unless the experiments already assume in a particular brain region relates to a subject’s proficiency
that reading is phonological processing. at a given task, or indeed whether it merely reflects that the
The claim that reading is phonological processing de- subject is doing something different (or differently). In the
rives entirely from considerations outside neuroimaging. study by Simos et al., it appears that as a result of remedial
Neuroimaging studies have identified a number of brain training the dyslexic children are doing what normal readers
do naturally, and presumably what they themselves “should
sites that are relevant to an understanding of the phenom-
have been doing” all along. Why don’t the dyslexic children
enon of reading. These include sites of visual orthographic do it naturally? It is not clear that the study of Simos et al.
processing, phonological processing, and semantic process- brings us any closer to the answer. (p. 1139)
ing (see Demb, Poldrack, & Gabrieli, 1999).
But imaging studies can be applied to locate correlates These arguments apply generically to all neuroimaging
to behaviors or tasks that may have little to do with neural claims about alleged brain repair from intensive phonics
processes typically employed in processing texts in a typi- instruction, or from any other instructional technique, for
cal fashion. Brain imaging studies have been carried out that matter.
86 Steven L. Strauss

Anatomic Discrepancies Authors of morphometric stud- with other cognitive or attentional disorders, then impair-
ies have claimed notable differences between the brains of ment of phonological processing could not be the only
normal and dyslexic readers, although these claims may not scientifically plausible mechanism for its existence.
be fully justified by the data. For example, a smaller left
planum temporale in dyslexics does not automatically imply
that the genesis of dyslexia somehow lies in that abnormal Top-Down Neuroscience and Top-Down Reading
piece of brain tissue. Nothing more than known principles of There is, strictly speaking, no purely top-down approach to
brain anatomy are needed to explain the findings. It is well understanding mechanisms of brain function in general, nor
known, for example, that brain tissue can grow in response any of its various manifestations, including reading. Even
to persistent activity in a certain area. This is known as among those researchers who advocate a top-down psychol-
plasticity. The plasticity of the human brain is responsible ogy of reading, it is clearly recognized that reading depends
for continued growth, even into adulthood, of areas of the on the visual, orthographic display (Goodman, 1964). The
brain that are utilized for special purposes. distinguishing characteristic of top-down models in both
An interesting study of London taxi drivers showed that neuroscience and psychology is that higher processes drive,
the volume of gray matter in the posterior hippocampus direct, or at least mediate, the lower ones, in the sense that
was significantly greater than in age-matched controls and lower-level inputs are subordinate to higher-level purposeful
that this increased even further with the amount of experi- behavior. In reading, the higher-level purposeful behavior is
ence driving a taxi (Maguire et al., 2003). The authors also making sense of print. Of course, this is not really behavior,
demonstrated that their findings did not represent an “innate especially in silent reading. It is cognitive activity.
navigational expertise” (p. 208). They concluded that their Meaning making is arguably a pre-theoretical phenom-
study demonstrated the plasticity of a part of the brain that enon; it will occur and need explanation no matter what
plays a crucial role in acquiring spatial representations. theory of reading is ultimately developed by researchers
What morphometric and imaging studies consistently to explain it. In top-down approaches, researchers have
omit from discussion is that dyslexic readers not only cannot maintained that readers construct meaning using a variety
read, but, precisely because of that impairment, they do not of cognitive resources which they employ as they interact
read. One would therefore expect dyslexics to have some with the visual language display. They use their knowledge
smaller brain regions, on the basis of the plasticity principle, of letter-sound relationships, but also use their knowledge
and that they recruit different areas of the brain, on the basis of syntax and semantics. They use their knowledge and
of the undeveloped nature of their reading. These notions beliefs about the social and physical world.
could certainly be tested by studying individuals who have For example, if a proficient reader reads a sentence that
grown up in a totally pre-literate environment. begins “The big, jolly man married the skinny, shy ___”,
only to find that the sentence continues on the next page,
Genetic Markers for Dyslexia The finding of genes linked a proficient reader already anticipates the last word even
to dyslexia exposes an interesting problem of definition before the page has been turned. Oral reading studies clearly
and principle. It is fair to ask why one should even expect demonstrate that proficient readers make good guesses,
a genetic basis for reading problems given the phonologi- using a variety of contextual cuing systems. In this case,
cal processing paradigm’s other neurobiological principles. knowledge of syntax, semantics, and social customs allows
Within this paradigm there can be no reading-specific the proficient reader to predict that the next, as yet unseen,
gene or gene complex precisely because reading is, by word is “woman.” No knowledge of letter-sound connec-
hypothesis, not hard-wired in the brain. Therefore, there tion is needed in this case. But if the reader has any doubt,
can be no abnormality of such a gene, that is, there can be scanning the visual representation of the next word, whether
no dyslexia gene. This means that any abnormal gene that “woman” or “wife,” can provide additional information
leads to dyslexia must be nonspecific and should therefore from the graphophonic cuing system that now functions,
manifest itself in other irregularities of psychological pro- not to identify the word, but to confirm or discomfirm the
cessing (cf. Hruby & Hynd, 2006). Unfortunately, this is not prediction. For this reason, the constructivist approach to
possible, because dyslexia, by the phonological processing reading has been called a “psycholinguistic guessing game”
paradigm’s own definition, is a disorder of reading in the (Goodman, 1967, p. 127). The purpose of reading—to make
setting of otherwise normal mental functioning. According sense of print—is the top-down component of the model.
to Shaywitz (1998): The dependence on visual input provides the subordinate,
bottom-up component. Reading is said to be a constant
Developmental dyslexia is characterized by an unexpected
difficulty in reading in children and adults who otherwise
cycling back and forth between the two sets of processes.
possess the intelligence, motivation, and schooling consid- Within the constructivist model, reading problems are
ered necessary for accurate and fluent reading. (p. 307) multifactorial, and mainly revolve around identifying
whether and how the reader utilizes the various cuing sys-
Indeed, she also called dyslexia a “specific reading dis- tems to construct meaning. The term dyslexia is generally
ability” (p. 307) conveying the notion that it is unconnected avoided, since it tends to obscure the fact that many reading
to other cognitive disabilities. If dyslexia were associated problems may be due to factors other than an inability to
 Neuroscience and Dyslexia 87

carry out low-level processing of the visual display. In fact, But other developments in neuroscience are clarifying
the constructivist model emphasizes that an over-reliance the brain mechanisms involved in non-automatic cognitive
on the graphophonic cuing system may create reading activities, including the brain’s projection of predictions and
problems, because it can divert the reader’s attention away its devices for confirming and disconfirming the predictions.
from the primary goal—the construction of meaning. In this sense, these developments provide significant bio-
In recent years, the constructivist model of reading has logical plausibility to the constructivist view (for a review
utilized eye movement research to test its claims. Traditional of the neurological studies on processes related to reading
behavioral studies of eye movement have focused on the comprehension, see Hruby, 2009).
neural circuits involved in automatic eye movements. These Traditionally, the thalamus has been thought of as a sen-
are saccades and fixations. Saccades are very fast glances sory gatekeeper. Sensory inputs collected by the peripheral
from one fixation point to another. They are so fast that sense organs—the eyes, ears, and touch receptors in the
no visual information can be collected between fixations. skin—travel as electrically coded information along axons
The speed is greater than that which can be achieved by a to neural terminals in the thalamus. They arrive at very spe-
conscious decision to change fixations, and for that reason cific assemblies of thalamic cell bodies, called nuclei. There
it is assumed that saccades must be automatic. the sensory nerve axons synapse onto nerve cells that will
More recent analyses of eye movements, however, are next travel to very specific parts of the cortex. These relay
leading to a quite different perspective. Krauzlis (2005), cells connect the lateral geniculate nucleus to the occipital
for example, noted that the traditional understanding of lobe, the medial geniculate nucleus to the temporal lobe, and
pursuit and saccades is that they “are driven automatically the dorsolateral nucleus to the parietal lobe. From these pri-
by low-level visual inputs” (p. 124). However, based on mary sensory areas, information of more and more abstract
more current studies, he concludes that “pursuit and sac- form is relayed to secondary sensory areas, then eventually
cades are not automatic responses to retinal inputs but are to mixed, or heteromodal, regions of the cortex.
regulated by a process of target selection that involves a As the gatekeeper to the cortex, the thalamus is regarded
basic form of decision making. The selection process itself as controlling which external and internal sensory inputs can
is guided by a variety of complex processes, including at- pass to the cortex for further processing. This is a power-
tention, perception, memory, and expectation” (p. 208). ful role to play, since, on Mesulam’s account, the cortex
Thus, eye movements are achieved via automatic neural utilizes the auditory, visual, and other sensory raw material
mechanisms under the direction of higher-level, purposeful it receives to piece together the mental representations of
brain activity. experience. However, more recent assessments are turning
Eye movement studies in reading are consistent with this relationship on its head. Instead of the thalamus control-
Krauzlis’s view. Readers do not fixate on each and every ling which inputs reach the cortex for further processing,
word in the textual display. They typically omit about 20% the cortex can instead first formulate its plans and goals,
to 30% of the words (Rayner, 1997), or more (Hogaboam, entirely independent of sensory stimuli, and then direct the
1983; Just & Carpenter, 1987; Paulson, 2002). Furthermore, thalamus, along with a host of other subcortical structures,
the words most commonly resistant to fixation are function to seek out sensory confirmation or disconfirmation.
words (e.g., “of”). These are the most predictable in the When the cortex is conceived of as acting on the sensory
text, as long as a reader is reading for meaning and using stimuli it has received from the thalamus, it is natural to con-
the syntactic cuing system. Even predictable content words ceive of it as an information processing machine. But when
are less frequently fixated. According to Ehrlich and Rayner the cortex acts in advance of any sensory input, so that the
(1981), “contextual information does allow a reduction thalamic sensory nuclei subordinate their role to the needs of
in readers’ reliance on visual information” (p. 653). See the cortex, then the cortex is no mere information processor.
Paulson and Freeman (2003) for further discussion. It is, as Hawkins (2004) has stated, “an organ of prediction”
Further neuroscientific support for the constructivist (p. 89). By implication, the thalamocortical neurons then
model actually comes from some of the phonological constitute the organ of confirmation and disconfirmation.
processing model’s own neuroimaging studies. This is be- There are a number of facts about the cortex and thala-
cause both models recognize that readers use letter-sound mus that are driving this shift in interpretation. Thalamus
connections in the reading process. What the phonological experts Sherman and Guillery (2006) observed that in ad-
processing proponents call the brain site for letter-sound dition to the existence of relay neurons running from the
conversion the constructivists would call the brain site for thalamus to the cortex, there are also neurons that begin in
the graphophonic cuing system. Neuroimaging, however, the cortex and synapse in the thalamus. Indeed, as Destexhe
cannot be used to study the more global processes of (2000) has remarked, “thalamic circuits … in addition to
reading described by the constructivists. The employment providing a relay of afferent inputs to cerebral cortex …
of background knowledge and beliefs, which certainly are massively innervated by fibres arising from the cortex
cover wide cerebral territory, is beyond the capacity of itself…. This corticothalamic projection provides the major
neuroimaging technology, which, by its very nature, can source of excitatory synapses on thalamic neurones and
only study processes of extremely short duration and very in particular, corticothalamic synapses largely outnumber
narrow localization. afferent synapses” (p. 391).
88 Steven L. Strauss

That the corticothalamic neurons far outnumber the thal- not merely proceed unmodified to the cortex. Rather, they
amocortical neurons suggests not only that the bottom-up are compared to the cortically based expected inputs, and
view is untenable, but that even a simple bidirectional view further transmission is adjusted accordingly.
is not entirely accurate. There are two directions of neuronal Just as the information processing model of brain func-
transmission, with one direction, the corticothalamic one, tion accommodates the phonological processing paradigm
dominant over the other, the thalamocortical one. of reading and dyslexia, so too does the cortically-based pre-
As a consequence of these developments in neurosci- diction paradigm accommodate meaning-centered models
ence, Sherman and Guillery observed that the classical view of reading. Such models emphasize the role of the reader in
is “beginning to be less useful than it was in the past” (2006, constructing meaning not only by means of raw interpreta-
p. 4). The cortical influence on “thalamic circuitry allows tions of the author’s words and phrases, but by supplying
transmission to be modified in relation to current behavioral its own idiosyncratic background knowledge and belief
needs or constraints” (p. 6). The thalamus functions as a systems to aid in meaning construction. The fundamental
relay station not just from the periphery to the cortex, but psychological event in this model is not the processing of
“from one cortical area to another” (p. 6). Sherman and externally supplied information, but rather the prediction
Guillery noted that the “importance of this pathway, which that such information will be found, supplemented with the
allows one cortical area to receive inputs from another cor- search for confirmatory or disconfirmatory evidence.
tical area through a thalamic relay that can be modulated And just as the phonological processing paradigm
in accordance with behavioral constraints, is not widely confers its own design on the definition of dyslexia, so too
appreciated and has been but poorly explored” (p. 6). does the prediction paradigm. Each can be described in
Destexhe (2000) noted other facts besides the numerical both biological and psychological terms. The phonological
superiority of corticothalamic pathways over thalamocor- processing paradigm defines dyslexia as an impairment of
tical pathways in support of revising the classical model. phonological processing not otherwise explained by impair-
First, neurons originating in the cortex and destined to ments elsewhere. The biological correlate is that there is
synapse in the thalamus land on parts of the thalamic impairment in the utilization of the special brain site devoted
neurons that seem to physically complement the landing to turning letters into sounds. The prediction model has
sites of sensory neurons also headed towards the thalamus. been much looser in its definition of reading problems and
Furthermore, the corticothalamic synapses can both excite dyslexia. It assesses the capacity of readers to utilize the
and inhibit the action of the thalamic relay neurons. Over- full complement of meaning-laden cuing systems, such as
all, the effect of excitatory and inhibitory cortical action syntax, semantics, background knowledge, and background
on the thalamus is to synchronize the electrical activity of beliefs. Clearly, lacking knowledge of an idiomatic expres-
distinct thalamic cell groupings, which, as experimental sion, a genre, or a topic will limit the reader’s capacity to
preparations have demonstrated, are desynchronized when make appropriate predictions about such language patterns
disconnected from the cortex. or information.
On the basis of these empirical observations, Destexhe
was led to several important conclusions. First, since “cor-
Summary and Conclusions
ticothalamic synapses largely outnumber afferent synapses
… the notion of the thalamus as a relay station, linking the Although it is interesting to compare distinct approaches to
periphery to the cerebral cortex, should clearly be revised” neuroscience, reading, and dyslexia, it is equally instruc-
(Destexhe, 2000, p. 391). Second, whereas “early studies tive to consider how one approach is viewed by the other.
have most often considered the cortex as passively driven What does the phonological processing model say about the
by a ‘thalamic pacemaker’,” the cortically-driven synchro- constructivist model? What does the constructivist model
nized electrical activity of the thalamus demonstrates that say about the phonological processing model?
“rather than providing an autonomous, independent drive, From the standpoint of neuroscience, phonological
the thalamic pacemakers are controlled and co-ordinated processing advocates have maintained that constructivists
by the cortex” (p. 391). And third, because “corticotha- do not sufficiently acknowledge what biological research
lamic inputs seem capable of complementing the sensory indicates about graphophonemic processing in reading. It
information at the level of relay cells,” this “corticothalamic is easy to understand where this assertion comes from. It
information could therefore be a ‘prediction’ of the sensory is based, in part, on the fact that the constructivist model
input” (p. 405). emphasizes those aspects of the reading process that are not
Hawkins (2004) described the matter similarly, noting easy to study biologically. There is no one site in the brain
that, from a biological perspective, prediction and confirma- where predicting an upcoming word or phrase based on
tion is a process whereby “the neurons involved in sensing background knowledge occurs. This is a global operation
… become active in advance of them actually receiving that likely varies in its particulars from one reading situation
sensory input. When the sensory input does arrive, it is to another. But this is certainly a biological phenomenon,
compared with what was expected” (p. 89). That is to say, whose global properties are being studied by neurosci-
cortical neurons inform the thalamus about what sensory entists, and to which the constructivists are contributing
information to look out for. The thalamic sensory inputs do through their research on eye movements in reading.
 Neuroscience and Dyslexia 89

On the other hand, from the constructivist standpoint, tion and eye movements during reading. Journal of Verbal Learning
the phonological processing model emphasizes biological & Verbal Behavior, 20, 641–655.
Fiebach, C. F., Friederici, A. D., Müller, K., & von Cramon, D. Y. (2002).
aspects of reading to the exclusion of social, cultural, and fMRI evidence for dual routes to the mental lexicon in visual word
certain psycholinguistic aspects. More problematically, the recognition. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 14, 11–23.
constructivists would argue that the biological emphasis in Gaab, N., Gabrieli, J. D. E., Deutsch, G. K., Tallal, P., & Temple, E. (2007).
the phonological processing model is artificially narrow. Neural correlates of rapid auditory processing are disrupted in children
It emphasizes specific brain localizations where certain with developmental dyslexia and ameliorated with training: An fMRI
study. Restorative Neurology and Neuroscience, 25, 295–310.
processes occur, but not the global brain organization that Gibson, C. J., & Gruen, J. R. (2008). The human lexinome: Genes of
explains why or how these processes occur. language and reading. Journal of Communication disorders, 41,
Furthermore, this narrow emphasis is reinforced by a 409–420.
powerful set of technologies—brain imaging—that pro- Gilbert, C. D., & Sigman, M. (2007, June 7). Brain states: Top-down
duces magnificent statistical charts of the neural correlates influences in sensory processing. Neuron, 54, 677–696.
Goodman, K. S. (1964). The linguistics of reading. The Elementary School
to cognitive activity, but which comes with a very severe Journal, 64, 355–361.
limitation in terms of their temporal and spatial capabili- Goodman, K. S. (1967). Reading: A psycholinguistic guessing game.
ties. The longer the event occurs and the larger the brain Journal of the Reading Specialist, 4, 126–135.
region where that event occurs, the less reliable is the data Hawkins, J. (2004). On intelligence. New York: Henry Holt.
generated by the machine. Functional MRI, for instance, Hogaboam, T. W. (1983). Reading patterns in eye movement data. In K.
Rayner (Ed.), Eye movements in reading: Perceptual and language
favors events that span a period of milliseconds in very processes (pp. 309–332). New York: Academic Press.
small, circumscribed regions. Hruby, G. G. (2009). Grounding reading comprehension theory in the
In the end, the neuroimaging technology must be under- neuroscience literatures. In S. Israel & G. Duffy (Eds.), Handbook
stood as subordinate to the psycholinguistics of reading. of research on reading comprehension (pp. 189–223). New York:
This is true for a very simple reason: the most theoretically Routledge Taylor and Francis Group.
Hruby, G. G., & Hynd, G. W. (2006). Decoding Shaywitz: The modular
useless cognitive events can be found to take place in very brain and its discontents [book review essay on “Overcoming dys-
specific regions of the brain by the neuroimaging technol- lexia”]. Reading Research Quarterly, 41, 544–556.
ogy. Neuroimaging cannot by itself decide the question of Just, M. A., & Carpenter, P. A. (1987). The psychology of reading and
which cognitive functions play a role in reading and which language comprehension. Newton, MA: Allyn and Bacon.
do not. Only an independent theory of reading based on Krauzlis, R. J. (2005). The control of voluntary eye movements: New
perspectives. Neuroscientist, 11, 124–137.
studies of reading behaviors and their patterns of develop- Lenneberg, E. (1967). Biological foundations of language. New York:
ment can adjudicate that. Wiley.
Luria, A. R. (1973). The working brain: An introduction to neuropsychol-
ogy. New York: Basis Books.
References Lyon, G. R. (1997, July 10). Testimony before the Committee on Education
and the Workforce, U.S. House of Representatives. Retrieved June,
Adams, M. J. (1990). Beginning to read: Thinking and learning about 2000, from http://edworkforce.house.gov
print. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. Maguire, E. A., Spiers, H. J., Good, C. D., Hartley, T., Frackowiak, R. S. J.,
al-Chalabi, A., Turner, M., & Delamont, R. S. (2006). The brain: A begin- Burgess, N. (2003). Navigation expertise and the human hippocampus:
ners guide. Oxford, UK: Oneworld Publications. A structural brain imaging analysis. Hippocampus, 13, 208–217.
Bloomfield, L. (1942). Teaching children to read. In L. Bloomfield & Meng, H., Smith, S. D., Hager, K., Held, M., Liu, J., Olson, R. K., et al.
C. L. Barnhart (Eds.), Let’s read: A linguistic approach (pp. 19–42). (2005). DCDC2 is associated with reading disability and modulates
Detroit, MI: Wayne State University Press. neuronal development in the brain. Proceedings of the National Acad-
Caplan, D. (1987). Neurolinguistics and linguistic aphasiology: An intro- emy of Sciences USA, 102, 17053–17058.
duction. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. Mesulam, M.-K. (1998). From sensation to cognition. Brain, 121,
Chang, B. S., Ly, J., Appignani, B., Bodell, A., Apse, K. A., Ravenscroft, R. 1013–1052.
S., et al. (2005). Reading impairment in the neuronal migration disorder Paulson, E. J. (2002). Are oral reading word omissions and substitutions
of periventricular nodular heterotopias. Neurology, 64, 799–803. caused by careless eye movements? Reading Psychology, 23, 45–66.
Clowes, G. A. (1999). Reading is anything but natural: An interview with Paulson, E. J., & Freeman, A. E. (2003). Insight from the eyes: The science
G. Reid Lyon. School Reform News. Retrieved from http://www. of effective reading instruction. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.
heartland.org Paulson, E. J., & Goodman, K. S. (2008). Re-reading eye-movement re-
Cope, N., Harold, D., Hill, G., Moskvina, V., Stevenson, J., Holmans, P., search: Support for transactional models of reading. In A. D. Flurkey,
et al. (2005). Strong evidence that KIAA0319 on chromosome 6p is E. J. Paulson, & K. S. Goodman (Eds.), Scientific realism in studies
a susceptibility gene for developmental dyslexia. American Journal of reading (pp. 25–47). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
of Human Genetics, 76, 581–591. Posner, M. J., & Raichle, M. E. (1997). Images of mind. New York: W.
Demb, J. B., Poldrack, R. A., & Gabrieli, J. D. E. (1999). Functional H. Freeman.
neuroimaging of word processing. In R. Klein. & P. McMullen (Eds.), Rayner, K. (1997). Understanding eye movements in reading. Scientific
Converging methods for understanding reading and dyslexia (pp. Studies of Reading, 1, 317–339.
245–304). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. Rosen, G. D., Bai, J., Wang, Y., Fiondella, C. G., Threlkeld, S. W., Lo-
Destexhe, A. (2000). Modeling corticothalamic feedback and the gating Turco, J. J., et al. (2007). Disruption of neuronal migration by RNAi
of the thalamus by the cerebral cortex. Journal of Physiology, 94, of Dyx1c1 results in neocortical and hippocampal malformations.
394–410. Cerebral Cortex, 17, 2562–2572.
Eckert, M. A., Leonard, C. M., Richards, T. L., Aylward, E. H., Thomson, J., Rosenberger, P. B., & Rottenberg, D. A. (2002). Does training change the
& Berninger, V. W. (2003). Anatomical correlates of dyslexia: Frontal brain? Neurology, 58, 1139–1140.
and cerebellar findings. Brain, 126, 482–494. Schumacher, J., Anthoni, H., Dahdouh, F., Konig, I. R., Hillmer, A. M.,
Ehrlich, S. F., & Rayner, K. (1981). Contextual effects on word percep- Kluck, N., et al. (2006). Strong genetic evidence of DCDC2 as a
90 Steven L. Strauss

susceptibility gene for dyslexia. American Journal of Human Genet- Simos, P. G., Fletcher, J. M., Bergman, E., Breier, J. I., Foorman, B. R.,
ics, 78, 52–62. Castillo, E. M., et al. (2002). Dyslexia-specific brain activation profile
Shaywitz, S. E. (1998, January 29). Dyslexia. New England Journal of becomes normal following successful remedial training. Neurology,
Medicine, 338, 307–312. 58, 1203–1213.
Shaywitz, S. E. (2004). Overcoming dyslexia: A new and complete Strauss, L. S., Goodman, K. S., & Paulson, E. J. (2009). Brain research and
science-based program for reading problems at any level. New York: reading: How emerging concepts of neuroscience support a meaning
Alfred A. Knopf. construction view of the reading process. Educational Research and
Shaywitz, S., Lyon, G. R., & Shaywitz, B. A. (2006). Dyslexia (specific Review, 4(2), 21–033.
reading disability). In F. Burg, J. Ingelfinger, R. Polin, & A. Gershon Temple, E., Deutsch, G. K., Poldrack, R. A., Miller, S. L., Tallal, P., Mer-
(Eds.), Current pediatric therapy (pp. 1244–1247). Philadelphia: zenich, M. M., et al. (2003). Neural deficits in children with dyslexia
W.B. Saunders. ameliorated by behavioral remediation: Evidence from functional MRI.
Shaywitz, S. E., Shaywitz, B. A., Pugh, K., Skudlarski, P., Fulbright, R. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 100, 2860–2865.
K., Constable, R. T., et al. (1996). The neurobiology of developmental Venezky, R. L. (1999). The American way of spelling. New York: Guil-
dyslexia as viewed through the lens of functional magnetic resonance ford.
imaging technology. In G. R. Lyon & J. M. Rumsey (Eds.), Neuroimag- Wood, F. B., & Grigorenko, E. L. (2001). Emerging issues in the genetics
ing: A window to the neurological foundations of learning and behavior of dyslexia: A methodological preview. Journal of Learning Disabili-
in children (pp. 79–94). Baltimore, MD: Paul H. Brookes. ties, 34, 503–511.
Sherman, S. M., & Guillery, R.W. (2006). Exploring the thalamus and its
role in cortical function (2nd ed). Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.
 Part II
Causes and Consequences of Reading Disability

EDITOR: JOHN ELKINS

 9
Home Differences and Reading Difficulty
JEANNE R. PARATORE AND SUSAN DOUGHERTY
Boston University

This chapter is built on two major tenets: first, that there is “unexpected” reading failure that cannot be accounted
substantial evidence that home and family characteristics for by other disabilities, generalized cognitive-linguistic
(including poverty, language, and educational experiences) weaknesses, or obvious environmental causes, including
have important effects on children’s early and later reading a lack of appropriate instruction. (p. 518)
success; and second, that knowledgeable, thoughtful, and
With this as a definition, the children who are our fo-
responsive teachers working with parents and with a rich
cus in this chapter are not “reading disabled”; rather, our
and worthy curriculum can mediate these differences. We
concern is children whose reading difficulty stems largely
develop these central ideas within three sections. In the
from factors external to them: poverty (Bourdieu, 1986;
first section, we distinguish between reading disability
Compton-Lilly, 2007; Hart & Risley, 1995; Lareau, 1989,
and reading difficulty (arguing that the children who are
2003; Neuman & Celano, 2001), language (Davidson &
the focus of this chapter are more appropriately described
Snow, 1995; DeTemple & Beals, 1991; Dieterich, Assel,
as children with reading difficulty rather than reading dis-
& Swank, 2006; Heath, 1983; Leseman & de Jong, 1998;
ability), and we situate our discussion within the context of
Purcell-Gates, 1995; Tabors, Beals, & Weizman, 2001;
sociocultural and sociocognitive learning theories. In the
Tabors, Roach, & Snow, 2001; Weizman & Snow, 2001),
second section, we consider the external factors that make
and educational experiences at home (Aulls & Sollars,
children’s reading success more or less probable. In the
2003; Baker, Fernandez-Fein, Scher, & Williams, 1998;
third section, we focus on studies of instructional practices
Baker, Scher, & Mackler, 1997; Dearing, Kreider, & Simp-
that reflect a view of parents as a learning resource. Finally,
kins, 2006; de Jong & Leseman, 2001; DeTemple, 2001;
we summarize what is known and we use existing studies
Leseman & de Jong, 1998; Morrow, 1983; Purcell-Gates,
to speculate about the types of instruction and collaborative
1994; Rashid, Morris, & Sevcik, 2005; Sénéchal, LeFevre,
actions that could change the learning trajectory of children
& Thomas, 1998; Snow, Barnes, Chandler, Goodman, &
whose home experiences and resources set them apart from
Hemphill, 1991; Sonnenschein & Munsterman, 2002;
their higher-achieving (and, typically, more economically
Swalander & Taube, 2007; Teale, 1986).
advantaged) peers.
The difficulty that confronts children who differ in so-
cioeconomic status and social class, language knowledge
Learning to Read and Write as a Sociocultural and and use, and educational experiences can be understood
Sociocognitive Process through the lens of a sociocognitive perspective on learning.
In Gee’s (2004) words,
We begin our discussion with a definition of reading dis-
ability (RD). According to Spear-Swerling (2004), reading A broad perspective on reading is essential if we are to speak
disability is: to issues of access and equity in schools and workplaces
… reading and writing cannot be separated from speaking,
Intrinsic, presumably biologically based, learning difficul- listening, and interacting, on the one hand, or using language
ties (as opposed to reading failure associated with poverty, to think about and act on the world, on the other. (p. 116)
for example, as well as a specific cognitive deficit or set
of deficits (as opposed to generalized learning problems). Moreover, as Heath (1991) explained, becoming literate is
Thus, genuine cases of RD have been viewed as involving a complex and dynamic enterprise:

93
94 Jeanne R. Paratore and Susan Dougherty

The literateness of any individual is also only somewhat practices typically have few negative consequences; but
stable; it is dynamic, iterative, and sometimes erratic and for those from non-mainstream families and communities
daring in its representations. On some occasions, those whose home language practices differ from the academic
who think of themselves as literate can read a poem and discourse that is fundamental to reading and writing success,
see through it to both personal and universal meanings; at
these instructional emphases in the early years can make the
other times, the poet’s words fall like dry chips with no
difference between reading success and reading difficulty
connection to life. A word spelled or even identified and
pronounced correctly at one point slips away into uncer- in the later years. The importance of addressing the differ-
tainty on other occasions. Literates do not trust with cer- ences in literacy, language, and conceptual knowledge early
tainty that the right words will come to sum up the essence on is well-established (Juel, 1988, 2006; Stanovich, 1986;
of a meeting or to launch a charity campaign. Those who Whitehurst & Lonigan, 2002). However, the types of in-
assume a sense of being literate in modern postindustrial structional practices known to be effective in supporting the
nations know that they depend on far more than separate reading success of children whose home environments differ
and individual skills for their literate identities. Being lit- from those of mainstream children are far from universally
erate depends on the essential harmony of core language available to children (Biemiller, 2006; Dickinson, McCabe,
behaviors and certain critical supporting social relations & Essex, 2006; Dickinson & Smith, 1994; Dickinson &
and cultural practices. (pp. 5–6)
Sprague, 2002; Juel, 2006; McCarthey, 1999; McCarthey,
Heath argued that children who are learning to read and 1997; McGill-Franzen, Lanford, & Adams, 2002). Thus,
write must not only learn to understand and confront the our purpose in the remainder of this chapter is twofold: to
fluid nature of what it means to be literate, but they must also explain in greater detail the home differences that contribute
acquire ways of thinking that allow them to act in contexts to reading difficulty that some children experience in both
that are uncertain and unstable. Some children—those who early and later years of school; and to describe the types
arrive at school from “mainstream, school-oriented, up- of instructional practices that effectively engage parents in
wardly mobile aspiring groups” (Heath, 1991, p. 12)—have supporting children’s reading and writing success.
the particular advantage of having experienced “redundant,
repetitive, and multiply reinforced ways of socializing… Home Differences and Reading Difficulty
[that] provide the bedrock discourse forms that sustain what
schools define as critical thinking” (p. 13). But there is The role families play in children’s literacy learning has
substantial evidence (Delgado-Gaitan, 1992; Delpit, 1995; been widely studied, and these investigations have led to
González, Moll, & Amanti, 2005; Heath, 1983; Purcell- some widely-held conclusions about the types of experi-
Gates, 1995; Schieffelin & Cochran-Smith, 1984; Taylor & ences children have prior to school that are influential
Dorsey-Gaines, 1988; Valdés, 1996) that children who are in their reading and writing success. In an apt summary,
raised in non-mainstream families hear and learn discourses Leseman and van Tuijl (2006) identified three categories
that are different from those that commonly characterize of early literacy experiences that distinguish “optimal from
schools and classrooms. Although as Gee (2004) noted, less optimal literacy-supporting environments” (p. 212).
almost all children, even poor children, enter school with The first type includes literacy events and interactions that
substantial and complex vocabulary, syntax, and experien- occur as part of the conduct of daily life. This category
tial knowledge, some lack “specific verbal abilities tied to includes the reading or “leafing through” of print materials
specific school-based practices, and school-based genres that are commonly found at home—advertising circulars,
of oral and written language” (p. 131). food market coupons, religious texts, and so forth. It also
Many argue that the complexity of becoming literate is includes shared storybook reading, a parent-child activity
obscured by a simplistic view of what it takes to be a suc- that has been identified as having special significance in
cessful reader. Paris (2005), for example, argued that flaws preparing young children to read (Bus, van Ijzendoorn, &
in traditional research designs have caused researchers and Pellegrini, 1995; Heath, 1986; Heath & Branscombe, 1986;
policymakers to misinterpret (or ignore) “fundamental dif- Purcell-Gates, 1996, 2001; Sénéchal & LeFevre, 2002;
ferences in the developmental trajectories of reading skills” Whitehurst & Lonigan, 2002).
(p. 184). Space does not permit a full discussion of this The second category relates to the informal or incidental
important issue, but, in a nutshell, Paris and others (Chall, instruction that is often embedded within cognitive, linguis-
Jacobs, & Baldwin, 1990; Gee, 2004; Snow, 1991) argue tic, and social interactions, such as reciting nursery rhymes
that evidence of the early effects of phonemic awareness, and songs or playing with letters, letter sounds, and words.
phonological development, and phonics abilities on reading These types of interactions are thought to be especially
achievement has obscured the equally significant effects of important because they contribute to the development of
language and concept knowledge. As a result, at the pres- a particular subset of skills that have been found to be of
ent time, in many classrooms, instruction (for both capable critical importance to early reading: phonological skills and
and struggling readers) privileges code knowledge at the alphabetic knowledge (de Jong & Leseman, 2001; Dodici,
expense of vocabulary and language knowledge. For children Draper, & Peterson, 2003; Muter, Hulme, & Snowling,
who are socialized at home into the vocabulary, language, 2004; Sénéchal et al., 1998; Sonnenschein & Munsterman,
and discourse of the school curriculum, these instructional 2002; Whitehurst & Lonigan, 2002).
 Home Differences and Reading Difficulty 95

The third category is affective: the development of as they were encountered during daily events or interac-
a favorable disposition toward reading and writing that tions; and they learned to tell stories in collaboration with
emerges from satisfying and comforting social interactions others, usually co-constructing a narrative within a process
with parents, siblings, or caregivers around literacy events sprinkled with frequent interruptions and embellishments,
or activities (Baker et al., 1997; Bus, 2003; Durkin, 1966; both true and false. These differences were consequential,
Landry, Miller-Loncar, Smith, & Swank, 2002; Landry & preventing children from readily mapping their experiences
Smith, 2006; Morrow, 1983; Sonnenschein & Munster- and resulting predispositions toward language and literacy
man, 2002; Wigfield & Asher, 1984). It seems important use neatly onto the expectations of the classroom.
to note that these studies are limited to the examination of In Roadville, parents engaged children in some book
children’s disposition toward the types of reading and writ- reading (most books of the labeling type rather than narra-
ing activities that are common to schools and classrooms. tive, fictional texts), and, like the children of Maintown, they
It is unknown, therefore, whether developing a favorable were often asked school-like questions, but their literacy
dispositions towards literacy experiences that are valued interactions largely ended here. Unlike Maintown parents,
at home, but not at school, has any relationship to reading Roadville parents did not link book reading with other
and writing success. events in their children’s lives, and for the most part, par-
We begin by asking how each of the categories of literacy ent participation in book reading ended when the children
experiences and events play out in the home and community entered school. At the start, Roadville children do reason-
lives of families who are culturally, linguistically, or socially ably well in school; they learn to write letters and decode
different from mainstream families. basic words. But as learning expectations move beyond
reading and writing simple texts, they, like the children of
Virtually All Families Practice Literacy Evidence of a Trackton, begin to fall behind.
relationship between reading and writing as daily occur- In their study of 6 inner-city, African American families,
rences and success in learning to read is both voluminous Taylor and Dorsey-Gaines (1988) observed purposeful,
and long-held. Huey (1908) is often cited as one of the earli- complex uses of reading and writing woven into the fabric
est to place parents at the heart of children’s early reading of the everyday lives of adults and children. However, like
success: “The secret of it all lies in parents reading aloud the families studied by Heath (1983), Taylor and Dorsey-
to and with the child” (p. 332). In subsequent years, stud- Gaines found that the ways these families used literacy
ies by Durkin (1966) and Clark (1976) were fundamental did not map onto the ways children were expected to use
to understanding that parents of children who experienced literacy in school. Perhaps the most striking differences
early success in reading engaged them often in a variety of between home and school literacies were in connectedness
reading and writing tasks and events, including reading to and purposefulness. At home, literacy uses by both adults
and with them, encouraging them to notice, name, and write and children were initiated for the purposes of achieving a
letters and sounds, and providing models of engaged and particular goal or completing an important task, effectively
interested readers and writers. These characterizations led characterized as “situated action” (Gee, 2004, p. 117). In
many researchers and practitioners to assume that homes contrast, in school, the underlying purposes were not social
that lacked these particular types of literacy events and in- or problem-solving in nature. Rather, they were most often
teractions were low literate or even non-literate. However, decontextualized actions initiated to complete a learning
studies of language, literacy, and social interactions in task, unrelated to any purposeful or meaningful social act.
families that were characterized as linguistically, culturally, Both in the classroom and as homework, children practiced
or economically different from those studied by Durkin and writing their names, writing lists of words, completing fill-
Clark led to very different understandings. in-the-blank worksheets. These were unfamiliar tasks for the
In her landmark, 10-year ethnography of the ways fami- children observed by Taylor and Dorsey-Gaines and presup-
lies in three communities (Trackton, a low-income Black posed knowledge about print that they had not acquired at
community; Roadville, a low-income White community, home. Like the children of Trackton and Roadville, most
and Maintown, a middle-income White community) used of these children found school difficult.
language and literacy in the course of their daily lives, Heath Over a period of 3 to 18 months, Teale (1986) observed 24
(1983) found that virtually all of the Trackton and Roadville preschool children (8 Anglo, 8 Black, 8 Mexican American)
families engaged children in rich and literate discourse, but residing in low-income families. He recorded any instance
they did so in ways that were substantially different from during which a person “produced, comprehended, or at-
mainstream Maintown families. Children in Trackton had tempted to produce or comprehend written language” (p.
few experiences asking or answering “school-like” questions 177). The total number of visits ranged from 5 to 47 per
(i.e., the types of questions for which the adult knows the household and totaled over 1,400 hours of observations.
answer) or otherwise displaying their knowledge through la- Like Heath and Taylor and Dorsey-Gaines, Teale reported
beling and describing; they rarely recounted or retold shared that the uses of reading and writing varied widely across
experiences; and they had few experiences with storybook families both in quantity and type, and as well, he found that
reading. They did, however, answer many questions related the “most striking” (p. 184) feature of the literacy events and
to genuine queries; they learned names of objects and events interactions he observed was their social nature. Children and
96 Jeanne R. Paratore and Susan Dougherty

parents engaged in literate activity to accomplish meaningful literacy development of the children in these families. She
and purposeful tasks, rather than to “practice” reading or concluded that the role of print experiences in the home is
writing for the purposes of advancing literacy knowledge. far more complex than is commonly thought, noting that
Similar accounts can be found in the work of many oth- children who experienced early reading success had certain
ers and these accounts stretch across nearly three decades types of home literacy experiences. Most children in the
and document literacy events and actions in the homes of study—but not all—acquired an understanding of the pur-
families representing many cultures, languages, and social poses of print and its uses in daily living routines. Children
classes (Anderson & Stokes, 1984; Compton-Lilly, 2003, who had grasped the “big picture” (p. 422) engaged more
2007; Leichter, 1984; Madigan, 1992; Purcell-Gates, 1995, frequently in literacy events that involved print (an average
1996; Taylor, 1997; Valdés, 1996; Vasquez, Pease-Alvarez, of 1.2 literacy events per hour observed) and had many
& Shannon, 1994; Volk & Long, 2005; Voss, 1996). None- print-related interactions with their mothers (an average of
theless, as explained in the next section, when it comes to .71 interactions per all observed literacy events). In addition
preparation for school-based literacy, the presence of some to grasping the “big picture,” some children acquired knowl-
types of literacy practices seems to be outweighed by the edge about how language works—“the nature and forms of
absence of others. written language as well as its alphabetic nature” (p. 423);
these children had many opportunities to experience “print-
Differences in How Literacy is Practiced Matter Not- embedded activities that were either directed to them or were
withstanding the evidence that “virtually all children in a engaged in by literate others involving text at the more com-
literate society like ours have numerous experiences with plex levels of written discourse found in storybooks, novels,
written language before they ever get to school” (Teale, p. magazine articles, and newspapers” (p. 426). Purcell-Gates
192), some types of early literacy experiences more readily argued that simply seeing a lot of print did not, by itself,
map onto the demands of the school curriculum. lead children to an understanding of critical concepts about
print, i.e., that children’s recognition of environmental print
Engaging in print at more complex levels. Studies tell us may be less important than many assume. Instead, “children
that the type of print and the ways children engage in print are are better served by observing and experiencing the read-
important to the development of their concepts about print ing and writing of connected discourse decontextualized
(Baker et al., 1998; Goodman, 1986; Purcell-Gates, 1996, from physical (such as signs and containers) and pictorial
2001, 2004; Sulzby, 1985; Sulzby & Edwards, 1993; Yaden, contexts” (p. 426). Based on a comprehensive review of the
Smolkin, & Conlon, 1989). For example, Purcell-Gates features of written language in the home environment and
(1996) measured the literacy knowledge of 24 children, ages of children’s opportunities to interact with various written
4 to 6, residing in 20 low-socioeconomic status homes. With language registers, Purcell-Gates (2004) argued that the
a team of research assistants, she collected data on each of importance of the written language register has been under-
the 7 days of the week, spreading out observations during estimated in discussions of early literacy development. In
the hours of the day when both adults and children were particular, she questioned the widely-held assumption that
awake and at home. Researchers observed and recorded sophisticated oral language knowledge (e.g., rare words and
parent or child literacy events; noted the participant structure complex grammatical structures) is foundational for early
of the event; noted materials in the home related to literacy; reading development. Instead, she claimed that the evidence
and collected children’s samples of drawing, writing, or supports a direction reversal—that is, that “exposure to print
scribbling. Children also completed a set of written lan- and to print use” (p. 112) paves the way for development of
guage assessments. Like Teale, Purcell-Gates reported that complex lexical and syntactical knowledge; this knowledge,
all families engaged in literacy events, but the range was in turn, prepares children for success in both early and later
wide, varying from .17 events per hour to 5.07 events per stages of reading development. Moreover, she claims that
hour. Hypothesizing that the complexity of the texts being neglecting this understanding is consequential, leading
read and written might be as important as the frequency of classroom teachers and family literacy program providers
engagement in literacy events, Purcell-Gates also rated the to over-emphasize the facilitative effects of the ways parents
text level of materials used in each event by “placing them talk to children and under-emphasize the importance of
on a continuum of size of the linguistic unit, and the features print resources that support the development of the written
commonly associated with written, as composed to oral, language register.
language” (p. 416). Across literacy events, texts composed What seems important to us as we think about the “re-
of words and phrases, for example, coupons, ads, food or search to practice” connections is less the direction of the
container labels were most numerous. While not as numer- effect, and more the nature of the interaction in the oral and
ous as word and phrase level texts, significant quantities of written language registrars. It seems clear that certain types
children’s storybooks and adult reading materials and written of print (e.g., extended text that in some way introduces
products were identified within the literacy events. Overall children to academic talk and concepts) help children build
numbers only offer a partial picture, however; as might be fundamental literacy concepts, and certain types of adult
expected, it was the variability in the use of texts of differ- interactions (e.g., prompting children to notice and manipu-
ent levels and for different purposes that mapped on to the late text and elaborating and discussing ideas in text) help
 Home Differences and Reading Difficulty 97

children to development concepts about print that facilitate Other studies of interactional styles indicate the ways
reading and writing success. parents and children interact with texts varies in relation
to text genres. ABC and concept books seem to prompt
Engaging in storybook reading. Related to Purcell- mothers to talk more about print and also prompt children
Gates’s argument for the importance of the written language to engage in more print-related activities, including attempts
register as a staple of home literacy environments is the to identify letters and spell words (Baker et al., 1998; Bus
widely-held belief that storybook reading is an important & van Ijzendoorn, 1988; Cornell, Sénéchal, & Broda, 1988;
family literacy event (Anderson, Hiebert, Scott, & Wilkin- Yaden et al., 1989). As well, expository texts may elicit more
son, 1985). However, studies have led to some disagreement interaction from mothers and children than do narrative
about the significance of the relationship between this texts (Pellegrini, Perlmutter, Galda, & Brody, 1990). Some
particular literacy event and success in early reading (Bus, studies (e.g., Manyak, 1998) indicate that when content
van Ijzendoorn, & Pellegrini, 1995; Dunning, Mason, & of books is related to families’ experiences, parent-child
Stewart, 1994; Lonigan, 1994; Scarborough & Dobrich, interactions are more elaborated and interpretive.
1994). Most prominently, although Bus et al. (1995) and A group of studies has also focused on the particular
Scarborough and Dobrich (1994) agreed that the relation- reading skills that children acquire through parent-child
ship between parent-child reading and literacy achievement reading. There is general agreement that there is a rela-
accounted for about 8% of the variance in overall achieve- tionship between shared reading and vocabulary and lan-
ment, they interpreted the outcome differently. Scarborough guage development (Arnold & Whitehurst, 1994; Baker,
and Dobrich concluded that the findings “do not provide Fernandez-Fein, Scher, & Williams, 1998; Crain-Thoreson
much support for the hypothesis that parent-preschooler & Dale, 1999; DeTemple & Snow, 2003; Jordan, Snow, &
reading experiences…are more predictive of literacy devel- Porche, 2000; Sénéchal, 1997; Sénéchal & LeFevre, 2002;
opment than conventional demographic indices of family Valdez-Menchaca & Whitehurst, 1992; van Kleeck, 2003;
background” (p. 290). However, Bus et al. noted that the Weizman & Snow, 2001; Whitehurst et al., 1994; Yaden,
overall effect size of d = 0.59 yielded by their meta-analysis Tam, & Madrigal, 2000) and little evidence of a relation-
of all available studies fell within Cohen’s (1977) criteria for ship between shared reading and phonological awareness or
a medium (d = 0.50) to strong (d = 0.80) effect size. They alphabet knowledge (Baker et al., 1998; Landry & Smith,
concluded that the differences in findings between their 2006; Stahl, 2003). However, there is also solid evidence
study and that of Scarborough and Dobrich are explained that the outcomes related to storybook reading are more
by the methodological advantages of meta-analysis. complex when viewed over time. Two longitudinal studies
Subsequent studies have provided insight into the are especially noteworthy in clarifying the relationship. Sé-
particular conditions that lead to beneficial outcomes of néchal and LeFevre (2002) found that storybook reading had
parent-child reading. For the most part, studies indicate that effects at different stages of reading development. That is, in
repeated readings lead to greater vocabulary gains and more the beginning stage of reading, when children are focused
active child engagement than do single readings (Roser & primarily on unlocking the code, there is little evidence
Martinez, 1985; Sénéchal, 1997; Snow & Goldfield, 1983). that parent-child reading has any influence. However, in
Interactional styles during book reading also have differ- the later years, when the texts that children read in school
ential effects on children’s language learning from books. become more linguistically and conceptually complex, the
Asking and answering questions, focusing on novel words, language knowledge associated with early storybook read-
and engaging children in conversations that help them go be- ing becomes important. Similar outcomes are evident in a
yond the text and make connections between events, objects, study by de Jong and Leseman (2001). For word decoding,
or ideas in the text and their own lives relate to later read- they reported an “overall decline in the size of the relation-
ing achievement (e.g., DeTemple & Snow, 2003; Haden, ships with the home education facets from the end of first
Reese, & Fivush, 1996; Reese, Cox, Harte, & McAnally, grade to the end of third grade” (p. 11). Conversely, they
2003; Sénéchal, 1997; Sonnenschein & Munsterman, 2002). found that the relationship between home education rated as
However, the effects of particular actions may vary accord- high in the facets of instructional quality and socioemotional
ing to children’s vocabulary knowledge and the assessed quality and reading comprehension increased from grade
outcome. Reese, Cox, Harte, and McAnally (2003) found one to grade three. De Jong and Leseman argued that it is
that when children’s vocabulary knowledge was the focus, not likely that home literacy directly affected third-grade
children with lower initial vocabulary scores showed the reading outcomes, but rather, as suggested by Snow (1991),
greatest gains when mothers labeled and described objects home literacy experiences that are rich in opportunities for
and ideas, while children with higher initial vocabulary language learning not only lead to immediate learning of
scores benefited most when mothers focused on overall new vocabulary and concepts, but also mediate the acquisi-
story comprehension. When print knowledge was the focus, tion and development of language over time.
children with lower initial comprehension did better with a Finally, access to books and other print resources is
read-aloud style that favored story comprehension, while uneven. Based on their analysis of resources available to
children with higher comprehension did better when the families in four neighborhoods (2 low-income and 2 middle-
read-aloud style favored describing and labeling. income), Neuman (2006) reported “stark and triangulated
98 Jeanne R. Paratore and Susan Dougherty

differences in resources” (p. 31), with fewer bookstores, conceptual knowledge, but also because of its contribution
fewer libraries—with shorter hours of operation—and to the development of phonological awareness (Metsala
fewer print resources in preschools and school libraries in & Walley, 1998; Sénéchal, Ouellette, & Rodney, 2006).
the low-income neighborhoods. Among the many statistics As explained by Metsala and Walley (1998), “words with
that reveal the details of the disparity between the low- and many similar sounding neighbors reside in ‘dense’ neigh-
middle-income communities is the fact that print resources borhoods” (p. 101), and the sound similarities (e.g., bag,
available for purchase in stores in the community ranged bib, bit) prompt children to notice “fine-grained” (p. 101)
from 13 titles for every child in one of the middle-income differences in words, thus sharpening their awareness of
neighborhoods to 1 book per 300 children in one of the sounds in words.
low-income neighborhoods. Data from day care centers
and libraries are equally disparate. Engaging in experiences that motivate children to-
ward print-engagement. A few investigations provide
Engaging in nursery rhymes and other sorts of language evidence of a relationship between children’s interest
play. Phonological awareness and alphabet knowledge are in and motivation to engage in school-based reading ac-
well-established as predictors of early reading achievement tivities and the frequency and nature of reading and other
(see, for example, Snow, Burns, & Griffin, 1998). With activities at home. Lomax (1976) and Morrow (1983),
regard to the contribution of home and community experi- for example, found that kindergarten children with high
ences to the acquisition of these abilities, there is a general interest in reading were read to more often than children
finding of a relationship between children’s knowledge of with low interest in reading. Morrow (1983) also found
nursery rhymes and higher levels of phonological aware- that children with high interest watched less television,
ness and alphabet knowledge (Baker et al., 1998; Bryant, visited the library more often, and had greater access to
Bradley, MacLean, & Crossland, 1989; Maclean, Bryant, books in their homes than did children with low interest in
& Bradley, 1987; Sonnenschein, Brody, & Munsterman, reading. Sonnenschein et al. (1996) and Sonnenschein and
1996). Moreover, there is evidence (Baker, et al., 1998; Munsterman (2002) found that the affective quality of the
Sénéchal & LeFevre, 2002; Sonnenschein et al., 1996) interaction during parent-child storybook reading, defined
of a direct relationship between parents’ self-report of as the extent to which the parent used the text to engage
engaging children in various types of formal and informal and focus the child, was significantly related to children’s
word-learning activities (e.g., hand-clap games, singing, reading motivation. This outcome is consistent with a
interactions with educational books, writing letters and series of studies by Bus and her colleagues (Baker et al.,
words) and higher levels of skills directly related to word 1997; Bus, 2003; Bus & van Ijzendoorn, 1988; Bus & van
recognition. Important to this discussion of home differ- Ijzendoorn, 1992, 1995; Bus, Leseman, & Keultjes, 2000)
ences are studies that indicate that children’s exposure to in which they observed that the ways mothers responded to
rhyme differs by social class, with middle-income children children’s disengagement correlated with child’s interest
more often engaged in rhyming activities than are low- in reading. That is, children were more likely to maintain
income children (Baker et al., 1998). engagement or interest in books when mothers responded
to lack of focus by skipping a page, allowing the child to
Hearing lots of talk and talk that is lexically and syn- comment on an object or event, or connecting events and
tactically complex. The relationship between children’s objects in texts to familiar experiences in the child’s life.
early language development and success in reading and
writing also has been widely studied, and many have stud-
Making Sense of the Evidence of Home Differences
ied the particular contribution of parent talk to children’s
and Reading Difficulty
language knowledge. There is clear evidence of a relation-
ship between the quantity (Hart & Risley, 1995), lexical Our review of literature related to understanding the ways
complexity (Beals, 2001; Beals, DeTemple, & Dickinson, parents and children of diverse economic, linguistic, and
1994; Dickinson & Beals, 1994; Hoff, 2006; Tabors, Beals, cultural groups use reading and writing in their home and
& Weizman, 2001; Tabors, Roach, & Snow, 2001; Weizman community settings leads us to a definitive (and long-held)
& Snow, 2001), and syntactic complexity (Hoff, 2006; Hut- understanding: literacy uses and events of various types are
tenlocher, Vasilyeva, Cymerman, & Levine, 2002) of parent embedded within the daily routines of virtually all families.
talk and children’s language learning. Greater incidences Equally definitive is the evidence that particular types of
of pretend talk (during play); greater use of narrative and home literacy experiences make school success more prob-
explanatory talk that require extended conversations (during able. Literacy uses and events that are highly congruent
mealtime, play, and book reading); and greater exposure with the school reading and writing curriculum that occur
to and explanation of sophisticated or rare words relate to in children’s preschool years give children a head start;
higher rates of vocabulary learning among children in low- conversely, experiences that are not a good match for the
income groups. Moreover, vocabulary knowledge in the school curriculum are largely invisible (McCarthey, 1997)
early years is thought to be important not only because of and thus are unrecognized as potential building blocks for
its connection to children’s development of deep stores of school success. Studies of interventions at home and at
 Home Differences and Reading Difficulty 99

school convince us that it need not be this way—that ef- Reading to children. Perhaps the most widespread
fective teachers who are knowledgeable about how to work attempt by teachers to initiate home-school connections is
collaboratively with parents can take advantage of what chil- sending home books with children, with the expectation that
dren already know, and with parents, extend what children parents will read these books to the children. Because par-
need to know to experience reading and writing success. In ents vary in the ways that they engage in storybook reading,
the next section, we address this area of research. such efforts have been found to vary widely in effectiveness
(Edwards, 1994; Goldenberg, Reese, & Gallimore, 1992).
Instructional Practices that Mediate Home Differences In Some studies help us to understand the types of actions we
a review of research that examined the effectiveness of might take as teachers to increase the likelihood of success
various interventions used to improve the reading per- of such collaborations.
formance of struggling readers, Torgesen (2004) stated, Edwards (1991) implemented a parent-child shared read-
“Preventive and remedial instruction must be substantially ing program with 25 lower-socioeconomic-status mothers
more intense than regular classroom instruction if it is to and their children. The program included three phases:
accomplish its purposes” (p. 364). He suggested two ways coaching, peer modeling, and parent-child interaction,
to increase intensity of reading instruction: by increasing with each phase lasting approximately 6–7 weeks and each
instructional time or by decreasing group size, thereby session lasting 2 hours. Parents viewed videotape of effec-
increasing amount of time the teacher can dedicate to tive storybook reading sessions, and they were provided a
each child. We argue that there is a third way to increase progression of steps to follow. At first, as parents practiced
intensity for children who struggle or who are at risk for the strategies, the university-leader-coach intervened and
reading difficulties—even as a result of differences in scaffolded the dialogue. Over the course of the three phases,
home literacy environments—and that is to view parents responsibility for the shared reading was gradually released
as an instructional resource. This argument is grounded in from the coach, to peers, and eventually entirely to the
a review of studies that fall into two general categories. The parent. Observational data indicated that children engaged
first category includes studies in which parents effectively more often in book-related conversations and asked and
serve as learning partners with their children. These shared answered more questions about the text. Although school
literacy interactions are accomplished in different ways. In achievement data were not collected, teachers reported that
some cases, parents are simply provided with materials and children increased their knowledge of written language,
basic instructions for providing support to their children concepts about print, and story comprehension. Edwards
at home. In other cases, such as when a child seems to be concluded that with explicit and extended coaching, parents
struggling to a substantial degree or when parents are less with low levels of literacy and with negative experiences
familiar with a particular technique, informational and during their own years of schooling could be enlisted as
instructional sessions may be provided. At times, when effective storybook readers with their children.
parents themselves lack the English literacy skills neces- Krol-Sinclair (1996) trained parents who were im-
sary to assist their children—or when their own school migrants with limited English proficiency and limited
experiences were negative and have left them suspicious reading ability in read-aloud strategies for the purpose of
of schools or doubtful that their children will fare any reading aloud in elementary classrooms and also reading
better—full-scale family literacy projects provide support with their children at home. Like Edwards, she offered
to them and their children. The second category includes parents extended instruction (between 4 and 7 sessions)
studies in which parents are learning partners with teach- in read-aloud strategies, and she also provided opportuni-
ers; in these interactions, teachers share information with ties to rehearse selected books in front of an audience of
parents about family literacy routines that would support peers. She observed all classroom read-aloud sessions,
children in school; in addition, teachers seek to learn from and parents audiotaped at-home read-aloud sessions. She
parents about family and community routines and events found that parents learned to incorporate effective discourse
and about children’s interests and experiences outside of practices into their read-alouds both at home and in the
school, and to use what is learned as a foundation for and classrooms they visited. Moreover, she found that parents
connection to the classroom curriculum. Our intent in this brought personal strategies to the classroom reading ses-
section is not to present an exhaustive review of related sions. That is, they incorporated read-aloud strategies that
studies, but rather to present trustworthy examples that are were not directly addressed in training. She also found that
useful in considering present and future directions. parents’ limited literacy skills (in English or in their first
language) did not prevent them from successfully engaging
Parents as Learning Partners with Their Children When in read-alouds of carefully selected and rehearsed books.
teachers ask parents to participate with their children as Further, because of the classroom reading component of
learning partners, the types of activities they assign to this intervention, teachers had an opportunity to observe
them typically fall within three types: reading to children, parents as they read and interacted with children, and
listening to children read, or engaging children in activi- they noted and acknowledged (sometimes with surprise)
ties intended to develop specific reading skills or abilities the parents’ capacity to serve as learning resources for
(Sénéchal, 2006). their children. Most of the teachers commented that they
100 Jeanne R. Paratore and Susan Dougherty

acquired an increased awareness of parents’ commitment classrooms, children were given time daily to select books
to reading. to be taken home and returned the next day. Children in the
Whitehurst and colleagues (Arnold & Whitehurst, 1994; non-treatment classrooms had access to the books at school,
Valdez-Menchaca & Whitehurst, 1992; Whitehurst et al., but were not given the opportunity to take them home. Data
1994; Zevenbergen & Whitehurst, 2006) conducted several were collected through telephone interviews conducted
studies of the effects of a technique they termed dialogic with parents (treatment and non-treatment) once a week
reading. As described by Zevenbergen and Whitehurst over the course of the 12-week intervention. During each
(2006), in dialogic reading, “the child is encouraged to phone call, which took place in the evenings, the parent was
become the teller of the story over time; the adult’s role asked to think about the current day and recall any literacy
is to prompt the child with questions, expand the child’s events that occurred. Results indicated that children who
verbalizations, and praise the child’s efforts to tell the story were given the opportunity to take books home from their
and label objects within the book” (p. 178). In most of these classroom each day were read to more often at home than
studies (Arnold & Whitehurst, 1994; Valdez-Menchaca children who were not afforded the same opportunity. This
& Whitehurst, 1992; Whitehurst et al., 1994), research- was true for children from both middle-class and low-SES
ers studied effects of training both preschool teachers homes. Although number of books shared did not emerge
and parents in dialogic reading, and the designs did not as a factor in the comparison of middle-class and low-SES
allow researchers to study the effects of a home-only in- families, the amount of time spent reading to the children
tervention. However, noting this, Lonigan and Whitehurst did vary by social group, with middle-class parents read-
(1998) conducted a study that allowed them to contrast ing more than the low-SES parents in the same treatment
the effects of three conditions: a home-only condition, a group. There was also a gender difference in the findings.
school-only condition, and a school-plus-home condition The difference in the number of books read was significant
with a no-treatment group. Children in the study were for both boys and girls, but more pronounced among boys.
3- and 4-year-olds from low-income, English-speaking The boys in the treatment group read 14.6 more books on the
households. All but two of the parents of children in the days sampled than boys in the non-treatment group. Because
home-reading condition attended two training sessions on child achievement data were not gathered, it is not possible
dialogic reading; two parents attended only the first train- to know if the take-home book intervention accelerated the
ing. Parents were asked to engage in dialogic reading daily literacy development of these kindergartners.
over a 6-week period, and to complete a daily log sheet of In these examples, initiatives focused on supporting
when dialogic reading occurred and to record the titles of parent-child storybook reading, with and without a parent-
the books shared. Children in all treatment conditions did training component, resulted, in most cases, in more time
significantly better on post-test measures than did children reading and in learning gains for children, especially in the
in the control group, and effects were largest for children area of vocabulary knowledge. As well, studies indicate
engaged in home reading, particularly when the outcome that parent-child reading provides children an opportunity
measure was expressive language. The researchers suggest to learn to talk about books, and as we think about how to
that this finding may be accounted for by the opportunity for bridge home and school differences, this is an important
elaborative and extended talk that parent-child (one-to-one) outcome. That is, from shared book reading, children ac-
reading provided (as opposed to the group-based reading quire the discourse of “book talk” that is so important to the
of the classroom). classroom: learning to think about words and language, to
To this point, each of the interventions described consider characters and events and relationships between
included some sort of training program. Teachers often and among parts of a story, and to ask and answer questions
acknowledge such initiatives as worthy and important, (Pellegrini & Galda, 2003).
but argue that they simply do not have the resources to Nonetheless, the conclusion that increasing the fre-
implement them. We wondered if it was possible to obtain quency of parent-child shared reading has generally
results with no instructional or informational training in positive outcomes for literacy learning is not uncontested.
read-aloud strategies. To answer that question, we turned Examining studies of storybook reading interventions with
to a study by Robinson, Larsen, and Haupt (1996). These parents and children in multicultural contexts, Anderson,
researchers observed the effects of sending high-quality Anderson, Lynch, and Shapiro (2003) concluded that the
picture books home with kindergarten children on at-home studies yielded “a much more modest effect on literacy
reading behaviors. Children in four kindergarten classes par- development of non-mainstream children than is commonly
ticipated in the study. Two of the classrooms, comprising 35 believed” (p. 209). This review is problematic, however,
children, served as the treatment group, while the two other because the focal studies were both few in number and of
classrooms, comprising 40 children, served as the control many types: in some, children read to parents, in others,
group. In both groups, one classroom was drawn from a parents read to children. In most of the studies cited, shared
school in a middle-class neighborhood and the other was texts were not high-quality children’s literature, but rather,
drawn from a Chapter I school (designated as low-SES by school textbooks.
the researchers). At the beginning of the study, all four class- These researchers also challenged the assumption that
rooms were provided with 40 picture books. In the treatment storybook reading is a “natural” family literacy event.
 Home Differences and Reading Difficulty 101

Citing their own work (Anderson & Morrison, 2000) and in the child’s classroom throughout the week. After reading
that of others (e.g., Janes & Kermani, 2001) as evidence, the text once with the researcher, the child was given a copy
they argued that, in families in which joint reading is not of the text and four audio tapes and asked to take the text
a familiar routine, shared storybook reading can be an home and read it with a parent four times over the course
unwelcome intrusion sometimes perceived by parents as of the week. On the subsequent Thursday, the researcher
a “tension-filled chore” (p. 213) that “can be problematic met again with each child, and the take-home text was read
when families feel pressured to share books in highly pre- once more. Then the child read aloud the new take-home
scribed ways” (p. 214). Results such as these underscore the text and the cycle began again. Eight children (all reading
importance of developing a full understanding of existing at least 1 year below grade level at the start) participated
family beliefs, routines, and practices and considering the in the intervention for at least 9 weeks and completed at
potential consequences of introducing an unfamiliar literacy least four story cycles. Using single-subject across-subjects
event into family contexts. design and a pre-post design, the researchers found that
all participants made substantially fewer errors during
Listening to children read. This group of studies fits the intervention than they had in baseline and all students
into Sénéchal’s (2006) “parents listen to children” read experienced decreased error rates from the first to the last
category and is based on the simple premise that the more reading of stories. All children also increased fluency from
children read, the better they get at reading (Taylor, Frye, the beginning to the end of the intervention, with two chil-
Maruyama, 1990; Stanovich, 1986). We have selected two dren achieving grade-level norms for fluency by the end
examples of this type of mediation—one that included a of the intervention. An independent measure was used as a
parent-training component and one that did not. pre- and post-test measure of change over the course of the
Rasinski and Stevenson (2005) studied the effects of study. By the end of the intervention, 5 of the 8 participants
a fluency-based family literacy intervention called Fast performed at grade level on an isolated word reading task
Start, an approach that combined reading to and listening and 6 of the 8 participants performed at grade level on an
to children read. Parents of first graders attending a sub- oral reading and on a comprehension assessment.
urban school participated in a 60-minute training program These results were achieved without a parent-training
on engaging children in supported and repeated readings component, suggesting that it may be possible for schools
of simple texts. The modeling portion of the session was to establish rather simple (and inexpensive) intervention
followed by parents practicing a lesson with their children. programs that some parents can deliver at home that will
Over the course of the next 11 weeks, parents worked with change the achievement trajectory for children who show
their children daily for approximately 10 to 15 minutes signs of struggle in the lower elementary grades. However,
using the same text for a week. As an additional support, the results also offer some evidence that parent training
the 15 parents were called weekly and asked to report the might be necessary in some circumstances. The children
amount of time they spent on the program and given the who made the greatest gains were those whose parents of-
opportunity to ask questions about the program. Surveys fered higher levels of word-level support when the children
that solicited parents’ opinions about the program were made oral reading errors. Hindin and Paratore (2007) noted
sent home at the conclusion of the intervention. Children in that three of the four parents who offered the least amount
both the experimental and control groups were categorized of word-level support were acquiring English as a second
as high, medium, and low readers on the basis of pretest language. They speculated: “Although they were moderately
results, and the effect of the intervention on each of these proficient in conversational English, they might not have
groups was evaluated. Although as a whole the perfor- had the ability or confidence to provide word-level support.
mance of children participating in Fast Start did not differ These parents might have benefited from further training
significantly from that of children in the control group, and encouragement to advance their word-level support of
the initially lower-achieving children in the experimental their children’s reading” (p. 328).
group showed growth that was significantly greater than
that of the lower-achieving children in the control group, Parents trained to instruct at home. A third category
suggesting that the intervention was of greatest benefit to the of home-school interventions includes those that focus on
children who entered first grade with lower than expected training parents to teach particular literacy skills (Sénéchal,
literacy skills. 2006). Reutzel, Fawson, and Smith (2006) designed and
Hindin and Paratore (2007) also examined effects of a implemented a parent involvement program that focused
home-repeated-reading intervention, but unlike Rasinski on developing the word reading and word writing abilities
and Stevenson (2005), they did not include a parent-training of first graders. The program, called Words to Go!, was
component. Working with struggling second-grade read- implemented with first-grade parents from two, high poverty
ers from a low-income urban community, the intervention schools (one a treatment school and the other serving as a
engaged children in repeated readings of each week’s control group). Both schools offered the same school-based
classroom instructional text. On Thursday of each week, comprehensive family literacy program and both used the
the participants met individually with a researcher and read same instructional phonics program (Cunningham, 2000)
aloud the grade-level, shared reading text that had been used as part of classroom reading instruction. Parents with
102 Jeanne R. Paratore and Susan Dougherty

children attending the four first-grade classrooms in the skill experienced the greatest language gains. By the end
treatment school were invited to attend a workshop at which of the project, the children in the experimental group who
parents were provided training and materials necessary to began with the lowest language skills were performing at
implement at home “making and breaking” word lessons. a level equivalent to the children in the control group who
Sixty-five percent of the parents of first graders attended had begun the school year with high language skills.
one of the three training sessions; detailed instructions for Also notable within the Project EASE data was the
implementing the program were sent home to the remain- finding that those parents whose survey responses earned
ing parents. Once per week, a new program lesson, which higher scores initially tended to participate more fully in the
included the necessary materials and a script, were sent project, as measured both by attendance at training sessions
home. Parents were asked to work with the words daily, and completion of the Scripted At-Home Book activities.
and were asked to fill out a report recording what had been This finding may have important implications for similar
completed over the course of a week. Students who par- projects undertaken in other schools. Project EASE was
ticipated in the Words to Go! program scored significantly conducted in a suburban school district that was perceived as
higher on post-tests measuring word reading and word- offering solid literacy instruction and the results of the initial
writing abilities than did students from the control group parent surveys suggested that “these were not families that
(effect sizes of η2 = .2 and .23, respectively). Words to Go! were extremely limited in their literacy support” (p. 538).
children also out-performed control group children on a Undertaking such an endeavor in an environment in which
state-administered “end-of-level” test, suggesting that they the initial support for literacy at home is lower might require
were able to apply the word-level skills learned through the more attention to participation and consideration of how to
program to the reading of connected texts (effect size of encourage parents to become more fully involved.
η2 = .19). The researchers speculated that the high rates of
participation and strong fidelity of implementation may be Parents and children learn to read together. Some
explained by the high degree of congruence between the projects are intended to advance the literacy knowledge of
focal tasks and parents’ expectations and beliefs about how both children and their parents. These are typically multi-
children learn to read and write. Because the research report faceted and long-term, and they vary widely in design, pur-
did not separate data collected from parents who did and pose, and instructional approaches. Because comprehensive
those who did not attend the training session, the facilitative reviews of programs of this type are both recent and widely
effects of the training session are unknown. available (e.g., DeBruin-Parecki & Krol-Sinclair, 2003;
Jordan and colleagues (2000) studied the impact of a Purcell-Gates, 2000; Wasik, 2004; Yaden & Paratore, 2002),
year-long project conducted with the parents of 177 mid- we offer only a summary of the evidence here. Programs of
western kindergarteners; another 71 kindergarteners served this type can lead to improved literacy knowledge of chil-
as the control group for the intervention. Project EASE took dren (concepts about print, alphabet knowledge, phonemic
place over a 5-month period during which parents of kin- awareness (Brooks, 1998; Brooks et al., 1997; Brooks, Gor-
dergarteners were invited to monthly training sessions and man, Harman, Hutchison, & Wilkin, 1996; Paratore, Melzi,
provided with children’s books and scripted activities to use & Krol-Sinclair, 1999; Rodriguez-Brown, 2001; Shanahan,
at home. During the parent training meetings, information Mulhern, & Rodriguez-Brown, 1995); improved parent
about the importance of various types of language interac- literacy (e.g., Paratore, 1993, 1994, 2001); improved Eng-
tions (e.g., building and extending vocabulary knowledge) lish language proficiency for parents (Rodriguez-Brown,
was presented. Next, the month’s activities were modeled 2001; Shanahan, Mulhern, & Rodriguez-Brown, 1995);
by the presenters followed by an opportunity for parents and improved relationships between parents and teachers
to engage in the activities with their children. Parents took (Paratore et al., 1999; Rodriguez-Brown, 2001).
home 3 weeks worth of materials after each training ses-
sion and returned 1 month later for another session. The Parents and Teachers as Learning Partners This category
five training sessions addressed vocabulary learning, tell- includes programs in which parents and teachers understand
ing personal narratives, discussing storybook narratives, and value the knowledge each holds and are positioned to
discussing informational texts, and learning about letters learn from each other. Among the most influential work in
and sounds. In addition to a parent survey, which was used this approach to bridging home-school differences is that
to gather information about home literacy behaviors and of Moll and his colleagues (González et al., 2005; Moll &
the home literacy environment, pre- and post-intervention Greenberg, 1991; Moll, Amanti, Neff, & González, 1992).
testing was done to evaluate child outcomes. The gains Their work with families typically viewed as “deficient”
made by children whose parents participated were statisti- due to their status as English Language learners or working
cally greater than those made by children in the control class provides compelling evidence that such households
group. Of the three literacy-related categories addressed “[contain] ample cultural and cognitive resources with great,
during the study, the greatest advantage for treatment group potential utility for classroom instruction” (p. 134). They
participants was in the Language skills composite, with the termed these resources funds of knowledge, and critical to
project having an effect size of d =.64. Moreover, children the success of uncovering and building on these resources is
who entered kindergarten with the lowest levels of language the education of the teachers, themselves. As part of visiting
 Home Differences and Reading Difficulty 103

homes, teachers were trained in “conversational” interview- represented at the Friday sessions, and in year 2, 94.5%
ing, observing, and taking field notes. They also engaged were represented.
in after-school study groups to discuss what they observed During interviews, parents said that they became more
and learned and to consider ways they could incorporate aware of what their children could do with support and that
the household resources into their classroom curriculum. they had begun to provide similar support at home as “they
They found that parents and other community members engaged in activities introduced, modeled, and practiced
had rich backgrounds and much that they could share with during the biweekly Friday sessions” (p. 672) or as they
teachers and students about topics related to science (e.g., modified home literacy practices to reflect what they saw in
plants, herbs, music and sound); and social studies (e.g., the school visits. Nistler and Maiers (1999) concluded,
immigration, community relationships), and they used the
Friendships were built as parents and teacher learned
information to enrich content area units. Moll et al. (1992)
from one another. The formal and informal parent/teacher
described the “symmetrical relationship” (p. 139) that interactions gave parents the opportunity to talk about
developed between parents and teachers when teachers community issues and personal experiences and to express
visited their students’ homes with the goal of identifying their thoughts and opinions in a nonthreatening and caring
funds of knowledge and they concluded, “This relation- environment. (p. 675)
ship can become the basis for the exchange of knowledge
about family or school matters, reducing the insularity of While the study by Nistler and Maier was initiated by
classrooms, and contributing to the academic content and a teacher who was already cognizant of the importance of
lessons” (p. 139). recruiting parents as partners in their children’s education,
The work of McCarthey (1997, 1999) also has been Steiner (2008) offers an example of how teachers can be
instructive in understanding and implementing ways to ex- encouraged to shift their views about parents and children
change information with parents. Working with elementary through professional development. In a study of two teachers
teachers, McCarthey encouraged teachers to review school in urban, low-income, first-grade classrooms (one a treat-
records and initiate conversations with parents and children ment classroom and one a control) and six families from each
to learn more about children’s lives outside of school. Mc- classroom, Steiner implemented two intervention strands.
Carthey (1999) reported that In one, she worked directly with parents to introduce them
to storybook reading strategies and gave them appropri-
If teachers believed that students came from impoverished ate texts to share with their children. In addition, over the
backgrounds, they did not build on their backgrounds nor course of the 8 workshops, she and the parents discussed
provide experiences that would promote home-school
the children’s classroom “lives” and ways parents might
connections. When teachers were informed about and
valued students’ individual backgrounds, they were more
support their children in school-related tasks and activities.
inclined to adjust the curriculum to build upon students’ In the second intervention strand, Steiner worked directly
out-of-school experiences and to address important issues with the teacher in the treatment classroom. In a series of 8
such as racial tension. (p. 103) meetings, they read research related to home-school partner-
ships and discussed implications of the findings for work
Nistler and Maiers (1999) offer another example of in this particular school setting. They co-planned events for
what can happen when a teacher endeavors to “provide an involving parents in their children’s classroom, and they
exchange between home and school to support students’ also discussed ways for the classroom teacher to work with
literacy growth” (p. 110). Maiers, a first-grade teacher, parents to learn more about the children’s lives outside of
invited the parents of her students to join their children in school, and ways to incorporate what she learned into her
her classroom 15 times over the course of the school year. classroom lessons. Steiner examined intervention effects
On these mornings, parents participated with their children on three groups of children: those whose parent and teacher
in the regular classroom literacy activities and in activi- participated in the intervention, those whose teacher partici-
ties that allowed them to support their children’s literacy pated in the intervention, and those for whom neither the
learning during the sessions. Parents engaged in whole- teacher nor the parent participated in the intervention. She
class, teacher-led activities, such as reading the morning measured effects on children’s literacy knowledge (concepts
message, and in small group, cooperative activities, such about print, alphabet knowledge, phonemic awareness, and
as literacy stations and word work with a familiar poem. reading connected text), on teachers’ and parents’ attitudes
Maiers also met with individual parents during these visits, about parents’ roles in children’s academic learning, on
which allowed for the sharing of information or concerns parents’ use of reading strategies, and on teachers’ actions
about each child’s literacy development. Data collected to bridge home and school resources. She found statisti-
during the 2 years of program implementation included a cally significant differences in treatment group parents’
personal journal kept by Maiers, observers’ field notes, and initiation of effective storybook strategies from pre- to
audio-taped interviews conducted with each family three post-intervention joint book reading. She also found that
times during the school year. The extent of the partner- the classroom teacher planned substantially more events and
ship is evident in the number of parents who participated: meeting designed to exchange information with parents, and
in year 1, 96.5% of the students in Maiers’ class were she incorporated newly acquired knowledge about children’s
104 Jeanne R. Paratore and Susan Dougherty

lives outside of school in both individual and group interac- resource for their children. Paratore et al. concluded, “The
tions with children (and the control teacher made no changes [teachers’] affirmation may serve as encouragement to the
in her parent-involvement activities). Results also indicated parent to continue the interactions; the awareness may serve
changes in the beliefs of parents and teachers about the role as encouragement to the teacher to draw upon the parents’
of parents in their children’s literacy learning. Parents who enthusiasm and expertise in helping children succeed in
participated in the intervention reported that they devel- school” (p. 80). While in this particular case the parents
oped a stronger understanding of their children’s literacy arrived at the conference with the portfolios in hand, it
development and strengthened their relationships with the seems quite plausible these results could be reproduced—
teacher as a result of their increased time spent in school. at least to some degree—if parents were invited to bring
Finally, a combination of teacher and parent participation artifacts from home to the conference or to simply talk about
in the intervention led to statistically significant differences experiences related to literacy development that they have
in students’ scores on the Concepts About Print assessment observed at home.
when compared to students in the control classroom. No The research reviewed in this section demonstrates that
differences were found in children’s alphabet knowledge or if parents are to be recruited as a resource for intensifying
phonemic awareness (findings consistent with earlier evi- children’s literacy experiences, teachers must communicate
dence that storybook reading has few effects on word-level both explicitly (through invitations and opportunities to
skills, e.g., Baker et al., 1998; Landry & Smith, 2006; Stahl, become involved) and implicitly (through their behaviors
2003). She also found no effects on in-context reading, an as they interact with parents) that they truly believe that the
outcome that might suggest that an 8-week intervention is home environment is a vital, and valued, resource.
too brief to affect overall literacy proficiency.
In a final example, Paratore and her colleagues suggested
Summary and Conclusions
that parent-teacher conferences provide a “ready-made”
context for parent-teacher interface since, in many schools, We began this chapter with two claims: that there is sub-
they serve as the “primary vehicle for parent-teacher com- stantial evidence that home and family characteristics
munication” (Paratore, Hindin, Krol-Sinclair, & Durán, (including poverty, language, and educational experiences)
1999, p. 58). Paratore et al. examined the discourse of have important effects on children’s early and later reading
parent-teacher conferences when parents came to the success; and that knowledgeable, thoughtful, and responsive
conference with a portfolio that held evidence of their chil- teachers working with parents and with a rich and worthy
dren’s home literacy activity. Each of the four conferences curriculum can mediate these differences. Evidence of the
analyzed was held between a Latino, immigrant mother first claim is strong and definitive—it is fair to say that
and her child’s teacher, who in each case was a Spanish- we know that home and family experiences and resources
English bilingual. To prepare for the conference, parents have important consequences for children’s literacy learn-
were asked to collect evidence of the ways their children ing; children’s whose family experiences differ from those
used literacy at home, and to be prepared to describe each typical of mainstream children are more likely to experi-
portfolio artifact with teachers. The researchers found obvi- ence reading difficulty. With regard to the second claim,
ous differences between the discourse of the conferences although the evidence is less voluminous, there is certainly
when the literacy portfolios were being discussed and other substantial promise in the data: teachers who treat children’s
topics of discussion: families and communities as both partners and resources
in learning to read and write create for their students better
It was clearly evident in all cases that during discussions
either about home literacy or initiated in response to a
odds for success.
home portfolio artifact, teachers and parents engaged in Nonetheless, a survey reported by the National Com-
collaborative and connected conversations about children’s prehensive Center for Teacher Quality and Public Agenda
learning. During these conversations, parents shared, and (2008) indicates that, as a profession, we remain largely
in one case, even dominated the floor much of the time. reactive in our work with parents. Only 51% of new teach-
We found parents and teachers in extended, and at times, ers reported that they received preparation that addressed
seamless discussions about children’s learning at home and how to work with parents and community members. When
at school, as they used portfolio samples to shift the focus we toss into the mix issues of diversity, the likelihood that
quickly and easily from home to school and from school to new teachers receive adequate preparation for working with
home….The conversations that centered on home literacy parents is even less likely: only 4 in 10 teachers reported
stood in stark contrast to the teacher-controlled, monologic
that instruction related to addressing issues of ethnic and
conversations that characterized the discourse when virtu-
ally any other topic was on the table. (p. 79)
racial diversity helped them in the classroom. We need to
do better. Our failure to acknowledge and bridge home
As a result of the balanced participation in discussions differences as a critical component in children’s literacy
about home literacy, several of the parents reported feeling success is pushing children who have the capacity for suc-
more confident and better able to communicate with the cess into deep pockets of failure, and once they are there,
teacher. Each of the 4 teachers suggested that they became their chances for success diminish substantially (Juel, 1988;
more aware of the potential of these parents as a valuable Stanovich, 1986).
 Home Differences and Reading Difficulty 105

As the studies we presented indicate, we know enough the kind of parent involvement that makes a genuine dif-
to get started. We know that, with prompting and support, ference in a child’s life as a learner. (p. 105)
parents with both high and low levels of education and
parents with high and low levels of English language pro- This sounds so simple, but of course, it is not. There is much
ficiency can effectively implement various types of reading for us to learn if we are to create such settings in all schools
interventions at home, including storybook reading, fluency so that children who most need everyone in their learning
practice, and specific skill practice. We also know that, with lives to work together can count on it to happen.
prompting and support, teachers can learn to implement
approaches and practices that help them to uncover family References
and community resources and connect these to classroom
Allen, J. (2007). Creating welcoming schools. New York: Teachers Col-
curricula. lege Press.
As we reflect on the theory and research we reviewed Anderson, A., & Stokes, S. (1984). Social and institutional influences on
and on our experiences in schools and classrooms of all the development and practice of literacy. In H. Goelman, A. Oberg,
types, four areas of need emerge. First, at present, we seem & F. Smith (Eds.), Awakening to literacy (pp. 24–37). Exeter, NH:
Heinemann.
to treat home-school partnerships as a topic that is “good to
Anderson, J., Anderson, A., Lynch, J., & Shapiro, H. (2003). Storybook
know about,” but not as a topic that is essential to prevent- reading in a multicultural society: Critical perspectives. In A. van
ing reading failure for some children. We need to shift this Kleeck, S. A. Stahl, & E. B. Bauer (Eds.), On reading books to children:
perception to one in which understanding the importance Parents and teachers (pp. 203–230). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
of home and community partnerships is viewed as a critical Anderson, J., & Morrison, F. (2000). Parents as literacy supporters (PALS):
A culturally responsive family literacy program. Langley, British
domain for effective teaching and a central element of both
Columbia, Canada: Langley School District.
pre-service and in-service education. Anderson, R. C., Hiebert, E. H., Scott, J., & Wilkinson, I. (1985). Becoming
Second, in conceptualizing courses or professional de- a nation of readers. Washington, DC: U. S. Department of Education,
velopment efforts, we must heed the evidence that virtually National Institute of Education.
all families have funds of knowledge (Moll & Greenburg, Arnold, D. S., & Whitehurst, G. J. (1994). Accelerating language develop-
ment through picture book reading: A summary of dialogic reading
1991) that, if recognized, will provide a bridge to academic
and its effects. In D. K. Dickinson (Ed.), Bridges to literacy: Children,
skills and content. Such acknowledgement requires an ap- families, and schools (pp. 103–128). Cambridge, MA: Blackwell.
proach to engaging parents and communities that is char- Aulls, M. W., & Sollars, V. (2003). The differential influence of the home
acterized by collaboration rather than compliance. environment on the reading ability of children entering grade one.
Third, we need more research that helps us to understand Reading Improvement, 40(4), 164–178.
Baker, L., Fernandez-Fein, S., Scher, D., & Williams, H. (1998). Home
precisely how to uncover home and community resources,
experiences related to the development of word recognition. In J. L.
and how to integrate what we learn into the academic cur- Metsala & L. C. Ehri (Eds.), Word Recognition in Beginning Literacy
riculum. Existing studies provide some promising direc- (pp. 263–288). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
tions, but investigations are limited in number, in scope, Baker, L., Scher, D., & Mackler, K. (1997). Home and family influences
and in the diversity of the families. on motivation for reading. Education Psychologist, 32, 69–82.
Beals, D. E. (2001). Eating and reading. In D. K. Dickinson & P. O. Tabors
Fourth, we need more and better studies that help us to
(Eds.), Beginning literacy with language: Young children learning at
know and understand the precise relationship between the home and at school (pp. 75–92). Baltimore, MD: Brookes.
home-school partnerships we implement and advances in Beals, D. E., DeTemple, J. H., & Dickinson, D. K. (1994). Talking and
children’s reading and writing. There are so many factors listening that support early literacy development of children from
that, at present, we largely guess at: is there a “timing” is- low-income families. In D. K. Dickinson (Ed.), Bridges to literacy:
Children, families, and schools (pp. 19–42). Cambridge, MA: Black-
sue of some sort (i.e., does engaging parents at a particular
well.
time in the school year or at a particular age of child) that Biemiller, A. (2006). Vocabulary development and instruction: A pre-
leads to better or more sustained partnerships? Are there requisite for school learning. In D. K. Dickinson & S. B. Neuman
more or less advantageous contexts, that is, do parents and (Eds.), Handbook of Early Literacy Research (Vol. 2, pp. 41–43).
teachers work better together as dyads, as small groups, or New York: Guilford.
Bourdieu, P. (1986). The forms of capital. In J. G. Richardson (Ed.),
as large groups; are home and community settings more ef-
Handbook of theory and research for the sociology of education (pp.
fective than school settings? Do contextual effects vary for 241–258). New York: Greenwood.
different groups (i.e., mothers or fathers, different cultural Brooks, G. (1998). The effectiveness of family literacy programmes
or social groups)? When parents are themselves learning to in England and Wales for parents. Journal of Adolescent and Adult
read or speak English, what particular types of actions and Literacy, 42, 130–132.
Brooks, G., Gorman, T., Harman, J., Hutchison, D., Kinder, K., Moor, H., et
interactions that are more likely to be beneficial for both
al. (1997). Family literacy lasts. London: The Basic Skills Agency.
parents and children? Brooks, G., Gorman, T., Harman, J., Hutchison, D., & Wilkin, A. (1996).
We close with a quote from Allen (2007) who straight- Family literacy works. London: The Basic Skills Agency.
forwardly summarized the pathways to meaningful home- Bryant, P., Bradley, L., MacLean, M., & Crossland, J. (1989). Nursery
school collaborations: rhymes, phonological skills and reading. Journal of Child Language,
16, 407–428.
Parents teaching parents. Parents teaching teachers. Teach- Bus, A. G. (2003). Social-emotional requisites for learning to read. In A.
ers teaching parents what they want to know. Dialogue that van Kleeck, S. A. Stahl, & E. B. Bauer (Eds.), On reading books to
is based on mutual respect. These are powerful settings for children: Parents and teachers (pp. 3–15). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
106 Jeanne R. Paratore and Susan Dougherty

Bus, A. G., Leseman, P. P. M., & Keultjes, P. (2000). Joint book reading support for language and literacy. In D. K. Dickinson & S. B. Neuman
across cultures: a comparison of Surinamese-Dutch, Turkish-Dutch, (Eds.), Handbook of early literacy research (Vol. 2, pp. 11–28). New
and Dutch parent-child dyads. Journal of Literacy Research, 32(1), York: Guilford.
53–76. Dickinson, D. K., & Smith, M. M. (1994). Long-term effects of preschool
Bus, A. G., & van Ijzendoorn, M. H. (1988). Mother-child interactions, teachers’ book readings on low-income children’s vocabulary and story
attachment, and emergent literacy: A cross sectional study. Child comprehension. Reading Research Quarterly, 29, 105–122.
Development, 59, 1262–1272. Dickinson, D. K., & Sprague, K. E. (2002). The nature and impact of
Bus, A. G., & van Ijzendoorn, M. H. (1992). Patterns of attachment in early childhood care environments on the language and early literacy
frequently and infrequently reading dyads. Journal of Genetic Psy- development of children from low-income families. In S. B. Neuman
chology, 153, 394–403. & D. K. Dickinson (Eds.), Handbook of early literacy research (pp.
Bus, A. G., & van Ijzendoorn, M. H. (1995). Mothers reading to their three 263–280). New York: Guilford.
year olds: The role of mother-child attachment security in becoming Dieterich, S. E., Assel, M. A., & Swank, P. (2006). The impact of early
literate. Reading Research Quarterly, 40, 998–1015. maternal verbal scaffolding and child language abilities on later decod-
Bus, A. G., van Ijzendoorn, M. H., & Pellegrini, A. D. (1995). Joint ing and reading comprehension skills. Journal of School Psychology,
book reading makes for success in learning to read: A meta-analysis 43(6), 481-494.
in intergenerational transmission of literacy. Review of Educational Dodici, B. J., Draper, D. C., & Peterson, C. A. (2003). Early parent-child
Research, 65, 1–21. interactions and early literacy development. Topics in Early Childhood
Clark, M. (1976). Young fluent readers: What they can teach us. London: Special Education, 23(3), 124–136.
Heinemann. Dunning, D. B., Mason, J. M., & Stewart, J. P. (1994). Reading to preschool-
Chall, J. S., Jacobs, V. A., & Baldwin, L. E. (1990). The reading crisis: ers: A response to Scarborough and Dobrich (1994) and recommenda-
Why poor children fall behind. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University tions for future research. Developmental Review, 14, 324–339.
Press. Durkin, D. (1966). Children who read early. New York: Teachers Col-
Cohen, J. (1977). Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences. lege Press.
New York: Academic Press. Edwards, P. A. (1991). Fostering early literacy through parent coaching.
Compton-Lilly, C. (2003). Reading families: The literate lives of urban In E. Hiebert (Ed.), Literacy for a diverse society (pp. 199–213). New
children. New York: Teachers College Press. York: Teachers College Press.
Compton-Lilly, C. (2007). The complexities of reading capital in two Edwards, P. A. (1994). Responses of teachers and African-American moth-
Puerto Rican families. Reading Research Quarterly, 42(1), 72–98. ers to a book-reading intervention program. In D. K. Dickinson (Ed.),
Cornell, E., Sénéchal, M., & Broda, L. (1988). Recall of picture books Bridges to literacy: Children, families, and schools (pp. 175–210).
by 3-year-old children: Testing and repetition effects in joint reading Gee, J. P. (2004). Reading as situated language: A sociocognitive perspec-
activities. Journal of Educational Psychology, 80, 537–542. tive. In R. B. Ruddell & N. J. Unrau (Eds.), Theoretical models and
Crain-Thoreson, C., & Dale, P. S. (1999). Enhancing linguistic perfor- processes of reading (5th ed., pp. 116–132). Newark, DE: International
mance: Parents and teachers as book reading partners for children Reading Association.
with language delays. Topics in Early Childhood Special Education, Goldenberg, C., Reese, L., & Gallimore, R. (1992). Effects of literacy
19(1), 28–39. materials from school on Latino children’s home experiences and
Cunningham, P. M. (2000). Systematic sequential phonics they use: For early reading achievement. American Journal of Education, 100(4),
beginning readers of all ages. Greensboro, NC: Carson-Dellosa. 297–536.
Davidson, R. G., & Snow, C. E. (1995). The linguistic environment of early Gonzålez, N., Moll, L. C., & Amanti, C. (2005). Funds of knowledge:
readers. Journal of Research in Childhood Education, 10, 5–21. Theorizing pracices in households, communities, and classrooms.
Dearing, E., Kreider, H., & Simpkins, S. (2006). Family involvement in Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
school and low-income children’s literacy: Longitudinal associations Goodman, Y. (1986). Children coming to know literacy. In W. Teale &
between and within families. Journal of Educational Psychology, E. Sulzby (Eds.), Emergent literacy: Writing and reading (pp. 1–14).
98(4), 653–664. Norwood, NJ: Ablex.
DeBruin-Parecki, A., & Krol-Sinclair, B. (2003). Family literacy: From Haden, C. A., Reese, E., & Fivush, R. (1996). Mother’s extratextual com-
theory to practice. Newark, DE: International Reading Association. ments during storybook reading: Stylistic differences over time and
de Jong, P. F., & Leseman, P. M. (2001). Lasting effects of home literacy across texts. Discourse Processes, 21, 135–169.
on reading achievement in school. Journal of School Psychology, Hart, B., & Risley, T. R. (1995). Meaningful differences in the everyday
39(5), 389–414. experiences of young American children. Baltimore, MD: Brookes.
Delgado-Gaitan, C. (1992). School matters in the Mexican-American Heath, S. B. (1983). Ways with words. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge
home: Socializing children to education. American Educational Re- University Press.
search Journal, 29(3), 495–513. Heath, S. B. (1986). What no bedtime story means: Narrative skills at
Delpit, L. (1995). Other people’s children: Cultural conflict in the class- home and at school. In B. B. Schieffelin & E. Ochs (Eds.), Language
room. New York: The New Press. socialization across cultures (pp. 97–126). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge
DeTemple, J. M. (2001). Parents and children reading books together. University Press.
In D. K. Dickinson & P. O. Tabors (Eds.), Beginning literacy with Heath, S. B. (1991). The sense of being literate: Historical and cross-
language: Young children learning at home and at school (pp. 31–52). cultural features. In R. Barr, M. L. Kamil, P. Mosenthal, & P. D.
Baltimore, MD: Brookes. Pearson (Eds.), Handbook of Reading Research (Vol. II, pp. 3–25).
DeTemple, J. M., & Beals, D. E. (1991). Family talk: Sources of support New York: Longman.
for the development of decontextualized skills. Journal of Research Heath, S. B., & Branscombe, S. (1986). The book as narrative prop in
in Childhood Education, 6, 11–19. language acquisition. In B. B. Schieffelin & P. Gilmore (Eds.), The
DeTemple, J., & Snow, C. E. (2003). Learning words from books. In A. acquisition of literacy: Ethnographic perspectives (pp. 16–34). Nor-
van Kleeck, S. A. Stahl, & E. B. Bauer (Eds.), On reading books to wood, NJ: Ablex.
children: Parents and teachers (pp. 16–36). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum. Hindin, A., & Paratore, J. R. (2007). Supporting young children’s literacy
Dickinson, D. K., & Beals, D. E. (1994). Not by print alone: Oral learning through home-school partnerships: The effectiveness of a
language supports for early literacy. In D. Lancy (Ed.), Children’s home repeated-reading intervention. Journal of Literacy Research,
emergent literacy: From research to practice (pp. 29–40). Westport, 39(3), 307–333.
CT: Preager. Hoff, E. (2006). Environmental supports for language acquisition. In D. K.
Dickinson, D. K., McCabe, A., & Essex, M. J. (2006). A window of op- Dickinson & S. B. Neuman (Eds.), Handbook of early litercy research
portunity we must open to all: The case for preschool with high-quality (Vol. 2, pp. 163–172). New York: Guilford.
 Home Differences and Reading Difficulty 107

Huey, E. B. (1908). The psychology and pedagogy of reading. Cambridge, the segmental restructuring of lexical representations: Precursors to
MA: MIT Press. phonemic awareness and early reading ability. In J. L. Metsala & L.
Huttenlocher, J., Vasilyeva, M., Cymerman, E., & Levine, S. (2002). Lan- C. Ehri (Eds.), Word recognition in beginning literacy (pp. 89–120).
guage input and child syntax. Cognitive Psychology, 45, 337–375. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Janes, H., & Kermani, H. (2001). Caregivers storyreading to young chil- Moll, L., & Greenberg, J. B. (1991). Creating zones of possibilities: Com-
dren in family literacy programs: Pleasure or punishment? Journal of bining social contexts for instruction. In L. C. Moll (Ed.), Vygotsky in
Adolescent and Adult Literacy, 44, 458–446. Education (pp. 319–348). New York: Cambridge University Press.
Jordan, G. E., Snow, C. E., & Porche, M. V. (2000). Project EASE: The Moll, L. C., Amanti, C., Neff, D., & González, N. (1992). Funds of knowl-
effect of a family literacy project on kindergarten students’ early edge for teaching: Using a qualitative approach to connect homes and
literacy skills. Reading Research Quarterly, 35, 524–546. classrooms. Theory into Practice, 31, 132–141.
Juel, C. (1988). Learning to read and write: A longitudinal study of 54 Morrow, L. M. (1983). Home and school correlates of early interest in
children from first through fourth grades. Journal of Educational literature. Journal of Educational Research, 76, 221–230.
Psychology, 80, 437–447. Muter, V., Hulme, C., & Snowling, M. J. (2004). Phonemes, rimes,
Juel, C. (2006). The impact of early school experiences on initial reading. vocabulary, and grammatical skills as foundations of early reading
In D. K. Dickinson & S. B. Neuman (Eds.), Handbook of early literacy development: Evidence from a longitudinal study. Developmental
research (Vol. 2, pp. 410–426). New York: Guilford. Psychology, 40(5), 665–681.
Krol-Sinclair, B. (1996). Connecting home and school literacies: Immi- National Comprehensive Center for Teacher Quality and Public Agenda.
grant parents with limited formal education as classroom storybook (2008). Lessons learned: New teachers talk about their jobs, chal-
readers. In D. J. Leu, C. K. Kinzer, & K. A. Hinchman (Eds.), Literacies lenges, and long-range plans. Retrieved June 20, 2008, from http://
for the 21st Century: Research and practice (pp. 270–283). Chicago: www.publicagenda.org/lessonslearned/
National Reading Conference. Neuman, S., & Celano, D. (2001). Access to print in low-income and
Landry, S. H., Miller-Loncar, C. L., Smith, K. E., & Swank, P. R. (2002). middle-income communities: An ecological study of four neighbor-
The role of early parenting in children’s development of executive hoods. Reading Research Quarterly, 36(1), 8–26.
processes. Developmental Neuropsychology, 21(1), 15–41. Neuman, S. B. (2006). The knowledge gap: Implications for early educa-
Landry, S. H., & Smith, K. E. (2006). The influence of parenting on tion. In D. K. Dickinson & S. B. Neuman (Eds.), Handbook of early
emerging literacy skills. In D. K. Dickinson & S. B. Neuman (Eds.), Literacy (Vol. 2, pp. 29–40). New York: Guilford.
Handbook of early literacy resarch (Vol. 2, pp. 135–148). New York: Nistler, R. J., & Maiers, A. (1999). Changing parents roles in school:
Guilford. Effects of a 2-year study of a family literacy program in an urban first-
Lareau, A. (1989). Home advantage: Social class and parental interven- grade classroom. Education and Urban Society, 32, 108–126.
tion. New York: Falmer Press. Paratore, J. R. (1993). Influence of an intergenerational approach to literacy
Lareau, A. (2003). Unequal childhoods: Class, race, and family life. on the practice of literacy of parents and their children. In C. Kinzer &
Berkeley: University of California Press. D. Leu (Eds.), Examining central issues in literacy, research, theory,
Leichter, H. J. (1984). Families as environments for literacy. In H. and practice (pp. 83–91). Chicago: National Reading Conference.
Goelman, A. Oberg, & F. Smith (Eds.), Awakening to literacy (Vol. Paratore, J. R. (1994). Parents and children sharing literacy. In D. Lancy
38–50). Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann. (Ed.), Children’s emergent literacy (pp. 193–216). Westport, CT:
Leseman, P. M., & de Jong, P. F. (1998). Home literacy: Opportunity, Preager.
instruction, cooperation and social-emotional quality predicting early Paratore, J. R. (2001). Opening doors, opening opportunities: Family
reading achievement. Reading Research Quarterly, 33(3), 294–318. literacy in an urban community. Needham Heights, MA: Allyn and
Leseman, P. M., & van Tuijl, C. (2006). Cultural diversity in early literacy: Bacon.
Findings in Dutch studies. In D. K. Dickinson & S. B. Neuman (Eds.), Paratore, J. R., Hindin, A., Krol-Sinclair, B., & Durán, P. (1999). Discourse
Handbook of early literacy research (Vol. 2, pp. 211–229). New York: between teachers and Latino parents during conferences based on home
Guilford. literacy portfolios. Education and Urban Society, 32, 58–82.
Lomax, C. M. (1976). Interest in books and stories at nursery school. Paratore, J. R., Melzi, G., & Krol-Sinclair, B. (1999). What should we
Educational Research, 19, 100–112. expect of family literacy? Experiences of Latino children whose parents
Lonigan, C. J. (1994). Reading to preschoolers exposed: Is the emperor participate in an intergenerational literacy program. Newark, DE:
really naked? Developmental Review, 14, 303–323. International Reading Association.
Lonigan, C. J., & Whitehurst, G. J. (1998). Relative efficacy of parent and Paris, S. G. (2005). Reinterpreting the development of reading skills.
teacher involvement in a shared-reading intervention for preschool Reading Research Quarterly, 40(2), 184–202.
children from low-income backgrounds. Early Childhood Research Pellegrini, A., & Galda, L. (2003). Joint reading as a context: Explicating
Quarterly, 13, 263–290. the ways context is created by participants. In A. van Kleeck, S. A.
Maclean, M., Bryant, P., & Bradley, L. (1987). Rhymes, nursery rhymes, Stahl, & E. B. Bauer (Eds.), On reading books to children: Parents
and reading in early childhood. Merrill-Palmer Quarterly, 33, and Teachers (pp. 321–335). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
255–281. Pellegrini, A., Perlmutter, J. C., Galda, L., & Brody, G. (1990). Joint
Madigan, D. (1992). Family uses of literacy: A critical voice. In C. K. reading between Black Head Start children and their mothers. Child
Kinzer & D. J. Leu (Eds.), Literacy research, theory, and practice: Development, 61, 443–453.
Views from many perspectives (pp. 87–100). Chicago: National Read- Purcell-Gates, V. (1994). Nonliterate homes and emergent literacy. In
ing Conference. D. Lancy (Ed.), Children’s emergent literacy (pp. 41–52). Westport,
Manyak, P. (1998). “Este Libro Es Mi Historia”: Mother-child interactions CT: Preager.
during storybook reading in a Mexican-American household (No. ED Purcell-Gates, V. (1995). Other people’s words: The cycle of illiteracy.
418 383). Los Angeles: University of Southern California. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
McCarthey, S. (1999). Identifying teacher practices that connect home Purcell-Gates, V. (1996). Stories, coupons, and the TV Guide: Rela-
and school. Education and Urban Society, 32, 83–107. tionships between home literacy experiences and emergent literacy
McCarthey, S. (1997). Connecting home and school literacy practices in knowledge. Reading Research Quarterly, 31, 406–428.
classrooms with diverse populations. Journal of Literacy Research, Purcell-Gates, V. (2000). Family literacy. In M. L. Kamil, P. B. Mosenthal,
29, 145–182. P. D. Pearson, & R. Barr (Eds.), Handbook of reading research (Vol.
McGill-Franzen, A., Lanford, C., & Adams, E. (2002). Learning to be III, pp. 853–870). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
literate: A comparison of five urban early childhood programs. Journal Purcell-Gates, V. (2001). Emergent literacy is emerging knowledge of
of Educational Psychology, 94(3), 443–464. written, not oral, language. New directions for child and adolescent
Metsala, J. L., & Walley, A. C. (1998). Spoken vocabulary growth and development, 92, 7–22.
108 Jeanne R. Paratore and Susan Dougherty

Purcell-Gates, V. (2004). Family literacy as the site for emerging knowlege early literacy development. Early Childhood Research Quarterly,
of written language. In B. Wasik (Ed.), Handbook of family literacy 17(3), 318–337.
(pp. 101–116). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum. Spear-Swerling, L. (2004). A road map for understanding readng disability
Rashid, F. L., Morris, R. D., & Sevcik, R. A. (2005). Relationship and other reading problems: Origins, prevention, and intervention. In
between home literacy environment and reading achievement in R. B. Ruddel & N. J. Unrau (Eds.), Theoretical models and processes
children with reading disabilities. Journal of Learning Disabilities, of reading, 5th edition (pp. 517–573). Newark, DE: International
38(1), 2–11. Reading Association.
Rasinski, T., & Stevenson, B. (2005). The effects of Fast Start Read- Stahl, S. A. (2003). What do we expect storybook reading to do? How
ing: A fluency-based home involvement reading program, on the storybook reading impacts word recognition. In A. van Kleeck, S. A.
reading achievement of beginning readers. Reading Psychology, 26, Stahl, & E. B. Bauer (Eds.), On reading books to children: Parents
109–125. and teachers (pp. 363–384). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
Reese, E., Cox, A., Harte, D., & McAnally, H. (2003). Diversity in adults’ Stanovich, K. E. (1986). Matthew effects in reading: Some consequences of
styles of reading books to children. In A. van Kleeck, S. A. Stahl, & E. individual differences in the acquisition of literacy. Reading Research
B. Bauer (Eds.), On reading books to children: Parents and teachers Quarterly, 21, 360–407.
(pp. 37–57). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum. Steiner, L. M. (2008). Effects of a school-based parent and teacher interven-
Reutzel, D. R., Fawson, P. C., & Smith, J. A. (2006). Words to Go!: Evalu- tion to promote first-grade students’ literacy achievement. Unpublished
ating a first-grade parent involvement program for “making” words at doctoral dissertation, Boston University.
home. Reading Research and Instruction, 45(2), 119–159. Sulzby, E. (1985). Children’s emergent abilities to read favorite storybooks:
Robinson, C. C., Larsen, J. M., & Haupt, J. H. (1996). The influence A developmental study. Reading Research Quarterly, 20, 458–481.
of selecting and taking picture books home on the at-home reading Sulzby, E., & Edwards, P. (1993). The role of parents in supporting the
behaviors of kindergarten children. Reading Research and Instruc- literacy development of young children. In B. Spodek & O. N. Saracgi
tion, 35, 249–259. (Eds.), Yearbook in early childhood education: Volume 4. Early child-
Rodriguez-Brown, F. V. (2001). Home-school collaboration: Successful hood language and literacy. New York: Teachers College Press.
models in the Hispanic community. In P. R. Schmidt & P. B. Mosenthal Swalander, L., & Taube, K. (2007). Influences of family based prerequi-
(Eds.), Reconceptualizing literacy in the new age of multiculturalism sites, reading attitude, and self-regulation on reading ability. Contem-
and pluralism (pp. 273–288). Greenwich, CT: Information Age. porary Educational Psychology, 32(2), 206–230.
Roser, N., & Martinez, M. (1985). Roles adults play in prescholers’ Tabors, P. O., Beals, D. E., & Weizman, Z. O. (2001). You know what oxy-
response to literature. Language Arts, 62, 485–490. gen is: Learning new words at home. In D. K. Dickinson & P. O. Tabors
Scarborough, H. S., & Dobrich, W. (1994). On the efficacy of reading to (Eds.), Beginning literacy with language: Young children learning at
preschoolers. Developmental Review, 14, 245–302. home and at school (pp. 93–110). Baltimore, MD: Brookes.
Schieffelin, B., & Cochran-Smith, M. (1984). Learning to read culturally: Tabors, P. O., Roach, K. A., & Snow, C. (2001). Home language and
Literacy before schooling. In H. Goelman, A. Oberg, & F. Smith (Eds.), literacy environment. In D. K. Dickinson & P. O. Tabors (Eds.), Be-
Awakening to literacy (pp. 3–23). Exeter, NH: Heinemann. ginning literacy with language: Young children learning at home and
Sénéchal, M. (1997). The differential effect of storybook reading on pre- school (pp. 111–138). Baltimore, MD: Brookes.
schoolers’ acquisition of expressive and receptive vocabulary. Journal Taylor, D. (1997). Many families, many literacies. Portsmouth, NH:
of Child Language, 24, 123–138. Heinemann.
Sénéchal, M. (2006). The effect of family literacy interventions of children’s Taylor, D., & Dorsey-Gaines, C. (1988). Growing up literate: Learning
acquisition of reading from kindergarten to grade 3: A meta-analytic from inner-city families. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.
review. Louisville, KY: National Center for Family Literacy. Taylor, B. M., Frye, B. J., & Maruyama, G. M. (1990). Time spent read-
Sénéchal, M., LeFevre, J.A., & Thomas, E. M. (1998). Differential effects ing and reading growth. American Educational Research Journal,
of home literacy experiences on the development of oral and written 27(2), 351–362.
language. Reading Research Quarterly, 33, 96–116. Teale, W. H. (1986). Home background and young children’s literacy
Sénéchal, M., & LeFevre, J. (2002). Parental involvement in the develop- development. In W. H. Teale & E. Sulzby (Eds.), Emergent literacy:
ment of children’s readingskill: A five-year longitudinal study. Child Writing and reading (pp. 173–206). Norwood, NJ: Ablex.
Development, 73(2), 445–460. Torgesen, J. K. (2004). Lessons learned from the last 20 years of research
Sénéchal, M., Ouellette, G., & Rodney, D. (2006). The misunderstood on interventions for students who experience difficulty learning to read.
giant: On the predictive role of early vocabulary to future reading. In In P. McCardle & V. Chhabra (Eds.), The voice of evidence in reading
D. K. Dickinson & S. B. Neuman (Eds.), Handbook of early literacy research (pp. 355–382). Baltimore, MD: Brookes.
research (Vol. 2, pp. 173–182). New York: Guilford. Valdés, G. (1996). Con respeto: Bridging the differences between culturally
Shanahan, T., Mulhern, M., & Rodriguez-Brown, F. (1995). Project diverse families and schools. New York: Teachers College Press.
FLAME: Lessons learned from a family literacy program for minority Valdez-Menchaca, M. C., & Whitehurst, G. J. (1992). Accelerating language
families. Reading Teacher, 48, 586. development through picture book reading: A systematic extension to
Snow, C. E. (1991). The theoretical basis for relationships between lan- Mexican day care. Developmental Psychology, 28, 1106–1114.
guage and literacy development. Journal of Childhood Education, van Kleeck, A. (2003). Research on book sharing: Another critical look. In
6(1), 5–10. A. van Kleeck, S. L. Stahl, & E. Bauer (Eds.), On reading books to chil-
Snow, C., & Goldfield, B. (1983). Turn the page please: Situation-specific dren: Parents and teachers (pp. 271–320). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
language acquisition. Journal of Child Language, 10, 551–569. Vasquez, O., Pease-Alvarez, L., & Shannon, S. M. (1994). Pushing
Snow, C. E., Barnes, W. S., Chandler, J., Goodman, I. F., & Hemphill, boundaries: Language and culture in a Mexicano community. New
L. (1991). Unfulfilled expectations: Home and school influences on York: Cambridge University Press.
literacy. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Volk, D., & Long, S. (2005). Challenging myths of the deficit perspec-
Snow, C.E., Burns, M. S., & Griffin, P. (1998). Preventing reading difficul- tive: Honoring children’s literacy resources. YC Young Children,
ties in young children. Washington, DC: National Academy Press. 60(6), 12–19.
Sonnenschein, S., Brody, G., & Munsterman, K. (1996). The influence of Voss, M. M. (1996). Hidden literacies: Children learning at home and at
family beliefs and practices on children’s early reading development. school. Portsmouth, NH: Heineman.
In L. Baker, P. Afflerbach, & D. Reinking (Eds.), Developing engaged Wasik, B. H. (2004). Handbook of family literacy. Mahwah, NJ: Erl-
readers in school and home communities (pp. 3–20). Mahwah, NJ: baum.
Erlbaum. Weizman, Z. O., & Snow, C. E. (2001). Lexical input as related to children’s
Sonnenschein, S., & Munsterman, K. (2002). The influence of home- vocabulary acquisition: Effects of sophisticated exposure and support
based reading interactions on 5-year-olds’ reading motivations and for meaning. Developmental Psychology, 37(2), 265–279.
 Home Differences and Reading Difficulty 109

Whitehurst, G. J., Arnold, D. S., Epstein, J. N., Angell, A. L., Smith, M., D. Lapp, J. Jensen, & J. Squire (Eds.), Research in English and the
& Fischel, J. F. (1994). A picture book reading intervention in day language arts (Vol. II, pp. 532–545). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
care and home for children from low-income families. Developmental Yaden, D. B., Smolkin, L. B., & Conlon, A. (1989). Preschoolers’ questions
Psychology, 30(5), 679–689. about pictures, print conventions, and story text during reading aloud
Whitehurst, G. J., & Lonigan, C. J. (2002). Emergent literacy: Develop- at home. Reading Research Quarterly, 24, 188–214.
ment from prereaders to readers. In S. B. Neuman & D. K. Dickinson Yaden, D. B., Jr., Tam, A., & Madrigal, P. (2000). Early literacy for
(Eds.), Handbook of early literacy research (Vol. 1, pp. 11–29). New inner-city children: the effects of reading and writing interventions in
York: Guilford. English and Spanish during the preschool years. The Reading Teacher,
Wigfield, A., & Asher, S. R. (1984). Social and motivational influences on 54(2), 186–189.
reading. In P. D. Pearson, R. Barr, M. L. Kamil, & P. Mosenthal (Eds.), Zevenbergen, A. A., & Whitehurst, G. J. (2006). Dialogic reading: A
Handbook of reading research (pp. 423–452). New York: Longman. shared picture book intervention for preschoolers. In A. van Kleeck,
Yaden, D., & Paratore, J. R. (2002). Family literacy at the turn of the mil- S. A. Stahl, & E. B. Bauer (Eds.), On reading books to children (pp.
lenium: The costly future of maintaining the status quo. In J. E. Flood, 107–202). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
 10
Persistent Reading Disabilities
Challenging Six Erroneous Beliefs
LINDA M. PHILLIPS, DENYSE V. HAYWARD, AND STEPHEN P. NORRIS
University of Alberta

Persistent reading disabilities is an explanatory term be- tests serve all groups equitably, and (f) that intervening in
cause of its reference to an underlying psychological trait. reading instruction is always better than doing nothing over
Confusion on this matter abounds, such as in a definition and above the normal. We have chosen to challenge these
of reading disabilities as “reading achievement that is six erroneous beliefs because they are prevalent, conflict
significantly below expectancy for both individual reading with research findings, complicate the experience of read-
potential and for chronological age or grade level” (Har- ing for those who least need matters made worse, overplay
ris & Hodges, 1995, p. 210). Here the ability is defined in the credibility of risk factors such as poverty and gender,
terms of the performance, whereas the performance might encourage the misuse of tests, and promote evangelical
be due to other factors. Among those identified as having support for unidimensional and misguided programs.
persistent reading disabilities, there are those who have
profound learning difficulties and have little prospect of
Relative Reading Achievement Is Mutable
learning to read. Included among this group are those with
severe language impairment, deviant language acquisition Regrettably, a single study of 54 children from first to fourth
patterns including serious neurobiological and percep- grades by Juel in 1988 is cited frequently as evidence that
tual abnormalities (Paul, 2007), congenital word blindness if a child is a poor reader in the first grade, then the child
(Hinshelwood, 1917), and irremediable severe cerebral will be a poor reader in the fourth grade. The 54 children
defects (Fletcher, Lyon, Fuchs, & Barnes, 2007). Students lived in an area designated as low socioeconomic and all
with profound learning difficulties are not the focus of this attended the same elementary school. Consider the follow-
chapter. Rather, our focus is on students deemed to have ing conditional probabilities reported by Juel (a) .88 that a
persistent reading difficulties as a consequence of factors child would be a poor reader at the end of fourth grade, if
such as limited exposure to reading, instructional materials the child was a poor reader at the end of the first grade; (b)
that are too difficult, and learned dependence. .12 that a child would be a poor reader at the end of fourth
Among those identified as having persistent reading grade, if the child was at least average at the end of first
disabilities are those whom we contend are more properly grade; (c) .87 that a child would be an average reader at the
described as having persistent reading difficulties, a term end of fourth grade, if the child was an average reader at the
that has more descriptive than explanatory connotations. end of first grade; and (d) .13 that a child would be an aver-
This is a much larger group than the former whose members age reader at the end of fourth grade, if the child was a poor
can readily benefit from appropriate language and reading reader at the end of first grade. That is, poor reading begets
assessments and interventions. The persistence of their poor reading and average reading begets average reading in
reading difficulties is an artifact of their environments rather a rather immutable fashion. Further evidence to support the
than an outgrowth of their psychologies or physiologies. constancy of relative reading achievement was provided by
We shall concentrate on this group and illustrate our point Smith (1997) who identified 64 children in preschool and
through the examination of six erroneous beliefs: (a) that found 57 of them in third grade 5 years later. Unlike Juel’s
relative reading achievement is immutable, (b) that poverty study, these children had scattered across 32 elementary
and gender create ceilings on reading expectations and schools. She found that 71% of the children with the lowest
ability, (c) that waiting to be sure a child has reading prob- preschool reading assessment were reading below grade
lems is good practice, (d) that simply reading to children level in Grade 3; and 93% of the children reading in the top
can prevent most reading difficulties, (e) that conventional quartile in preschool were reading at or above grade level in

110
 Persistent Reading Disabilities 111

grade three. Yet others maintain that if a child fails to learn Positive Expectations for Reading Can Offset
to read adequately in first grade, there is a 90% probability Negative Influences
that that child will remain a poor reader by grade 4 and a
75% probability that he or she will be a poor reader in high Children start school with expectations—including that
school (Francis, Fletcher, Shaywitz, Shaywitz, & Rourke they are going to learn to read. Unfortunately, that expecta-
1996; Torgesen & Burgess, 1998). tion goes unfulfilled for too many children (Snow, Barnes,
By way of contrast, Phillips, Norris, Osmond, and May- Chandler, Goodman, & Hemphill, 1991). In an extensive
nard (2002) reported on the relative reading achievement of study of ethnically diverse and low-income children, Snow
187 children as they progressed from grades 1 through 6. et al. (1991) noted that, even though children from middle-
They were interested in the general question addressed as income families tend to have higher reading achievement
follows: “What is the relative reading achievement of boys than children from low-income families, within low-income
and girls from first through sixth grades, and to what extent class children there are those who perform very well. Thus,
is that relative reading achievement immutable?” (p. 4). The low-income families cannot be considered monolithically,
results of this much larger and more extensive study chal- and the question of what contributes to the differences
lenged the stability of reading categorization reported in the among children within this class is important. What Snow
previous studies. In comparison with the previous studies et al. found is that within the low-income class there were
by Juel (1988) and Smith (1997), the Phillips et al. study many families in which literacy was valued, whose parents
was three times larger, tracked reading achievement over a communicated with the schools and held high expectations
longer period and on a yearly basis, attended assiduously for their children’s school performance. In such families,
to gender differences, and was “unconfounded by reading children tended to perform as well as middle-income chil-
interventions, pullouts of children from regular classroom dren. Despite the prevalent school and societal expectations
instruction, or language, racial, and ethnic differences” (p. that children from low-income families will perform poorly,
4). They found reading categories to be more porous than contrary expectations from the home can have an even more
previously reported in other research. In particular, they powerful effect in the opposite direction.
found a much higher probability for children below average Canada’s national longitudinal survey of 22,831 children
in first grade to be average in subsequent grades (.53); a and youth (NLSCY) (Willms, 2002) further corroborated
significant probability for average students to achieve above the findings of Snow et al. (1991) and challenged the “cul-
average performance (.11), where none were documented ture of poverty” (p.165) thesis and “the widespread belief
previously; and an almost equal probability of above- that the children of poor families do not fare well because
average readers becoming average (.48) as remaining above of the way they are raised” (p. 165). Within this very large
average (.52). The Phillips et al. results also showed that, dataset, parenting practices were neither strongly related
whereas until the end of third grade reading categorization to SES nor to family structure. Furthermore, children of
and gender were dependent with boys populating the lowest parents who provided a warm and caring environment and
category to a higher degree, at the end of fourth grade this who valued an education demonstrated positive childhood
dependency disappeared. outcomes regardless of SES, and such environments were
According to these data, relative reading achievement is as likely to be found within one class as another.
quite mutable indeed. The significance of this result is that The NLSCY further identified early signs of vulner-
it challenges the presumption of inevitability connected to ability. Frempong and Willms (2002) reporting on the same
reading achievement epitomized in belief in the Matthew NLSCY data asked whether school quality can compensate
Effect. Enormous changes in relative reading achievement for socioeconomic disadvantage. They reported large and
were witnessed even without special interventions. This statistically significant differences among schools and
result suggests that with appropriate assessment and inter- classrooms in children’s levels of achievement. They told
vention, children might make even greater progress. This a poignant story. Imagine two families both of equal SES
is the most basic and fundamental of our points because if and with kindergarten children of the same level of ability.
one believes that reading achievement cannot change, then One of the children attends a school with above-average
the situation is hopeless. performance and expectations and the other with below-
Similar results have been documented. Many children average performance and expectations. By the time both
who are poor readers in the early school years catch up children start high school, the child in the below-average
later, whereas other children are average readers early on school will be a full grade level below the other child.
but under achieve later (Badian, 1999; Cox, 1987; McGee, They further found that the most successful schools and
Williams, & Silva, 1988; Wright, Fields, & Newman, 1996). classrooms were those that did not practice grouping and
Denton, Fletcher, Anthony, and Francis (2006) concluded enforce policies that segregate students on the basis of
that converging evidence from two decades of research ability or SES, thus holding the same expectation for all
suggests that with appropriate instruction, nearly all stu- groups of students.
dents can become competent readers. Thus, there is ample Spear-Swerling and Sternberg (1996) “think that most
evidence to challenge the view that reading disabilities children with reading disabilities begin school with vulner-
need be persistent. ability for reading failure. However, what happens very
112 Linda M. Phillips, Denyse V. Hayward, and Stephen P. Norris

early in schooling—in kindergarten and first grade—may Such risk is identifiable at 3 years of age with proper test-
be pivotal in deciding whether or not an individual child’s ing. Nevertheless, most children are not tested even by
vulnerability to RD is realized as poor reading” (p. 250). kindergarten unless they have specific needs such as speech
According to their analyses, children identified as reading or language difficulties. If tested in Grade 1 for reading
disabled frequently are highly similar to those known to be difficulties, it is likely not to take place until mid-year. It
garden-variety poor readers. The difference between them is often the case in many parts of Canada, for example,
is that those identified as disabled fall below the IQ cutoff that children will not be given formal tests to qualify for
essential for a reading disability classification, and perhaps literacy-specific intervention programs until grade four.
possess some additional characteristic such as being male, These delays of up to 6 years make it next to impossible
coming from a low SES, and being disruptive in school. for these children to ever catch up to their peers because
Many researchers in language and reading (Bishop, 1997; reading problems become “intractable as children age”
Lahey, 1990; Paul, 2007; Rack, Snowling, & Olson, 1992; (Mathes & Denton, 2002, p. 186). Furthermore, one-half to
Rice, Warren, & Betz, 2005; Siegel 1992; Stanovich, 1991; three-quarters of children exhibiting reading difficulties also
Vellutino, 1979) challenged such use of IQ scores and have underlying impairments in language abilities (Catts,
have expressed dismay at the use of such a criterion for Fey, Zhang, & Tomblin, 2001; McArthur, Hogben, Edwards,
classificatory purposes rather the use of specific assessment Heath, & Mengler, 2000). Yet, even when tested, children
information for the purposes of improving programs and frequently do not receive assessments of both language and
interventions for children. reading skills, resulting in incomplete knowledge of their
As Spear-Swerling and Sternberg (1996) point out, being abilities and incomplete and fragmented interventions. We
labeled as reading disabled is a serious matter, because the know that the vast majority of low SES children starting
label may alter teachers’ and parents’ expectations. The as young as 3 years can benefit dramatically from a family
child may be seen as hopeless by teachers and parents. intervention program (Phillips, Hayden, & Norris, 2006).
Children thus classified can be seen to have an immutable Even with later interventions in Grade 3, particularly
“defect” (Spear-Swerling & Sternberg, 1996, p. 308) and disadvantaged children, such as those in First Nations,
consequently are not provided strategic and informed as- can benefit from a specific and well-targeted classroom
sessment and intervention. However, rather than having administered language-based program (Hayward, Das, &
immutable defects, such children might not have been in- Janzen, 2007).
troduced to print concepts, the letters of the alphabet, their In order to maximize the benefits of early intervention,
printed names, and the structure of narrative prior to school- parents need to know and understand that their literacy
ing. Such children can have difficulties not because they behavior can have immediate effects on their children’s
cannot learn but because they have not had the opportunity lives. For instance, emergent literacy skills are known to
to learn the essential print concepts expected by schools. provide the foundation to children’s success in school.
Despite these important distinctions, they are all too often Knowledge of the alphabet at entry into school is one of
categorized the same as children with serious learning prob- the strongest single predictors of literacy success in the
lems (Elkins, 2007). Thus, the reasons for their difficulties short and long-term (Adams, 1990; Lonigan et al., 1999).
are not considered for purposes of intervention. Early literacy concepts (Phillips, Norris, & Mason, 1996)
Furthermore, the media (Fine, 2001) and some research and phonological awareness are key precursors to the
literature (Francis, 2005; Jha & Kelleher, 2006; PISA, 2005) acquisition of early reading skills (Wagner & Torgesen,
claim that girls outperform boys and those boys therefore 1987). It should come as no surprise, then, that there is a
need alternative programs and instruction. However, even strong relation among emergent literacy skills and social
though dyslexia is frequently reported to be more preva- and linguistic competence.
lent in boys than girls, the evidence does not support the Other sources of disadvantage can be lessened by the
reports and shows that boys are victims of a referral bias for ways in which parents interact with their children and
behavioral reasons (Fletcher et al., 2007; Flynn & Rahbar, through early and specifically focused intervention pro-
1994; Phillips et al., 2002). grams (Phillips & Sample, 2005). For instance, Lonigan et
The reading disabled label is known to lead to regression al. found that problems of inattention were substantially,
in most children’s performance and to lowered expectations consistently, and often uniquely associated with less well-
(Fletcher et al., 2007). They are expected to read with dif- developed emergent literacy skills in preschool children
ficulty, to have less motivation to read, and to read less, and (1999, p. 8). Their research and that of others (e.g., Hinshaw,
they fall naturally to these expectations. Consequently, the 1992; Shaywitz, Fletcher, & Shaywitz, 1994) has shown that
effects generalize to poorer vocabulary, knowledge of story problems with both inattention and emergent literacy skills
structure, and memory. place the child at an even greater disadvantage for success
in schooling. Parents can help direct their children’s atten-
tion during literacy activities to great effect as discussed in
Early and Focused Intervention Is Beneficial
the following section.
At the outset of schooling, approximately 25% of all chil- To receive focused literacy intervention early and fast
dren are at risk of school failure (Lee & Burkham, 2002). requires that target populations of children are reached
 Persistent Reading Disabilities 113

and that limited resources are used efficiently. A com- negative attitudes or lack of motivation? Read to them.
prehensive review of the adequacy of tools for assess- Students have second language acquisition problems? Read
ing reading competence found them highly variable and to them” (p. 1).
wanting (Kame’enui et al., 2006), although assessment of Is the “Read to Them” mantra fair to families looking
performance is critical for effective instructional policy and for advice and guidance on how best to help their children
programming responsive to individual students’ needs (p. to read? We think not. It implies a simplistic and magical
3). Dozens and dozens of early reading tests are available. answer to a complex and long-term process. Families in the
However, they are validated based upon correlations with Phillips and Sample (2005) study astutely recognized the
other instruments, which themselves rely upon the same lack of magic in mere reading to their children. However,
sort of highly indirect support; include too few subjects; are they directed the problem at themselves: “I must not know
typically aimed at school-age children; do not measure what how to read to my children”; “I must not be doing it right”;
they claim to measure; have low reliability coefficients; “My boys want to learn their ABCs, but they’re not and I
do not assess the correlates of reading; are aspect-specific read to them everyday”; and “I am depressed, ’cause I read
rather than comprehensive measures; are not normed on to Suzie all the time, but she’s not learning to read, if she is,
contemporary populations; and are not designed to serve as I don’t see it”. Nevertheless, they implied in their expres-
a precursor for specifically developed intervention programs sions of concern a belief that the answers to their children’s
(Hayward, Stewart, Phillips, Norris, & Lovell, 2008). reading problems lay in reading to them.
Unfortunately, the situation with currently available We are confident that those promoting mere reading
language tests is not much better. Several studies show that to children did not anticipate that it would disadvantage
many of these tests have poor diagnostic accuracy (Gray, and undermine the very people they were trying to enlist
Plante, Vance, & Henrichsen 1999; Peña, Spaulding, & by confusing them and diminishing their self-confidence.
Plante, 2006; Plante & Vance, 1995); disproportionate The field is rife with the simple view of promoting passive
representation of mainstream groups in normative samples; reading to children by adults as one of the best-kept secrets
measure only discrete skills and do not take into account of parenting, as the way to ensure success at school, and
comprehension and use of language in context; use errors as the answer to all reading and learning problems (e.g.,
made on language tests to generate intervention objectives, Meyer, Stahl, Wardrop, & Linn, 1992). Yet, the evidence
resulting in an inaccurate conceptualization of a child’s does not support the claims (Phillips et al., 2008).
abilities or impairments because the testing situations bear Much is known about the specific reading skill outcomes
little or no resemblance to the contexts in which a skill or of parent-child shared reading. The research repeatedly
behavior is used in everyday contexts; and use the same confirms that parents do not direct children’s attention to
tests both for the identification of impairment and the mea- print. Parents do not use their shared story time to teach
surement of progress (Brown, 1991; Hayward et al., 2008; their children letter names, letter sounds, numbers, color
McCauley & Swisher, 1984), which risks either an under- words, similarities in words, word reading, repeated read-
estimation or overestimation of progress. Thus, although ings of literary sentences, discussion of word meanings
effective assessments are crucial in the implementation of during reading, elaboration of possible points, questioning
early interventions, the current state of affairs could do with of key incidents, and reading strategies. However, we know
considerable improvement. that the situation does not have to be so. In a longitudinal
study of family literacy (Phillips et al., 2006), specific
expectations were placed on parents related to the develop-
Reading to Children Works Under the Right
ment of reading skills and strategies: Drawing children’s
Conditions
attention to the print around them; matching letters with
Reading to children can have a positive and lasting impact other letters, identifying letters, and making letter-sound
on emergent reading development. The specific nature of matches; expecting children to engage in writing; encour-
that impact and the conditions required for its occurrence aging children to spell and to listen to the sounds they
are, however, less well known. A review of some key studies hear; teaching children to count, to identify colours, and
(Phillips, Norris, & Anderson, 2008) showed that children colour words; teaching child to write and spell their names;
do not learn print concepts simply by having a parent or analyzing word meanings; teaching parents the difference
other adult read to them, but that there are shared-reading between a book to be read to children and one that children
practices that can enhance children’s emergent literacy can be expected to read; and helping children make explicit
development. Unfortunately, reading to children is some- connections between their background knowledge and the
times compared to a miracle drug. Consider the eloquent story being read.
excerpt from Hoffman, Roser, and Battle (1991), who were The program worked for children regardless of gender
critiquing this mindset: “Reading to children is to literacy and no matter their beginning reading age between 36
education what two aspirins and a little bed rest was to the and 60 months. This study showed that when taught spe-
family doctor in years gone by. Students have an impov- cific skills and strategies to read and write, children learn.
erished vocabulary? Read to them. Students struggling These children and their families demonstrated that letter
with comprehension? Read to them. Students beset with knowledge, phoneme awareness, word recognition, and
114 Linda M. Phillips, Denyse V. Hayward, and Stephen P. Norris

story comprehension can be learned with direct instruc- Unlike conventional measures, DA may be helpful in
tion, explicit expectations, and active engagement in print differentiating children with actual difficulties from those
that matters. with cultural or experiential differences and for estimating
responsiveness to intervention (e.g., Gutierrez-Clellen,
Brown, Conboy, & Robinson-Zanartu, 1998; Kramer,
Current Tests Are Biased but Need not Be So
Mallett, Schneider, & Hayward, 2007; Ukrainetz, Harpell,
Conventional testing rests heavily on the assumption that test Walsh, & Coyle, 2000). If such proves to be the case, there
takers have had comparable backgrounds and opportunities are significant implications for both service delivery and
to acquire information. However, these assumptions are resource allocation (Hasson & Joffe, 2007). Take for ex-
suspect with children from non-mainstream backgrounds ample, two children both of whom receive low scores on
(Campione & Brown, 1987; Hayward, 2002). Consider conventional tests of word reading. The children then par-
a developmental screening test used to assess children’s ticipate in two short sessions in which the examiner teaches
emergent literacy. One item on that test has had a profound reading strategies. Observations of the children during the
effect on the amount of attention and caution we have since teach sessions reveals that following four to five strategy
exercised toward all forms of assessment. Mickey was a exemplars the first child applies the strategies independently
chubby, bright-eyed 5-year-old. Along with other children while the second child needs continual examiner support
his age, he was doing a developmental test designed as an to apply the strategies. The children are retested with the
aid in identifying delays in development and behaviour conventional word reading test and the first child shows
(Phillips, 1997). The item was designed to assess young a significant improvement while the second child once
children’s understanding of language through an examina- again obtains a low score. Had only conventional testing
tion of the following concepts: on top of, below, to the side been conducted, both children would have been consid-
of, and behind. Children were given a large colourful pencil ered poor readers and reading intervention programming
and asked to demonstrate each of these positions by plac- recommended. Following the DA not only would different
ing the pencil where they thought it should go in relation to diagnostic decisions be reached for these children, but the
a pile of books on the table. Mickey whizzed through the observations made during the teach sessions would guide
first three (on top of, below, to the side of), but stopped to decisions regarding the specific amount, intensity, and type
think about the fourth one (behind). He stood up from his of support each child needs.
chair, leaned over, and reviewed the first three by pointing Although there is a dearth of research evidence applying
and subvocalizing. Then he said subvocally, “There’s only DA to the reading domain, examination of available studies
one place left—‘in back of’.” He placed the pencil “in back demonstrates findings similar to those reported for language
of” the books and sat down. According to the test specifica- learning. For example, Spector (1992) showed that a DA of
tions, Mickey could not be given credit for the item because phonemic awareness skills at the beginning of kindergarten
he did not use the word “behind.” It was clear, that Mickey better predicted end of year phonemic awareness and word
certainly did understand the concept of behind, though the reading skills than conventional measures. Day and Zaja-
word “behind” was not part of his vocabulary in the limited kowski (1991) used DA to examine reading comprehension
context of the test. Mickey’s linguistic environment included in grade five children with good and poor reading ability.
a number of vocabulary differences that were held against The children were required to locate the main idea in a
him in his kindergarten screening even though he was bright, series of short expository texts. There was no difference
interested, and highly engaged. Mickey’s language was dif- between groups on conventional reading measures but poor
ferent from that of the language on the test and used by the readers had much greater difficulty learning to find the main
teachers and for that he was maligned. ideas in texts in the teach sessions. Thus, these research-
The existence of content, linguistic and experiential bi- ers showed that DA measures revealed subtle differences
ases in conventional standardized measures have potentially between good and poor reader groups that conventional
serious consequences. According to Sternberg and Grigore- measures did not.
nko (2002), dynamic assessment models (DA) have shown Of interest to us is the word reading skills of beginning
promise in addressing a number of the concerns raised about readers for two reasons. First, beginning readers, particu-
conventional tests. DA is distinguished from conventional larly boys, from non-mainstream backgrounds are more
assessment formats by involving test-teach-retest phases likely to be diagnosed as poor readers using conventional
that occur over a short time period. The test phase parallels testing methods. Some of these children may not have
conventional methods and involves administration of tests acquired word reading strategies but nonetheless may be
without feedback. During the brief teach phase, normally able to do so quite readily if given the opportunity. Second,
one to two short sessions (20–40 minutes each), examiners word reading and reading comprehension abilities are
teach skills or strategies that a child needs to perform a par- inextricably linked at the beginning reader stage. Children
ticular task and provide feedback to the child regarding task need to be able to read words in isolation quickly and ac-
performance. In the retest phase, tests are re-administered curately to support text level reading (Catts, Hogan, & Fey,
giving the child the opportunity to apply the strategies that 2003; Leach, Scarborough, & Rescorla, 2003; Stanovich,
were evoked or acquired during the teach phase. 1993). So, if boys and girls with word reading difficulties
 Persistent Reading Disabilities 115

are correctly identified, not only can interventions begin Byrne & Fielding-Barnsley, 1989; Ehri et al., 2001; Perfetti
early to preempt long term reading failure; such interven- et al., 1987; Wagner, Torgesen, & Rashotte, 1994).
tion should result in improvements to both word and text Research studies on PA and the meta-analyses of these
level reading. Thus, it is essential to use measures that can studies have implications for instruction. Bus and van
help to tease apart actual from contrived deficits so that Ijzendoorn (1999) concluded that preschoolers tend to profit
children who genuinely need additional support receive it most from PA training. The National Reading Panel (NRP)
in a timely manner and children who do not need support of experts named by the Director of the National Institute of
are not mislabeled and placed in interventions unnecessarily Child Health and Human Development (NICHHD, 2000)
(Hayward & Schneider, 2000). The importance of this line argue that the reason kindergartners and preschoolers gain
of our current research goes beyond these direct benefits to the most from such training is that these groups start out
individual children but has implications regarding policy with the least phonological awareness. The NRP included
decisions at a school and district level for resource alloca- a length-of-instruction variable in its meta-analysis and
tion and service delivery. Given that school administrators found that 5 to 18 hours of PA instruction were more ef-
generally operate with a limited set of resources, informa- fective than longer or shorter periods. Ehri et al. (2001)
tion furnished from DA has the potential to support efficient stated, “These findings suggest that phonological aware-
and effective use of this resource pool. ness instruction does not need to be lengthy to exert its
strongest effect on reading and spelling” (p. 269). Bus and
van Ijzendoorn (1999) stress that although “phonological
Not All Intervention Programs Are Beneficial
awareness affects learning-to-read processes in a positive
Effective reading instruction is a topic of abiding interest and substantial way” (p. 405), PA is not sufficient for learn-
and debate. Many children who should be capable of read- ing to read. They estimate that PA explains approximately
ing well cannot do so, which suggests that the instructional 12% of the variance in reading skills. Ehri et al. (2001)
methods available to them are not appropriate (Pressley, calculate the overall variance in reading outcomes explained
1998). There is no shortage of programs and methods dedi- by PA instruction to be 6.5%, rising to 10% when letters
cated to improving early reading instruction. The specific were added and to 28% for preschoolers. Thus, although
strengths and weaknesses of many programs and methods PA has been shown to be important in reading words, it
are largely unmeasured. Indeed, very few studies have ex- is but one component among a complex array of literacy
plored the efficacy of early literacy programs and methods experiences that help children learn to read (Cunningham
within highly defensible parameters. John Pikulski (1994) 2001; Pressley, Allington, Wharton-McDonald, Block, &
reviewed and identified the critical features of five claimed Morrow, 2001; Snow, Burns, & Griffin, 1998). In sum, it
to be successful programs for at-risk first grade children. must be remembered that phonics instruction is a means
His main conclusions corroborate the need for excellent to an end, that being the ability not just to decode but to
and coordinated intervention and classroom instruction; comprehend and interpret written text.
some children may require more instruction time and one- Notwithstanding the knowledge of PA cited above, re-
on-one tutoring than others even though all are identified search to date does not provide definitive answers regarding
to be at-risk; first grade is a crucial time to prevent further the amount of emphasis that should be placed on phonics
development of reading difficulties, and support beyond or the best way to teach phonics (Cunningham, 2003;
Grade 1 is likely necessary; texts should be simple enough to NICHHD, 2000; Stahl, Duffy-Hester, & Stahl, 1998).
ensure success and to entice rereading and to develop word Into this mix, a large western Canadian city adopted a
identification skills; attention to letters and words coupled phonics-based reading program for some of its schools in
with writing is critically important in early intervention low SES areas. Phillips, Norris, and Steffler (2007) con-
programs; ongoing assessment should inform instruction; ducted a 3-year longitudinal study of the program, which
inclusion of the home is necessary in daily reading with was a prescriptive, linear, and intensive reading program in
the child; and teachers who provide consistently effective seven schools all in low SES areas. Literacy M.A.P. Mean-
instruction anchor successful programs (p. 38). ingful applied phonics: Explicit phonics through direct
In addition to the above indicators of successful pro- instruction (Hunter & Robinson, 2002) was a prescriptive,
grams, numerous studies of phonological awareness (PA) linear, and intensive reading program.
conducted over the past three decades indicate that it The treatment group was taught using the program. The
has a strong positive and powerful effect on subsequent same group of students was followed for 3 years, starting
reading achievement (Bradley & Bryant, 1983; Byrne & at the outset of Grade 1. The general features of M.A.P.,
Fielding-Barnsley, 1995; Lundberg, Frost, & Petersen, as presented by Hunter and Robinson (2002) include: (a)
1988; Lundberg, Olofsson, & Wall, 1980; Perfetti, Beck, M.A.P. is an explicit, teacher-directed approach; (b) M.A.P.
Bell, & Hughes, 1987; Stanovich, 1986; Torgesen, Wagner, is a logical, sequential program that organizes and paces
& Rashotte, 1994; Vellutino & Scanlon, 1987). Not only is the lessons, moves from graphemes to spelling words, and
there a clear indication that PA is related to reading success, to reading and writing activities; (c) M.A.P. segments and
but it also appears that learning to read helps develop chil- blends words into syllables when reading and writing unfa-
dren’s PA (Blachman, 2000; Bus & van Ijzendoorn, 1999; miliar words; (d) M.A.P. teaches the 70 graphemes for the
116 Linda M. Phillips, Denyse V. Hayward, and Stephen P. Norris

first 26 single letter sounds of the alphabet as well as vowel spellers” (see www.four-blocks.com, Overview, p.1) and
and consonant digraphs; and (e) M.A.P. focuses on phonics, was developed with the needs of a diverse range of students
spelling, and grammar for approximately 30 minutes each (different literacy levels, interests, and ways of learning) in
day combined with 60 minutes of reading and writing. mind. The control students were taught a balanced program
There are also more specific features of M.A.P advocated with approximately equal amounts of time given to the four
by Hunter and Robinson (2002). The program involves sections, namely: guided reading, self-selected reading,
teacher-directed whole-class instruction and a sequential writing, and working with words. Guided reading, which
development of skills for approximately 90 minutes each includes learning about story elements and about how
day. This sequence starts with students learning to print cor- to learn from informational texts, “is always focused on
rectly the letters of the alphabet following a detailed set of comprehension” (Cunningham & Hall, 2001, p. 1, under
instructions. As they practice writing each letter, they also the Guided Reading block, see www.four-blocks.com).
learn the sounds of that letter. After students have learned Teachers and students read together big books and the initial
to print and say the sounds of the alphabet (referred to as reading texts, and other books and formats are introduced as
“graphemes” in the manual), they follow the same routine the year progresses. At various points, teachers work with
to learn 28 multiple-letter “graphemes” (sometimes also the whole class, but students also read together in small
referred to as “phonemes” in the manual) (p. 105). groups, with partners, individually, and with the teacher.
Students are also given a spelling rule for each word and During the self-selected reading block, children read what
orally repeat each rule. After students have learned nine they themselves have chosen. Students are asked to respond
spelling words, the teacher incorporates dictated sentences to what they have been reading, to share their reading and
using the mastered words into their phonics lessons. Dic- responses with others and to conference with the teacher.
tated paragraphs and stories are added when children can The writing block includes mini-lessons on the funda-
spell enough words to proceed to this level of writing (see mentals of writing, such as how to get started, revise, and
Hunter & Robinson, 2002, p. 23). The foregoing is consis- edit their writing. Children are also invited to share their
tent with the recommendation in the M.A.P. program that writing and respond to the writing of their peers. The fourth
material be presented to students in small sequential steps block, working with words, is intended to “ensure that chil-
so as “to provide students with a safe and secure environ- dren read, spell, and use high frequency words correctly, and
ment from which they can concentrate on the mechanics of that they learn the patterns necessary for decoding and spell-
writing” (Hunter & Robinson, 2002, p. 25). ing” (Cunningham & Hall, 2001, p. 1, under the Working
The reading process outlined in the M.A.P. model with Words block, see www.four-blocks.com). Strategies
proceeds from the writing process described above. The include making words and a word wall, with suggestions
reading process begins with graphemes taught in isolation. for grouping such activities into a five-lesson cycle. This
Graphemes are followed by spelling words, dictated sen- approach is intended to help teachers meet mandates for
tences, dictated paragraphs and stories, reproducible stories, including systematic, sequential phonics in reading instruc-
and, finally, children’s literature. The M.A.P. program also tion. The school board staff indicated that the four blocks
incorporates instructions and strategies for teaching flu- are collapsed into three large blocks: working with words,
ency, comprehension, and vocabulary. For example, in the reading, and writing for a total of 90 minutes each day.
section entitled “Comprehension Activities,” pre-reading We showed that, although the treatment children’s read-
discussions, predictions, corrective reading strategies, para- ing, writing, and spelling appeared to show some gains in
phrasing, mental imagery, and graphic organizers are listed the first year, achievement over the 3 years deteriorated
and briefly described (see Phillips et al., 2005 and 2007 for for children in the lowest- and highest-performing schools
further discussion). The bulk of the manual contains organiz- (even though the schools maintained their relative ranking
ing charts (for kindergarten to Grade 6), instructions on how as the lowest and highest). Children in the middle perform-
to print and pronounce graphemes, and spelling word lists. ing schools had become more alike in their performance
These provide the means “to ensure that teachers and chil- but had also fallen compared to the norming populations.
dren have the knowledge, skills, and background to succeed Gender was not found to be related to achievement. This
on their journey toward literacy” (Hunter & Robinson, 2002, result is consistent with other longitudinal studies we have
p. 4). Thus, the program manual, like the teaching program, conducted (Phillips et al., 1996, 2002, 2006), as well as
provides explicit directions intended to help teachers to lead those of other researchers including Biemiller and Siegel
children to reading success. The M.A.P. resource is 311 (1997), Halpern (2004), and Hyde (2005). Seven schools
pages and includes program explanations, approximately participated in the study. Schools 3, 4, and 5 maintained
200 pages of graphemes, spelling word lists, 115 pages of their relative ranking through the study. Schools 1 and 7,
grapheme sequence lists, and thematic word lists. the worst and best performing, respectively, showed the
The control group was taught according to a balanced least improvement and the greatest diminution. These
literacy approach modeled after Cunningham and Hall’s results suggest that the middle group fared the best. One
Four-Blocks Literacy Model (2001). The model is described interpretation of these findings is that the students of School
as incorporating “four different approaches each day to 1 were not ready for the heavy emphasis on phonics of-
teach children how to become better readers, writers, and fered through the M.A.P. program and that the students of
 Persistent Reading Disabilities 117

School 7 were sufficiently advanced that the program was ing view. Yet, interventions need to be well-planned and
of little or no merit. well-executed based upon available and specific research
There was a significant negative effect of treatment on because it has been shown that some interventions make
achievement when compared to the control group. The bad situations worse.
control group comparison provides strong evidence that In the context of the six erroneous beliefs we have refut-
early literacy achievement experienced by the children in ed, we conclude that the term, persistent reading disabilities
the treatment schools was less than would be expected had is much over-used and applied to too many children.
the children been taught the same program as the control
children. The differences were such that the control chil-
References
dren, who underperformed the treatment children at the end
of Grade 1, outperformed them at the end of both Grades 2 Adams, M. (1990). Beginning to read: Thinking and learning about print.
and 3. Clearly, the M.A.P. program did not have as beneficial Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Badian, N. A. (1999). Persistent arithmetic, reading, or arithmetic and
an effect on students’ literacy achievement as the programs reading disability. Annals of Dyslexia, 49, 45–70.
used in the control schools (Phillips et al., 2005, 2007). The Biemiller, A., & Siegel, L. (1997). A longitudinal study of the effects of
M.A.P. program provided a high dose of phonics and is the Bridge Reading Program for children at risk for reading failure.
unidimensional. It is known that a unidimensional focus is Learning Disability Quarterly, 20(2), 83–92.
likely to be less effective for emergent readers (Foorman, Bishop, D. (1997). Uncommon understanding: Development and disorders
of language comprehension in children. Sussex, UK: Psychology
Francis, Fletcher, Schatschneider, & Mehta, 1998; IRA, Press.
1997; Pressley, 2002; Torgesen, 1998) than a balanced and Blachman, B. A. (2000). Phonological awareness. In M. L. Kamil, P. B.
multi-dimensional program such as the four-blocks literacy Mosenthal, P. D. Pearson, & P. Barr (Eds.), Handbook of reading
model. Our study demonstrates that all potential innova- research: Vol. III (pp. 484–502). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
tions, even those based to a degree upon sound research, Bradley, L., & Bryant, P. E. (1983). Categorizing sounds and learning to
read — a causal connection. Nature, 301(5899), 419–421.
need to face critical appraisal of their effectiveness.
Brown, J. R. (1991). The retrograde motion of planets and children:
Interpreting percentile rank. Psychology in the Schools, 28(4),
Concluding Comments 345–353.
Bus, A. G., & van Ijzendoorn, M. H. (1999). Phonological awareness
In this chapter we discussed six erroneous beliefs surround- and early reading: A meta-analysis of experimental training studies.
ing persistent reading disabilities. First, is the belief that Journal of Educational Psychology, 91(3), 403–414.
Byrne, B., & Fielding-Barnsley, R. (1989). Phonemic awareness and let-
relative reading achievement is immutable. Not only is this ter knowledge in the child’s acquisition of the alphabetic principle.
belief false in the light of effective interventions, relative Journal of Educational Psychology, 81(3), 313–321.
reading achievement is porous even under typical classroom Byrne, B., & Fielding-Barnsley, R. (1995). Evaluation of a program to
settings. For this reason, the belief is particularly pernicious teach phonemic awareness to young children: A 2- and 3-year follow-
in nullifying any hope of improvement for many children. up and a new preschool trial. Journal of Educational Psychology,
87(3), 488–503.
Second, there is the belief that poverty and gender create Campione, J., & Brown, A. (1987). Linking dynamic assessment with
ceilings on reading ability. This belief creates expectations school achievement. In C. S. Lidz (Ed.), Dynamic assessment: An
for a poor performance from certain groups. The evidence interactional approach to evaluating learning potential (pp. 82–115).
shows that within any group there are enormous spreads New York: Guilford.
in quality of performance so that identifying individuals Catts, H., Fey, M., Zhang, X., & Tomblin, J. B. (2001). Estimating the risk
of future reading difficulties in kindergarten children: A research-based
on the basis of the mean performance of the individual’s model and its clinical implications. Language, Speech, and Hearing
group can be both grossly inaccurate and unfair. Third, it Services in Schools, 32(1), 38–50.
is a common practice to wait to be sure a child has reading Catts, H., Hogan, T., & Fey, M. (2003). Subgrouping poor readers on the
problems before acting. In contrast, the evidence suggests basis of reading-related abilities. Journal of Learning Disabilities,
that early and focused interventions are the most effective 36(2), 151–164.
Cox, T. (1987). Slow starters versus long term backwards readers. British
ones and that waiting can result in intractable problems. Journal of Educational Psychology, 57(1), 73–86.
Fourth, simply reading to children is a practice promoted Cunningham, J. W. (2001). The National Reading Panel Report. Reading
to prevent most reading difficulties. Although seductive, Research Quarterly, 36, 326–335.
the practice is only partly correct. Reading to children is Cunningham, P. M. (2003). What research says about teaching phonics. In
beneficial, but only when time is taken to draw children’s L. M. Morrow, L. B. Gambrell, & M. Pressley (Eds.), Best practices
in literacy instruction (pp. 65–86). New York: Guilford.
attention to print and to engage them directly in learning Cunningham, P.M., & Hall, D. (2001). Four-blocks literacy model. Greens-
print concepts. Fifth, it is widely believed that conventional boro, NC: Carson-Dellosa Publishing.
tests serve all groups equitably. We know, however, that Day J. D., & Zajakowski, A. (1991). Comparisons of learning ease and
this is not the case. Worse, the groups most in need of help transfer propensity in poor and average readers. Journal of Learning
are the ones most poorly served. In addition, there are ap- Disabilities, 24(7), 421–433.
Denton, C. A., Fletcher, J. M., Anthony, J. L., & Francis, D. J. (2006). An
proaches to testing that show promise of correcting this evaluation of intensive intervention for students with persistent reading
failure. Finally, there is a belief among some that intervening difficulties. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 39(5), 447–466.
in reading instruction is always better than doing nothing Ehri, L. C., Nunes, S. R., Willows, D. M., Schuster, B. V., Yaghoub-Zadeh,
over and above the normal—an anything is better than noth- Z., & Shanahan, T. (2001). Phonemic awareness instruction helps
118 Linda M. Phillips, Denyse V. Hayward, and Stephen P. Norris

children learn to read: Evidence from the National Reading Panel’s International Reading Association. (1997). Summary statement of Role
meta-analysis. Reading Research Quarterly, 36(3), 250–287. of phonics in reading instruction. A position statement of the Interna-
Elkins, J. (2007). Learning Disabilities: Bringing fields and nations to- tional Reading Association. Available from http://www.reading.org/
gether. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 40(5), 392–399. resources/issues/positions_phonics.html
Fine, S. (2001, August 27). Schools told to fix boys’ low grades. Globe Jha, J., & Kelleher, F. (2006). Boys underachievement in education.
and Mail, p. A1. London: Commonwealth of Learning and the Commonwealth Sec-
Fletcher, J. M., Lyon, G. R., Fuchs, L. S., & Barnes, M. A. (2007). Learn- retariat.
ing disabilities. New York: Guilford. Juel, C. (1988). Learning to read and write: A Longitudinal study of 54
Flynn, J .M., & Rahbar, M. H. (1994). Prevalence of reading failure in boys children from first through fourth grades. Journal of Educational
compared with girls. Psychology in the Schools, 31(1), 66–71. Psychology, 80(4), 437–447.
Foorman, B. R., Francis, D. J., Fletcher, J. M., Schatschneider, C., & Kame’enui, E. J., Fuchs, L., Francis, D. J., Good III, R., O’Connor, R.,
Mehta, P. (1998). The role of instruction in learning to read; Preventing Simmons, D., Tindal, G., & Torgesen, J. K. (2006). The adequacy of
reading failure in at-risk children. Journal of Educational Psychology, tools for assessing reading competence: A framework and review.
90(1), 37–55. Educational Researcher, 35(4), 3–11.
Francis, B. (2005). Reassessing gender and achievement: Questioning Kramer, K., Mallett, P., Schneider, P., & Hayward, D.V. (2007, May).
contemporary key debates. New York: Routledge. Dynamic Assessment of Narratives with Grade 3 Children in a First
Francis, D. J., Fletcher, J. M., Shaywitz, B. A., Shaywitz, S. E., & Rourke, Nations Community. Presented at the Symposium on Research in Child
B. P. (1996). Defining learning and language and disabilities: Con- Language Disorders, Madison, Wisconsin.
ceptual and psychometric issues with the use of IQ test. Language, Lahey, M. (1990). Who shall be called language-disordered? Some reflec-
Speech, and Hearing Services in Schools, 27(2), 132–143. tions and one perspective. Journal of Speech and Hearing Disorders,
Frempong, G., & Willms, J. D. (2002). Can school quality compensate 55, 612–620.
for socioeconomic disadvantage? In J. D. Willms (Ed.), Vulnerable Leach, J., Scarborough, H., & Rescorla, L. (2003). Late-emerging reading
children (pp. 277–304). Edmonton, AB: University of Alberta Press. disabilities. Journal of Educational Psychology, 95(2), 211–224.
Gray, S., Plante, E., Vance, R., & Henrichsen, M. (1999). The diagnostic Lee, V. E., & Burkham, D. T. (2002). Inequality at the starting gate: So-
accuracy for four vocabulary tests administered to preschool-aged cial background differences in achievement as children begin school.
children. Language Speech and Hearing Services in Schools, 30(2), Washington, DC: Economic Policy Institute.
196–206. Lonigan, C. J., Bloomfield, B. G., Anthony, J. L., Bacon, K. D., Phillips,
Gutierrez-Clellen, V. F., Brown, S., Conboy, B., & Robinson-Zanartu, C. B. M., & Samwel, C. S. (1999). Relations among emergent literacy
(1998). Modifiability: A Dynamic Approach to assessing immediate skills, behavior problems, and social competence in preschool children
language change. Journal of Children’s Communication Development, from low- and middle-income backgrounds. Topics in Early Childhood
19(2), 31–42. Special Education, 19(1), 40–53.
Halpern, D. (2004). A cognitive-process taxonomy for sex differences Lundberg, I., Frost, J., & Petersen, O. (1988). Effects of an extensive
in cognitive abilities. Current Directions in Psychological Science, program for stimulating phonological awareness in preschool children.
13(4), 135–139. Reading Research Quarterly, 23(3), 263–284.
Harris, T. L., & Hodges, R. E. (Eds.). (1995). The literacy dictionary. Lundberg, I., Olofsson, A., & Wall, S. (1980). Reading and spelling skills
Newark, DE: International Reading Association. in the first school years predicted from phonemic awareness skills in
Hasson, N., & Joffe, V. (2007). The case for Dynamic Assessment in kindergarten. Scandinavian Journal of Psychology, 21(1), 159–173.
speech and language therapy. Child Language, Teaching & Therapy, Mathes, P. G., & Denton, C. A. (2002). The prevention and identifica-
23(1), 9–25. tion of reading disability. Seminars in Pediatric Neurology, 9(3),
Hayward, D. (2002). Norm-referenced testing: Issues of measurement and 185–191.
application. In S. Warren & W. Janzen (Eds.), Power in research II. McArthur, G. M., Hogben, J. H., Edwards, V. T., Heath, S. M., & Men-
Special issues. Edmonton, AB: Rehabilitation Research Centre. gler, E. D. (2000). On the “specifics” of specific reading disability
Hayward, D., Das, J. P., & Janzen, T. (2007). Innovative programs for and specific language impairment. Journal of Child Psychology and
improvement in reading through cognitive enhancement: A remedia- Psychiatry, 41(7), 869–874.
tion study of Canadian First Nations children. Journal of Learning McCauley, R. J., & Swisher, L. (1984). Use and misuse of norm-referenced
Disabilities, 40(5), 443–457. tests in clinical assessment: A hypothetical case. Journal of Speech
Hayward, D. V., & Schneider, P. (2000). Effectiveness of teaching story and Hearing Disorders, 49, 338–348.
grammar knowledge to preschool children with language impair- McGee, R., Williams, S., & Silva, P. A. (1988). Slow starters versus long-
ments: An exploratory story. Child Language, Teaching & Therapy, term backwards readers: A replication and extension. British Journal
16(3), 255–284. of Educational Psychology, 58(3), 330–337.
Hayward, D. V., Stewart, G. E., Phillips, L. M., Norris, S. P., & Lovell, Meyer, L. A., Stahl, S., Wardrop, J. L., & Linn, R. L. (1992). The effects
M. A. (2008). Language, Phonological Awareness, and Reading Test of reading storybooks aloud to children. Paper presented at the 41st
Directory. London, ON: Canadian Centre for Research on Literacy annual meeting of the National Reading Conference, December 4,
and Canadian Language and Literacy Research Network. Palm Springs, California.
Hinshaw, S. P. (1992). Externalizing behavior problems and academic un- National Institute of Child Health and Human Development. (2000). Report
derachievement in childhood and adolescence: Causal relationships and of the National Reading Panel: Teaching children to read: An evidence
underlying mechanisms. Psychological Bulletin, 111(1), 127–155. based assessment of the scientific research literature on reading and its
Hinshelwood, J. (1896). Word-blindness and visual memory. Lancet, implications for reading instruction. (NIH Publication No. 00-4769).
146(3773), 1564–1570. Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office. Available from
Hunter, C., & Robinson, S. (2002). Literacy M.A.P. Meaningful applied http://www.nichd.nih.gov/publications/nrp/report.html
phonics, explicit phonics through direct instruction. Edmonton, AB: Paul, R. (2007). Language disorders from infancy through adolescence.
Edmonton Public Schools. St. Louis, MO: Mosby Elsevier.
Hoffman, J.V., Roser, N. L., & Battle, J. (1991). Storytime in classrooms: Peña, E., Spaulding, T., & Plante, E. (2006). The composition of normative
What is, what could be, what should be. Paper presented at the 41st groups and diagnostic decision making: Shooting ourselves in the foot.
annual meeting of the National Reading Conference, December 4, American Journal of Speech-Language Pathology, 15(3), 247–254.
Palm Springs, California. Perfetti, C. A., Beck, I., Bell, L. C., & Hughes, C. (1987). Phonemic
Hyde, J. S. (2005). The gender similarities hypothesis. American Psycholo- knowledge and learning to read are reciprocal: A longitudinal study of
gist, 60(6), 581–592. first grade children. Merrill-Palmer Quarterly, 33, 283–319.
 Persistent Reading Disabilities 119

Phillips, L. M. (1997). Theoretical Considerations of Assessment and Evalu- Snow, C. E., Barnes, W. S., Chandler, J., Goodman, I. F., & Hemphill,
ation. In V. Froese (Ed.), Language across the curriculum (pp. 250–271). L. (1991). Unfulfilled expectations: Home and school influences on
Toronto, ON: Harcourt Brace Canada. literacy. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Phillips, L. M., Hayden, R., & Norris, S. P. (2006). Family literacy mat- Snow, C. E., Burns, M., & Griffin, P. (Eds.). (1998). Preventing reading
ters: A longitudinal parent-child literacy intervention study. Calgary, difficulties in young children. Washington, DC: National Academy
AB: Temeron/Detselig. Press.
Phillips, L. M., Norris, S. P., & Anderson, J. (2008). Unlocking the door: Spear-Swerling, L., & Sternberg, R. J. (1996). Off track: When poor readers
Is parents’ reading to children the key to early literacy development? become “learning disabled.” Boulder, CO: Westview.
Special issue of Canadian Psychology on Literacy Development in Spector, J. E. (1992). Predicting progress in beginning reading: Dynamic
Canada, 49(2), 82–88. assessment of phonemic awareness. Journal of Educational Psychol-
Phillips, L. M., Norris, S. P., & Mason, J. (1996). Longitudinal effects of ogy, 84(3), 353–363.
early literacy concepts on reading achievement: A kindergarten inter- Stahl, S. A., Duffy-Hester, A. M., & Stahl, K. A. D. (1998). Everything
vention and five-year follow-up. JLR: Journal of Literacy Research, you wanted to know about phonics (but were afraid to ask). Reading
28(1), 173–195. Research Quarterly, 33(3), 338–355.
Phillips, L. M., Norris, S. P., Osmond, W., & Maynard, A. (2002). Rela- Stanovich, K. E. (1986). Matthew effects in reading: Some consequences of
tive reading achievement: A longitudinal study of 187 children from individual differences in the acquisition of literacy. Reading Research
first through sixth grade. Journal of Educational Psychology, 94(1), Quarterly, 21(4), 360–406.
3–13. Stanovich, K. E. (1991). Discrepancy definitions of reading disability:
Phillips, L. M., Norris, S. P., & Steffler, D. J. (2005). Meaningful applied Has intelligence led us astray? Reading Research Quarterly, 26 (1),
phonics: A longitudinal early literacy study. Vancouver, B.C.: Society 7–29.
for the Advancement of Excellence in Education. Stanovich, K. E. (1993). The language code: Issues in word recognition.
Phillips, L. M., Norris, S. P., & Steffler, D. J. (2007). Potential risks to In S. Yussen & M. C. Smith (Eds.), Reading across the life span (pp.
reading posed by high-dose phonics. Journal of Applied Research on 111–135). New York: Springer-Verlag.
Learning, 1(1), 1–18. Sternberg, R. J. & Grigorenko, E. L. (2002). Dynamic testing. The nature
Phillips, L .M., & Sample, H .L. (2005). Family literacy: Listen to what and measurement of learning potential. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge
the families have to say. In J. Anderson, M. Kendrick, T. Rogers, & University Press.
S. Smythe (Eds.), Portraits of literacy across families, communities Torgesen, J. K. (1998). Instructional interventions for children with read-
and schools: Intersections and tensions (pp. 91–107). Mahwah, NJ: ing disabilities. In B. K. Shapiro, P. J. Accardo, & A. J. Capute (Eds.),
Erlbaum. Specific reading disability: A view of the spectrum (pp.197–220).
Pikulski, J.J. (1994). Preventing reading failure: A review of five effective Timonium, MD: York Press.
programs. Reading Teacher, 48(1), 30–39 Torgesen, J. K., & Burgess, S. R. (1998). Consistency of reading-related
PISA. (2005). Program for International Assessment. Paris: Organization phonological processes throughout early childhood: Evidence from
for Economic Co-operation and Development. longitudinal-correlational and instructional studies. In J. Metsala &
Plante, E., & Vance, R. (1995) Diagnostic accuracy of two tests of pre- L. Ehri (Eds.), Word recognition in beginning reading (pp. 161–188).
school language. American Journal of Speech–Language Pathology, Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
4, 70–76. Torgesen, J. K., Wagner, R. K., & Rashotte, C. A. (1994). Longitudinal
Pressley, M. (1998). Reading instruction that works. New York: Guil- studies of phonological processing and reading. Journal of Learning
ford. Disabilities, 27(5), 276–286.
Pressley, M. (2002). Reading instruction that works: The case for balanced Ukrainetz, T. A., Harpell, S., Walsh, C., & Coyle, C. (2000). A pre-
teaching. New York: Guilford. liminary investigation of dynamic assessment with Native American
Pressley, M., Allington, R. L., Wharton-McDonald, R., Block, C. C., & kindergartners. Language, Speech, and Hearing Services in Schools,
Morrow, L. M. (2001). Learning to read: Lessons from exemplary 31(2), 142–154.
first-grade classrooms. New York: Guilford. Vellutino, F.R. (1979). Dyslexia: Theory and research. Cambridge, MA:
Rack, J. P., Snowling, M., & Olson, R. K. (1992). The nonword read- MIT Press.
ing deficit in developmental dyslexia: A review. Reading Research Vellutino, F. R., & Scanlon, D. M. (1987). Phonological coding, phonologi-
Quarterly, 27(1), 28–53. cal awareness, and reading ability: Evidence from a longitudinal and
Rice, M. L., Warren, S. F., & Betz, S. K. (2005). Language symptoms experimental study. Merrill-Palmer Quarterly, 33, 321–363.
of developmental language disorders: An overview of autism, Down Wagner, R. K., & Torgesen, J. K. (1987). The nature of phonological
syndrome, fragile X, specific language impairment, and Williams processing and its casual role in the acquisition of reading skills.
syndrome. Applied Psycholinguistics, 26(1), 7–27. Psychological Bulletin, 101(2), 192–212.
Shaywitz, S. E., Fletcher, J. M., & Shaywitz, B. A. (1994). Issues in the Wagner, R. K., Torgesen, J. K., & Rashotte, C. A. (1994). Development
definition and classification of attention deficit disorder. Topics in of reading-related phonological processing abilities: New evidence
Language Disorders, 14(4), 1–25. of bidirectional causality from a latent variable longitudinal study.
Siegel, L. (1992). An evaluation of the discrepancy definition of dyslexia. Developmental Psychology, 30(1), 73–87.
Journal of Learning Disabilities, 25(10), 618–629. Willms, D. (2002). Vulnerable children. Edmonton, AB: University of
Smith, S. S. (1997). A longitudinal study: The literacy development of 57 Alberta Press.
children. In C. Kinzer, K. A. Hinchman, & D. J. Leu (Eds.), Inquiries Wright, S. F., Fields, H., & Newman, S. P. (1996). Dyslexia: Stability of
in literacy theory and practice (pp. 250–264). Chicago: National definition over a five year period. Journal of Research in Reading,
Reading Conference. 19(1), 46–60.
 11
Prenatal Drug and Alcohol Exposure
and Reading Disabilities
DIANE BARONE
University of Nevada, Reno

In 1995, I wrote about prenatal crack/cocaine exposure and The early reports of adverse effects of prenatal exposure to
the difficulties of separating truth from fiction (Barone, cocaine including neurobehavioral dysfunction, a remark-
1995). I even used a quote from Maniac Magee where ably high rate of SIDS [Sudden Infant Death Syndrome],
Spinelli (1991) cautions readers to pretend to “Run your and birth defects were initial observations that constitute
the legitimate first step in the scientific process. However,
hand under your movie seat and be very careful, very careful
these unreplicated findings were uncritically accepted by
not to let the facts get mixed up with the truth.” Spinelli’s
scientists and lay media alike, not as preliminary, and pos-
caution is worthwhile today as even with extensive research sible unrepresentative case reports, but as “proven” facts.
since 1995, teasing out truth from fiction with respect to It is not easy to disseminate scientific data contrary to
prenatal drug and alcohol exposure is still an essential task prevailing popular belief. Our own experience, confirmed
when making sense of this research base. To facilitate this by others, has been that the popular media is disinterested
task, I have organized this chapter around research issues in negative reports or in statements by researchers indicat-
related to this topic, a synthesis of the research, and connec- ing uncertainty regarding the impact of prenatal cocaine
tions to schools and how best to support such children. exposure. (p. 299)

This early work still finds its ways into the belief systems
Cautions About the Research of teachers and the public. They assume that prenatal drug
exposure, by itself, results in a whole host of educational
There are numerous issues surrounding research on prenatal issues, all negative, related to these children. Later in this
drug and alcohol exposure. Some issues center on the rigor chapter a more realistic view is offered.
of the research while others cross all research endeavors In addition to the selectivity of publishers and editors
such as the amounts of drugs or alcohol used during preg- with the early research, Mayes, Granger, Bornstein, and
nancy. When gleaning information from the research base Zuckerman (1992) evaluated the methodological rigor of
it is important to consider possible flaws and limitations the early work. They noted serious flaws in much of this
within this research or in particular studies. research centered on the preferred selection of participants
who were poor and the lack of any control or compari-
Questions About the Published Research and its Rigor son group. A more recent meta-analysis of articles from
The research surrounding crack/cocaine is particularly 1984 to 2000 (Frank, Augustyn, Grant, Knight, Tripler, &
interesting in the lessons it can teach about perceptions Zuckerman, 2001) found that of 74 articles, only 36 met
becoming reality. When the foundational research was the requirements for methodological rigor. They noted that
conducted on children prenatally exposed to crack/cocaine, among the issues related to rigor, few studies controlled for
the media had identified these children as future sociopaths a mother’s use of other drugs such as opiates, methamphet-
(Barone, 1999; Griffith, 1995). Simultaneous with these amines, or tobacco. From the articles that met their selection
vivid portrayals was the acceptance or rejection of research criteria, they determined there was no consistent negative
surrounding prenatal exposure; in this case, journals more association between prenatal cocaine drug exposure and
often rejected manuscripts that disputed calamitous out- physical growth, developmental test scores, or receptive or
comes for these children (Gonzalez & Campbell, 1994; expressive language. These results are certainly in contrast
Greider, 1995; Hutchings, 1993; Lester & Tronick, 1994). to the results of less rigorous earlier studies. However, they
Frank and Zuckerman (1993) wrote about this situation: are also less likely to be familiar to teachers and the public

120
 Prenatal Drug and Alcohol Exposure and Reading Disabilities 121

who without the media reports often pay less attention to difficulties (O’Shea, Klinepeter, Goldstein, Jackson, &
the more current research. Dillard, 1997).
Another issue that pertains to early and current stud- 5. Fetal genetic susceptibility. Some fetuses are more or
ies is centered on women participants. Because it is not less resilient to their mother’s use of drugs or alcohol
possible to track a pregnant mother’s use of drugs during (O’Shea et al., 1997).
pregnancy, all reports of drug use are based on self-report 6. Drug factors such as frequency and type of use, the way
data. Mothers, because of the stigma attached to drinking drugs are used, contaminants used in street drugs, and
or using other drugs during pregnancy, underreport their the characteristics of drugs (McConnell et al., 2002;
use of such substances (Sokol, Delaney-Black, & Nord- Soby, 2006).
strom, 2003). Most hospitals lack protocols for identifying 7. Most identified children come from high poverty fami-
pregnant women who use alcohol or other drugs (Brady, lies. These families often suffer from disorganization
Posner, Lang, & Rosati, 1994). While alcohol detection is and violence (Singer et al., 2004).
quite difficult in an infant as there is no reliable biological
marker available, this is not the case for tobacco or cocaine Clearly, research in the area of prenatal alcohol and drug
as a urine assay can detect tobacco and benzoylecognine exposure is no easy task. The flaws in earlier research pro-
levels in meconium can detect cocaine (Frank, Augustyn, vide a lesson for newer researchers as they try to understand
Knight, Pell, & Zuckerman, 2001). These tests, however, the implications of drug and alcohol exposure. Kronstadt
can result in false positives or fail to reveal other drug use (1991) suggests that because of the difficulties surrounding
because the substances have metabolized (Mayes et al., this research, those interested should expect to see differ-
1992). While these tests can detect that a mother used a ing results even when studies pose the same questions. The
certain substance late in pregnancy, up to 48 hours before quality of the results is necessarily tied to the rigor of the
delivery, they do not identify a mother’s use throughout study’s design, and therefore meta-analyses are especially
a pregnancy (Miller, 1989). Moreover, if a baby is full important in understanding this research.
term and appears healthy, doctors rarely look for subtle
signs of drug or alcohol exposure (Soby, 2006). This lack Issue of Which Drug Is Most Damaging Once again,
of identification and reliance on self-report data are large the 1980s and 1990s media helped the public believe that
limitations regarding research on drug and/or alcohol use cocaine was the drug that did most damage to children
during pregnancy and the results to children. (Frank & Zuckerman, 1993). The reality is that cocaine,
Another criticism of this research is that researchers tried like other drugs including alcohol, presents a full con-
to study children exposed to a single drug. While this might tinuum of effects from no effects to complex effects that
be an ideal for research, the reality is that most pregnant include low birth weight and smaller head circumference
women, who use a drug of choice, also use other drugs when (Bennett, 1992; Berlin, 1991; Brodkin & Zuckerman,
available, smoke, and/or drink alcohol. Researchers are now 1992; Chasnoff, 1991; Cohen & Taharally, 1992; Villar-
using the word, polydrug, rather than singling out a specific real, McKinney, & Quackenbush, 1991). The media focus
drug for research (Bateman, Ng, Hansen, & Heagarty, 1993; today is more targeted to methamphetamine use and its
Frank, Augustyn, Knight, Pell, et al., 2001). Future research consequences, so the prediction would be that more re-
will need to investigate the synergistic effects of exposure to search will occur in this area that is under-researched at
multiple substances on children’s development, rather than present (Soby, 2006).
the simpler earlier research that attempted to target only a While cocaine has shared extensive media coverage,
single substance (Coles & Black, 2005; Coles, Platzman, alcohol and cigarettes result in equal or more detrimental
Smith, James, & Falek, 1992). effects to an infant (Brodkin & Zuckerman, 1992). Both of
Finally, as researchers continue to study the effects of these drugs result in children who have lower birth weight
prenatal exposure, they must consider other variables that and smaller head circumference. Miller et al. (2006) ob-
affect these children simultaneously: served that about 35% to 80% of urban youth are exposed
to environmental smoke and this exposure is associated with
1. Most pregnant mothers who use drugs or alcohol seek reduced fetal growth, neuro-developmental problems, and
no or limited prenatal care (Barone, 1999). diseases like asthma and cancer. Alcohol exposure results
2. Often their children are born prematurely. Prematurity in a myriad of issues as well for children that include mild
can result in language delays, fine motor issues, atten- to severe cognitive deficits such as mental retardation
tion and learning issues, and socioemotional relation- (Charmichael, Morse, & Huffine, 1998). Additionally, these
ship difficulties (Bennett, 1992; Gregorchik, 1992). children have been found to have poor social judgment, fail
3. Poor maternal nutrition during pregnancy (Thomas, to comprehend consequences, and/or have difficulty under-
2004). standing social cues (Charmichael, Feldman, Streissguth,
4. Maternal health and age. Mothers over the age of 30 Sampson, & Bookstein, 1998). Interestingly, Coles and
influence fetal susceptibility to long term effects of in- Black (2005) noted that alcohol and tobacco have not been
trauterine growth retardation, small-for-gestational-age as much as a health concern to the public as illicit drugs
infants, long term growth impairments, and cognitive so there have been fewer studies in these areas, although
122 Diane Barone

the consequences to children are similar or more damaging The data do not show that one drug is more damaging to
than cocaine or other drug exposure. children, especially since mothers typically use more than
The National Institute on Drug Abuse (NIDA, 1996) one drug during pregnancy. Rather, it demonstrates that
estimated that about 5.5% of pregnant women use illicit there are large numbers of children born each year who have
drugs. For alcohol, 50% of women of childbearing age been prenatally exposed to drugs or alcohol, and in most
drink alcohol, and approximately 20% report that they cases a combination of these substances. For some children
continue to drink when pregnant. Coupled with this usage the effects of their mother’s drug or alcohol are significant
report, current research documents that as little as a small and for others moderate to insignificant.
amount of alcohol per day (.5 drinks per day) can result in Frank, Augustyn, Knight, Pell, et al. (2001) document
adverse effects for an infant (Coles & Black, 2005; Sokol, that much is still unknown about the effects of prenatal
Delaney-Black, & Nordstrom, 2003). Fetal Alcohol Syn- drug and alcohol exposure. For instance, even if no effects
drome’s prevalence in the United States is approximately are found for children from 6 months to 6 years old, the
1 case per 100 live births with about 2,000 infant deaths increasing academic complexity in school may identify
per year attributed to alcohol use (Burd, Cotsonas-Hassler, effects previously not observed (Fried &Watkinson, 2000).
Martsolf, & Kerbeshian, 2003). Cumulative environmental effects may also exacerbate
Cocaine exposed children range from 1% to 5% (Be- negative cognitive or behavioral outcomes that were previ-
sharov, 1990) of live births per year. In the 1980s the total ously not present.
estimate was 375,000 drug-exposed infants in the United
States, with over 4 million predicted by 2000 (Kusserow, Issue of Who Uses Drugs Prenatally Often, the percep-
1990). Marijuana exposed children range from 3% to 20% tion is that poor women engage in the use of drugs and
of children born (MacGregor, 1990) per year. Costs associ- alcohol during pregnancy more often than other socioeco-
ated with these children included increased placement in nomic groups. The reason behind this perception is that
foster care (Thomas, 2004) and medical costs. In a Florida urine toxicology tests are more common in hospitals that
study (www.fdhc.state.fl.us/index.shtml), drug-exposed serve poor families. When hospitals participated in studies,
babies more often than non-exposed infants required more they discovered that all social classes were documented
expensive medical care. to have children prenatally exposed to drugs and alcohol
Prenatal exposure of children to both licit (alcohol and (Villarreal, McKinney, & Quackenbush, 1991).
cigarettes) and illicit drugs (cocaine, marijuana, and opiates) As with other issues surrounding drug and alcohol
is a substantial problem in the United States. Each year exposure, there are policy issues related to the discovery
approximately 757,000 pregnant women use alcohol and surrounding the use of drugs. A vivid example from cocaine
820,000 smoke cigarettes. About 220,000 pregnant women use demonstrates the intersection of policy and drug use
use illicit drugs at least once during pregnancy. Finally, (Thomas, 2004). In the early 1980s, cocaine was thought
32% of women who use one illicit drug also smoke and to be a recreational drug used by the middle class. Policy
drink (Wenzel et al., 2001). Using these estimates, about at this time involved rehabilitation, and the morality of
1 million children each year are prenatally exposed to licit mothers was not in question. In the 1980s and early 1990s,
and illicit drugs. cocaine use was connected to low-income families living in
NIDA (2003, www.drugabuse.gov/infofacts/nation- urban areas. Mothers were vilified, and many states took a
trends.html) provided a fact sheet demonstrating national punitive approach to them. If their use was discovered, they
trends in drug abuse representing 21 major U.S. cities. The could be imprisoned for abuse to their unborn baby. The
following trends were noted: punitive policies left drug and alcohol abusing women with-
out medical care during pregnancy as they were afraid that
• Cocaine/crack rates were high and were increasing in doctors would report their use and they would be arrested
many cities. (Barone, 1999). At the end of the 1990s when cocaine use
• Heroin use was stable. moved to the background, many of the punitive laws were
• Misuse of prescription opiates was increasing. voted down. More recently, in 2001, the Center for Repro-
• Marijuana is the most frequently abused drug, and abuse ductive Law and Policy challenged the constitutionality of
is high among adolescents and young adults. drug tests without consent in hospitals serving low-income
• Methamphetamine abuse is spreading even to rural families. The result of Ferguson v City of Charleston is that
areas. this practice is being discontinued as it was deemed uncon-
stitutional as it resulted in poor women being victimized
They also estimated the cost of alcohol and drug abuse to along with their unborn child not benefiting from prenatal
be $245.7 billion in 1992. These costs centered on drug- care (Thomas, 2004).
related crime, damage to property, police and legal services, Drugs and alcohol are used by people in all socioeco-
among other items. It did not include the costs related to nomic levels and in all kinds of communities. There is no
children prenatally exposed to alcohol or drugs. Today it typical profile for a pregnant woman who uses drugs or
could be predicted that this amount would be substantially alcohol during pregnancy (Chasnoff, 1989). Because poor
larger in scope. women were more easily identified for their drug or alcohol
 Prenatal Drug and Alcohol Exposure and Reading Disabilities 123

use, this perception came to be. Moreover, as researchers respond positively with only one impact or risk but with
identified participants for their research, poor children were others added on they may become vulnerable.
typically easier to identify as they were drug screened in 5. Infants need to establish an attachment with a caregiver.
the hospital, confirming their use of drugs (Barone, 1993a, Children who cannot form attachments with a caring
1993b). When considering the research, high-poverty adult are in jeopardy of behavioral difficulties in later
children and children of color are overrepresented in the re- life. Infants who arrive home with a drug or alcohol
search samples. This sampling problem is difficult to change abusing mother potentially are at greater risk of develop-
as few middle class women who have private doctors are ing these relationships (Beeghly, Frank, Rose-Jacobs,
screened in the hospital or would be willing to participate in Cabral, & Tronick, 2003; Minnes, Singer, Arendt, &
research studies. The outcomes are that the public believes Satayathum, 2005; Watson & Westby, 2003).
that more urban poor children have been prenatally exposed
to drugs or alcohol and more poor children are participants These principles are important to keep in mind as each
in studies. The second outcome results in more variables substance and its effects are explored.
that cloud the research as these children are most often poor,
living in urban centers, and attend schools noted for their Alcohol The use of alcohol during pregnancy can result
less exemplary instruction. in a constellation of characteristics clustered under the term
Fetal Alcohol Spectrum Disorder (FASD), and alcohol use
during pregnancy is noted as the most common cause of
A Synthesis of the Research
mental retardation in the United States (Chiriboga, 2003;
Kronstadt (1991) noted that some principles are important Sokol, Delaney-Black, & Nordstrom, 2003). Unlike other
to consider when exploring the damage exerted by prenatal drug effects, children can exhibit facial distortions such as
substance exposure. These principles include: an unusual head shape, small head circumference, low set
ears, eyelid skin folds protruding over the inner corner of
1. A child’s development is influenced by genetic pre- the eye, short upturned nose, thin upper lip, and a face that
dispositions as well as environment. Children vary in looks flat (Soby, 2006). The brain is not affected globally
their physical, biological, and temperamental makeup. as some brain regions are more affected than others such as
For instance, there is a reciprocal relationship between the limbic system that includes the corpus callosum and cer-
a mother’s use of substances and a child’s resilience ebellum. These abnormalities do not change as a child gets
(Conners et al., 2003). Some fetuses prenatally exposed older and persist into adolescence (Sowell et al., 2002).
to crack/cocaine are miscarried and never reach birth Mental retardation is the dominant feature of fetal
(Barone, 1999). After birth, some children cry and draw alcohol syndrome (FAS). Youngsters with FAS typically
away from their mothers resulting in a mother making have IQ scores in the mildly retarded range (68 mean with
fewer advances to the child. Such behavior results in a a range from 58–83) and children with fetal alcohol effects
disruption of their relationship. (FAE) score in the borderline range (73 mean) (Soby, 2006).
2. Each child varies in how he or she responds to multiple They are also more variable on tasks requiring timing and
insults. Some children are more resilient in withstand- accuracy (Wass, Simmons, Thomas, & Riley, 2002).
ing physical and environmental insults. For instance, a The major diagnostic criteria for Fetal Alcohol Spectrum
child might experience his or her mother’s use of drugs Disorder include characteristic patterns of facial anomalies,
in utero, poor nutrition, no prenatal care, and neglect growth retardation, central nervous system neurodevelop-
or abuse during their early years and still be successful mental abnormalities, and a mother’s known history of
in school (Barone, 2004). One child may successfully alcohol consumption (Soby, 2006). Similar to other pre-
respond to all of these insults while another may be natal drug abuse, there is wide variability of these effects
vulnerable to just one. Just considering drug or alcohol presented in children.
exposure alone does not take into account these numer-
ous, possible responses to physical, emotional, and Amphetamines and Methamphetamines Some of the
environmental insults (Watson & Westby, 2003). research with these drugs shows similarities to cocaine or
3. Each child experiences numerous events that can influ- heroin. In this research, most researchers are concerned with
ence development. For instance, prenatal drug exposure their inability to control for poor prenatal care or foster care
may not have long-term influence over a child. And placements (Dixon, 1989; Little, Snell, & Gilstrap, 1988).
conversely, a child may not show immediate signs of In studies, Eriksson and colleagues (Eriksson, Larsson, &
drug or alcohol exposure but later indications of this Zetterstrom, 1981; Eriksson, Steneroth, & Zetterstrom,
exposure may be evident. 1986) found no significant differences between mothers
4. Infants demonstrate plasticity in development. For who had not used drugs and those that used amphetamines
instance, many infants prenatally exposed to drugs are or methamphetamines and physical health, IQ, and perfor-
born with smaller head circumference. However, with mance on psychometric tests of their children. The research
proper diet their head size approaches or meets normal has not documented any long-term consequences for these
statistics (Mayes et al., 1992). Additionally, a child might children.
124 Diane Barone

Cocaine and Polydrug Exposure In a 2001 article by differed from cocaine-exposed children living in foster or
Frank et al. sharing the results of a meta-analysis, the fol- adoptive situations or the non-exposed group of children.
lowing statements were made: These researchers attributed these differences to the more
stimulating environments provided to children by better
• There is little impact of prenatal cocaine exposure on educated caregivers. They also cautioned that the biological
children’s scores on nationally normed assessments of mothers presented additional risks to their children such as
cognitive development (p. 1615). mental health issues that can jeopardize cognitive, emo-
• The literature on prenatal exposure to cocaine has not tional, and physical development of youngsters.
shown consistent effects on cognitive or psychomotor Accornero, Anthony, Morrow, Xue, and Bandstra (2006)
development (p. 1616). studied behavioral issues around children prenatally exposed
• Among children up to 6 years of age, there is no convinc- to cocaine. Their participants were all African American
ing evidence that prenatal cocaine exposure is associated children of 7 years, and they found no associated behavioral
with any developmental toxicity different in severity, problems with children prenatally exposed to cocaine.
scope, or kind from the sequelae of many other risk Summing up this research, children exposed to cocaine
factors (pp. 1623–1624). or polydrugs are at risk for a variety of physical, cognitive,
• Many findings once thought to be specific effects of in and/or emotional difficulties. Carta, Atwater, Greenwood,
utero cocaine exposure can be explained in whole or McConnell, McEvoy, and Williams (2001) studied 278
in part by other factors, including prenatal exposure to infants, toddlers, and preschool children and noted that
tobacco, marijuana, or alcohol, and the quality of the prenatal substance exposure and postnatal environmental
child’s environment (p. 1614). risk covaried, and both were related to developmental tra-
jectories for children. While each added to the prediction
One major study (Chasnoff, 1991, 1992) centered on of developmental level and rate of growth, environmental
the long-term effects of cocaine and/or polydrug exposure risk accounted for more variance than did prenatal exposure.
on children. Chasnoff identified children (approximately Clearly, many infants can compensate for these early insults
300) with prenatal polydrug exposure and still living with to their well-being by being placed in safer environments or
their mother and also identified a control group of similar by having their mothers participate in supportive programs
children. Each year, children came to his center and partici- to change their current lifestyle choices. Other children,
pated in numerous tests to document physical, emotional, because of their postnatal environments, may be susceptible
and cognitive development. In 1992 he and his colleagues to developmental delays that result in achievement problems
found that “60 percent of the children show no mental or (McConnell et al., 2002).
behavioral deficits. Many of the children in the project test
within the normal range cognitively” (p. 2). The remaining Marijuana Most studies centered on marijuana use report
40% of children showed developmental difficulties in the lower birth weight for infants, although there is variability
areas of attention, self-regulation, behavior, and language. in this finding (Zuckerman, 1988). The research centered
Chasnoff noted that these children were showing progress, on marijuana is interesting in that any noted effects disap-
however. The results of this study are impressive as these pear when demographic and other confounding factors are
children lived with their mothers in urban poverty. controlled (O’Connell & Fried, 1991).
Barone (1993a, 1993b, 1994, 1999) studied 26 children
prenatally exposed to crack/cocaine over 4 years. She vis- Opiates Heroin and methadone are opiates with metha-
ited their homes and schools to document their experiences done being administered to heroin-addicted women in
with literacy in school. Her results indicated that 5 of the treatment programs. Newborns who experience heroin
26 children experienced difficulty in school for a variety prenatally go through withdrawal that may include irritabil-
of reasons from behavioral issues to classroom learning ity, poor feeding, poor weight gain, and tremors (Kronstadt,
environments. The remaining children (21) achieved grade 1991). Similar to other drug effects, these infants are often
level expectations in literacy with 4 children qualifying low in birth weight and have a small head circumference
for gifted and talented programs. Her work is unusual as it (Zuckerman, 1989).
targeted preschool and school age children and used sys- Long-term studies indicate that children exposed to
tematic observation in homes and schools. Most research heroin suffer from below average weight and length, ad-
in this area is centered on infants and toddlers. justment problems, and language deficits at age 6 (Deren,
Singer et al. (2004) studied the cognitive effects of 1986). Researchers (Chasnoff, 1983; Johnson, Rosen, &
cocaine-exposed children living in foster or adoptive situ- Glassman, 1983) have not noted any long-term effects
ations and those living with their biological mothers. They for methadone use and these infants are healthier at birth
discovered that cocaine-exposed youngsters living with (Kaltenbach & Finegan, 1989; Maas, 1990).
non-relative adoptive or foster parents had the lowest occur- Related to methadone and heroin use, only 48% children
rence of mental retardation and were similar to non-exposed of untreated heroine users lived with their mothers at their
infants. Those children living with their biological mother first birthday, while 80% of children of methadone users
or in relative care had the highest rate of retardation and lived with their mothers. As children matured to preschool
 Prenatal Drug and Alcohol Exposure and Reading Disabilities 125

age, only 9% lived with their mothers who were active • providing education for parents in parenting which
heroin users; 50% of children of methadone users stayed at is done with the support of social and school district
home (Wilson, Desmond, & Wait, 1981). This information services;
is critical when determining long-term effects of either of • providing referrals to appropriate agencies when neces-
these drugs as multiple foster placements can result in dif- sary; and
ferences in development (Kronstadt, 1991). • intervention efforts need to be coordinated with com-
munity and other services (Beckwith, 1990; Seitz &
Tobacco Interestingly, the effects of nicotine use on the Provence, 1990).
developing brain are similar to cocaine in that they involve
vasoconstriction and hypoxia (Frank et al., 2001), which In the hospital, interventions can begin to help the infant
can result in moderate impairment of cognitive function- regulate his or her responses. Caregivers can protect the
ing and behavioral problems. Moreover, low birth weight newborn with calming voices and the avoidance of bright
is associated with tobacco use (Breslau, Paneth, Lucia, & lights and loud noise. Swaddling the baby and an upward
Paneth-Pollak, 2005; Lightwood, Phibbs, & Glantz, 1999). rocking motion have also been shown to calm the newborn
Frank et al. (2001) indicate that prenatal smoking with the (Griffith, 1995).
result on low birth weight has cost approximately $263 mil- McConnell et al. (2002) suggest that early intervention
lion (1995 dollars) in medical costs for neonatal care. should focus on child language and cognitive development.
Summing up this research, there is little evidence At first these interventions would have parents and children
that most prenatal exposure is linked with large deficits interacting to increase the rates of talk and positive feedback
on standardized developmental tests. Alcohol exposure from parents. These early interventions produced changes in
shows that there can be more significant effects to infants the language interaction between parents and children.
and children. However, all of the research documents the Chasnoff (1992) observed that Head Start and speech
confounding variables of children living in disadvantaged therapy proved successful for many of the children in
homes where children not exposed to drugs or alcohol in his study, even those in the most detrimental home cir-
utero also show declining performance on school-related cumstances. In Barone’s (1999) study, many of the foster
tasks. Researchers need to provide comparison or control parents worked together to find support for the children in
groups to document if lower performance can be isolated their care. They brought in experts to share with them ways
to prenatal drug or alcohol exposure or if it is muddied by to care for their children. They supported one another so
the post birth environment of such children. that when one mother needed a break, another mother took
care of her children for a brief time. Moreover, they took
advantage of state and district programs for their children.
Connections to Schools and How Best to Support
Many of the children qualified for language and speech
Prenatally Exposed Children
support documented in assessments, and the parents took
Educators are concerned with how to support prenatally the children to programs to support these needs.
exposed drug and alcohol children in their classrooms so
that they are successful learners. Although all of the research
Elementary School Intervention
on this topic has not been completed, teachers can provide
effective interventions for these students. Additional Support When considering that there is no
For educators, knowledge of prenatal alcohol and/or drug single prediction of the effects of drug or alcohol expo-
exposure may provide a marker for potential issues related sure, it follows that there cannot be one recommendation
to development (Coles & Black, 2005). However, there is for intervention. With today’s Response to Intervention
no direct, causal link between exposure and developmental model (RTI; Allington & Walmsley, 2007) in schools,
outcomes. Therefore, these children, like others, would be the framework is provided for additional student support.
treated as individuals who may or may not require interven- Certainly, some children will require extensive, systematic
tion strategies for success in school. Importantly, prenatal interventions while others may qualify for at grade or above
exposure does not lead directly to any specific outcome grade level intervention. The message to teachers is the
displayed by children (McConnell et al., 2002). Therefore, same as for other students, to best match the intervention
the intervention must be matched to individual student need to assessment results.
and like other interventions be carried out systematically In Barone’s study (1995), many children (10) qualified
and intensively (Watson, Westby, & Gable, 2007). for special education support when they were only 5 years
old because of language delays. However, during the years
Early Childhood and Family Interventions Early child- of the study, 6 children qualified out of special education
hood interventions are best when focused on the following: support, documenting that their needs were transitory rather
than permanent. These results demonstrate that special
• providing basic survival needs to disorganized families. education services may be important to certain students’
These needs would be met through social service agen- academic growth, but are not necessarily permanent because
cies and in some cases, schools; of a single cause, drug or alcohol exposure.
126 Diane Barone

In the past there were special programs to support the instruction all support or hinder a child’s academic success
learning needs of children exposed especially to crack/co- (Barone, 2004).
caine. Project Daisy and the Los Angeles Experience were This more complicated way of considering children
two of these projects (Sautter, 1992). The projects were may be difficult for teachers at first, as preconceived ideas
structured so that children were involved in active learning must be put aside and moving beyond a single cause for
with multiage groupings for reading and writing experi- learning or behavior must be accomplished. If educators
ences. The major discovery of these programs was that make decisions based on myths, then children will be hurt
prenatally exposed youngsters flourished in active learning and their full potential never reached. The best instructional
communities. The founders of the programs believed that recommendation for teachers who work with children pre-
no child who participated would require special education natally exposed to drugs or alcohol is to provide exemplary
support in elementary school. instruction to all students and support students with daily
Schools do not need to consider special programs for intervention blocks.
children prenatally exposed to drugs or alcohol. The pro-
grams that are in place should support the learning needs
of these children. The school, however, may want to create References
lists of community support to help families in need so that Accornero, V., Anthony, J., Morrow, C., Xue, L., & Bandstra, E. (2006).
their more basic concerns are handled. Prenatal cocaine exposure: An examination of childhood externalizing
and internalizing behavior problems at age 7 years. Epidemiologia E
Psichiatria Sociale, 15(1), 20–29.
In Classroom Support At one time, teachers were told
Allington, R., & Walmsley, S. (Eds.). (2007). No quick fix: The RTI edition.
to limit all physical stimulation in their classrooms so that Newark, DE: International Reading Association.
they removed mobiles, bright bulletin boards, and learning Barone, D. (1993a). Dispelling the myths: Focusing on the literacy devel-
stations (Odom-Winn & Dunagan, 1991; Waller, 1993). opment of children prenatally exposed to crack/cocaine. In D. Leu &
Rather than these more extreme suggestions, teachers are C. Kinzer (Eds.), Examining central issues in literacy research, theory,
and practice: Forty-second yearbook of the National Reading Confer-
cautioned to provide routines so that children are aware
ence (pp. 197–206). Chicago: National Reading Conference.
of classroom expectations (Calkins, 1986; Griffith, 1992; Barone, D. (1993b). Wednesday’s child: Literacy development of children
Jackson, 1990). These routines allow children, especially prenatally exposed to crack or cocaine. Research in the Teaching of
those who come from disorganized homes, to understand English, 27, 7–45.
the expectations of the class. Other than having routines Barone, D. (1994). The importance of classroom context: Literacy devel-
opment of children prenatally exposed to crack/cocaine — year two.
and providing exemplary instruction, there are no specific
Research in the Teaching of English, 28, 286–312.
adjustments that teachers need to make because a child was Barone, D. (1995). “Be very careful not to let the facts get mixed up
exposed to drugs or alcohol. Individual children may require with the truth”: Children prenatally exposed to crack/cocaine. Urban
adjustments to instruction, but these would be individual, Education, 30, 40–55.
not necessarily for all children within a category. Barone, D. (1999). Resilient children: Stories of poverty, drug exposure,
and literacy development. Newark, DE: International Reading As-
Other strategies that are common in classrooms, cogni- sociation and National Reading Conference.
tive modeling and coaching, have been suggested as general Barone, D. (2004). A longitudinal look at the literacy development of
strategies to support students prenatally exposed to drugs children prenatally exposed to crack/cocaine. In H. Waxman, Y. Padrón,
or alcohol (Watson et al., 2007). For instance, with coach- & J. Gray (Eds.), Educational resiliency: Student, teacher, and school
ing, a teacher may share with a student that he or she is perspectives (pp. 87–112). Greenwich, CT: Information Age.
Bateman, D., Ng, S., Hansen, C., & Heagarty, M. (1993). The effects of
struggling with an assignment and offer the student a plan intrauterine cocaine exposure in newborns. American Journal of Public
to offset the difficulty. With cognitive modeling, a teacher Health, 83, 190–193.
might problem-solve with a student as he or she struggles Beckwith, L. (1990). Adaptive and maladaptive parenting implications
with a math problem for example. for intervention. In S. Meisels & J. Shonkoff (Eds.), Handbook on
Teachers may be surprised at this finding, but there are early childhood intervention (pp. 53–77). New York: Cambridge
University Press.
no general suggestions for teachers based solely on prenatal Beeghly, M., Frank, D., Rose-Jacobs, R., Cabral, H., & Tronick, E. (2003).
drug or alcohol exposure. Each child must be considered as Level of prenatal cocaine exposure and infant-caregiver attachment
an individual where strengths and needs are used to form behavior. Neurotoxicology and Teratology, 25(1), 23–38.
instructional decisions. Bennett, F. (1992). Recent advances in developmental interventions for bio-
logically vulnerable infants. Infants and Young Children, 3, 33–40.
Berlin, C. (1991). Effects of drugs on the fetus. Pediatrics in Review,
Final Thoughts 12, 282–287.
Besharov, D. (1990). Crack children in foster care. Children Today, 19(4),
It will be important for teachers to not be biased about 21–35.
children who have been prenatally exposed to drugs or Brady, J., Posner, M., Lang, C., & Rosati, M. (1994). Risk and reality:
alcohol. Prenatal exposure does not directly lead to out- The implications of prenatal exposure to alcohol and other drugs.
Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services
of-control youngsters with numerous learning difficulties and the U.S. Department of Education.
(Cohen & Taharally, 1992; Frank et al., 2001). The com- Breslau, N., Paneth, N., Lucia, V., & Paneth-Pollak, R. (2005). Maternal
plex interactions of a child’s prenatal exposure, his or her smoking during pregnancy and offspring IQ. International Journal of
home environment, and the quality of the school and its Epidemiology, 34, 1047–1053.
 Prenatal Drug and Alcohol Exposure and Reading Disabilities 127

Brodkin, A., & Zuckerman, B. (1992). Are crack babies doomed in school Fried, P., &Watkinson, B. (2000). Visuoperceptual functioning differs
failure? Instructor, 101(7), 16–17. in 9- to 12-year-olds prenatally exposed to cigarettes and marijuana.
Burd, L., Cotsonas-Hassler, T., Martsolf, J., & Kerbeshian, J. (2003). Fetal Neurotoxicology and Teratology, 22, 11–20.
alcohol syndrome: Neuropsychiatric phenomics. Neurotoxicology and Gonzalez, N., & Campbell, M. (1994). Cocaine babies: Does prenatal
Teratology, 25, 697–705. exposure to cocaine affect development? Journal of the American
Calkins, L. (1986). The art of teaching writing. Portsmouth, NH: Heine- Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry, 33, 16–19.
mann. Gregorchik, L. (1992). The cocaine-exposed children are here. Phi Delta
Carta, J., Atwater, J., Greenwood, C., McConnell, S., McEvoy, M., & Wil- Kappan, 73, 709–711.
liams, R. (2001). Effects of cumulative prenatal substance exposure and Greider, K. (1995). Crackpot ideas. Mother Jones, 20, 52–56.
multiple environmental risks on children’s developmental trajectories. Griffith, D. (1992). Prenatal exposure to cocaine and other drugs: Develop-
Journal of Clinical and Consulting Psychology, 30, 327–337. ment and educational prognoses. Phi Delta Kappan, 74(1), 30–34.
Charmichael, O., Feldman, J., Streissguth, A., Sampson, P., & Bookstein, Griffith, D. (1995). Prenatal exposure to cocaine and other drugs: De-
F. (1998). Neuropsychological deficits in adolescents with fetal alcohol velopmental and educational prognoses. Juvenile and Family Court
syndrome: Clinical findings. Alcoholism Clinical and Experimental Journal, 46, 83–92.
Research, 22, 1998–2012. Hutchings, D. (1993). Response to commentaries. Neurotoxicology and
Charmichael, O., Morse, B., & Huffine, C. (1998). Development of psy- Teratology, 15, 311–312.
chopathology; Fetal alcohol syndrome and related conditions. Seminars Jackson, S. (1990). “Crack babies” are here! Can you help them learn?
in Clinical Neuropsychiatry, 3, 262–284. California Teachers Association Action, 11–13.
Chasnoff, I. (1983). Phencyclidine: Effects on the fetus and neonate. Johnson, J., Rosen, T., & Glassman, M. (1983). Children of methadone-
Developmental Pharmacology and Therapeutics, 6, 291–293. maintained mothers: Three-year follow-up. Rockville, MD: National
Chasnoff, I. (1989, December). The Pinellas County study: Illegal drug Institute on Drug Abuse. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service
use across socioeconomic lines. Paper presented at the National As- No. ED 323 726)
sociation for Perinatal Addiction Research and Education Conference, Kaltenbach, K., & Finegan, L. (1989). Children exposed to methadone in
Miami, Florida. utero. Annals of New York Academy of Sciences, 562, 360–362.
Chasnoff, I. (1991). Methodological issues studying cocaine use in preg- Kronstadt, D. (1991). Complex developmental issues of prenatal drug
nancy: A problem of definitions In M. Kibey & K. Asghar (Eds.), exposure. The Future of Children, 1, 36–49.
Methodological issues in controlled studies of effects of prenatal Kusserow, R. (1990). Crack babies, Report of the Office of the Inspec-
exposure to drug abuse (pp. 55–56). Rockville, MD: National Institute tor General. Washington, DC: Department of Health and Human
on Drug Abuse. Services.
Chasnoff, I. (1992). President’s message. Perinatal Addiction Research Lester, B., & Tronick, E. (1994). The effects of prenatal cocaine exposure
and Education Update, 1(1), 2–3. and child outcome. Special issue: Prenatal drug exposure and child
Chiriboga, C. (2003). Fetal alcohol and drug effects. Neurologist, 9, outcome. Infant Mental Health Journal, 15, 107–120.
267–279. Lightwood, J., Phibbs, C., & Glantz, S. (1999). Short term health and
Cohen, S., & Taharally, C. (1992). Getting ready for young children with economic benefits of smoking cessation: Low birth weight. Pediatrics,
prenatal drug exposure. Childhood Education, 69(1), 5–9. 104, 1312–1320.
Coles, C., & Black, M. (2005). Introduction to the special issues: Impact Little, B., Snell, L., & Gilstrap, L. (1988). Methamphetamine abuse during
of prenatal substance exposure on children’s health, development, pregnancy: Outcome and fetal effects. Obstetrics and Gynecology,
school performance, and risk behavior. Journal of Pediatric Psychol- 72, 541–544.
ogy, 31, 1–4. Maas, U. (1990). Infrequent neonatal opiate withdrawal following mater-
Coles, C., Platzman, K., Smith I., James, M., & Falek, A. (1992). Effects nal methadone detoxification during pregnancy. Journal of Perinatal
if cocaine and alcohol use in pregnancy on neonatal growth and neu- Medicine, 18, 111–118.
robehavioral status. Neurotoxicology and Teratology, 14(1), 23–33. MacGregor, S. (1990). Prevalence of marijuana use during pregnancy: A
Connors, N., Bradley, R., Mansell, L., Lia, J., Roberts, T., & Burgdorf, K. pilot study. The Journal of Reproductive Medicine, 35, 1147–1149.
(2003). Children of mothers with serious substance abuse problems: Mayes, L., Granger, R., Bornstein, M., & Zuckerman, B. (1992). The
An accumulation of risks. American Journal of Drug and Alcohol problem of prenatal cocaine exposure: A rush to judgment. Journal
Abuse, 29, 743–758. of the American Medical Association, 267, 406–408.
Deren, S. (1986, April). Children of substance abusers in New York state. McConnell, S., Rush, K., McEvoy, M., Carta, J., Atwater, J., & Williams,
New York State Journal of Medicine, 179–184. R. (2002). Descriptive and experimental analysis of child-caregiver
Dixon, S. (1989). Effects of transplacental exposure to cocaine and interactions that promote development of young children exposed
methamphetamine on the neonate. The Western Journal of Medicine, prenatally to drugs and alcohol. Journal of Behavioral Education,
150, 436–442. 11, 131–161.
Eriksson, M., Larsson, G., & Zetterstrom, R. (1981). Amphetamine ad- Miller, G. (1989). Addicted infants and their mothers. Zero to Three
dition and pregnancy: Pregnancy, delivery, and the neonatal period: Bulletin of the National Center for Clinical Infant Programs, 9(5),
Socio-medical aspects. Acta Obstetricia et Gynecologica Scandi- 20–23.
navica, 60, 253–259. Miller, T., Rauh, V., Glied, S., Hattis, D., Rundle, A., Andrews, H., et al.
Eriksson, M., Steneroth, G., Zetterstrom, R. (1986). Influence of pregnancy (2006). The economic impact of early life environmental tobacco
and child-rearing on amphetamine-addicted women. Acta Psychiatrica smoke exposure: Early intervention for developmental delay. Envi-
Scandinavica, 73, 634–641. ronmental Health Perspectives, 114, 1585–1588.
Frank, D., & Zuckerman, B. (1993). Children exposed to cocaine prenatally: Minnes, S., Singer, L., Arendt, R., & Satayathum, S. (2005). Effects of
Pieces of the puzzle. Neurotoxicology and Teratology, 15, 298–300. prenatal cocaine/polydrug use on maternal-infant feeding interactions
Frank, D., Augustyn, M., Grant, W., Knight, W., Pell, T., & Zuckerman, during the first year of life. Journal of Developmental and Behavioral
B. (2001). Growth, development, and behavior in early childhood fol- Pediatrics, 26, 194–200.
lowing prenatal cocaine exposure. Journal of the American Medical National Institute of Drug Abuse. (1996). National pregnancy and health
Association, 285(12), 1–33. survey: Drug use among women delivering live births. Rockville, MD:
Frank, D., Augustyn, M., Grant, W., Knight, W., Tripler, P., & Zuckerman, Substance Abuse and Mental Health Service Administration.
B. (2001). Growth, development, and behavior in early childhood fol- O’Connell, C., & Fried, P. (1991). Prenatal exposure to cannabis: A
lowing prenatal cocaine exposure. Journal of the American Medical preliminary report of postnatal consequences in school-age children.
Association, 285(12), 1–33. Neruotoxicology and Teratology, 13, 631–639.
128 Diane Barone

O’Shea, T., Klinepeter, K., Goldstein, D., Jackson, B., & Dillard, R. Villarreal, S., McKinney, L., & Quackenbush, M. (1991). Handle with
(1997). Survival and developmental disability in infants with birth care: Helping children prenatally exposed to drugs and alcohol. Santa
weights of 501 to 800 grams, born between 1979 and 1994. Pediatrics, Cruz, CA: ETR Associates.
100, 982–986. Waller, M. (1993). Helping crack-affected children succeed. Educational
Odom-Winn, D., & Dunagan, D. (1991). Crack kids in school. Freeport, Leadership, 50(4), 57–60.
NY: Educational Activities. Wass, T., Simmons, R., Thomas, J., & Riley, E. (2002). Timing accuracy
Sautter, R. (1992). Crack: Healing the children. Kappan special report. and variability in children with prenatal exposure to alcohol. Alcohol-
Phi Delta Kappan, 74(3), K1–K12. ism Clinical Disorders, 16, 111–121.
Seitz, V., & Provence, S. (1990). Caregiver-focused models of early Watson, S., & Westby, C. (2003). Prenatal drug exposure: Implications
intervention. In S. Meisels & J. Shonkoff (Eds.), Handbook on for personnel preparation. Remedial and Special Education, 24,
early childhood intervention (pp. 400–427). New York: Cambridge 204–214.
University Press. Watson, S., Westby, C., & Gable, R. (2007). A framework for addressing
Singer, L., Minner, S., Short, E., Arendt, R., Farkas, K., Lewis, B., et the needs of students prenatally exposed to alcohol and other drugs.
al. (2004). Cognitive outcomes of preschool children with prenatal Preventing School Failure, 52, 25–32.
cocaine exposure. Journal of the American Medical Association, Wenzel, S., Kosofsky, B., Harvey, J., Iguchi, M., Steinberg, P., Watkins,
291, 2448–1256. K., et al. (2001). Prenatal cocaine exposure: Scientific considerations
Soby, J. (2006). Prenatal exposure to drugs/alcohol (2nd ed.). Springfield, and policy implications. New York: RAND Drug Policy Research
IL: Charles C. Thomas. Center.
Sokol, R., Delaney-Black, V., & Nordstrom, B. (2003). Fetal alcohol Wilson, G., Desmond, M., & Wait, R. (1981). Follow-up of methadone-
spectrum disorder. Journal of the American Medical Association, treated women and their infants: Health, development, and social
290, 2996–2999. implications. Journal of Pediatrics, 98, 716–722.
Sowell, E., Thompson, P., Mattson, S., Tessner, K., Jernigan, T., Riley, Zuckerman, B. (1988). Marijuana and cigarette smoking during pregnancy:
E., et al. (2002). Regional brain shape abnormalities persist into Neonatal effects. In I. Chasnoff (Ed.), Drugs, alcohol, pregnancy, and
adolescence after heavy prenatal alcohol exposure. Cerebral Cortex, parenting (pp. 73–86). London: Kluwer.
12, 856–865. Zuckerman, B. (1989). Effects of maternal marijuana and cocaine use on
Spinelli, J. (1991). Maniac Magee. Boston: Little Brown. fetal growth. The New England Journal of Medicine, 320, 762–768.
Thomas, J. (2004). Educating drug-exposed children. New York: Rout-
ledgeFalmer.
 12
Aliteracy, Agency, and Identity
STERGIOS BOTZAKIS
The University of Tennessee

LEIGH A. HALL
The University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill

Defining the term struggling reader has been likened to “try- more a sub-category of a larger conception of literacy. The
ing to nail gelatin to a wall” (Alvermann, 2001, p. 679), but purpose of this chapter is to examine more ideological
defining disabled readers carries a more authoritative tone literacy education research, to provide a counterpoint to
because of the various measures and assessments associ- the view that reading is simply the acquisition of skills or
ated with determining disability. However, these measures the mastery of a certain “five pillars” without reference to
and assessments that focus on reading ability are based socio-cultural considerations.
on specific activities, such as story recall or identifying
main ideas, details, and word or passage meaning, which
Literacy and Identity
are themselves discrete skills. These discrete skills have
been determined over time to be correlative or indicative Reading is a component of the umbrella term literacy,
of reading ability, and measuring certain of them are the but literacy has undergone several changes in definition
basis of determining reading ability and disability (Mueller, across history and social groups. Literacy has been defined
2001). Statistical analyses of reading disabled people have variably as being the ability to speak and sing, to orate
shown that reading disabilities tend to be correlative with publicly, to sign one’s name, and to read a sentence (The
race and social class (Blanchett, 2006; Coutinho, Oswald, & University of Kansas Students Tutoring for Literacy, n.d.).
Best, 2002) and that aspect begs the question of how much The latter abilities of writing and reading were especially
socio-cultural characteristics define what reading should be bound into public practices such as land ownership and
and how well people read. voter registration, and those definitions were used to limit
The idea that reading is socially situated is not a new one, access to those practices. Just as culture can determine
and one of the most common ways of conceptualizing it what counts as literacy, so too can culture “construct what
draws from the work of Street (1984/1995) who saw reading counts as reading and who counts as a reader” (Alvermann,
research being mainly of two schools, ideological and au- 2001, p. 676). Variously, reading can be used for scanning
tonomous. With the ideological model, reading is regarded or comprehending print text, tracking animal footprints,
as a social practice that is dependent on culture and power recognizing a person’s expressions and gestures, divining
structures such as race, class, and gender. The ideological a fortune by examining tea leaves or palms, determining
model contrasts with the autonomous model, which assumes the age of geographic formations using rock strata, distin-
that reading is a neutral set of skills that people learn in guishing amino acid patterns in DNA, and understanding
roughly the same manner. Under the autonomous model, the world (Freire, 1970; Manguel, 1997).
reading instruction can occur in a roughly systematic man- More recently, reading has been defined by New Litera-
ner where learners develop according to steps of mastery cies researchers as bound up in identity and social practices.
and maturation. While much reading research draws upon or Reading is a practice where people use texts and to explore,
at least acknowledges ideological aspects of reading, much experience, question, and gain advantages in their social
of what has come down from U.S. education entities as de worlds, particularly drawing upon the work of Gee (1991,
facto policy (e.g., National Institute of Child Health and 1996). Gee (1996) posited that people use D/discourses in
Human Development, 2000; National Institute for Literacy, creating “identity kits” (p. 3) where language was used to
2007) relies heavily on an autonomous model of reading, order social worlds and affect people’s actions. This con-
even though over the past two decades reading has become ception of identity kits included the functions that social

129
130 Stergios Botzakis and Leigh A. Hall

institutions played in constructing what counted as literacy population in the United States, but has carried over across
as well as in affecting how people spoke, wrote, and took many social groups in the form of various educational crises,
on social roles. perhaps the most famous of which was perpetuated by the A
Discourses were not quickly assumed however; they Nation at Risk report (National Commission on Excellence
could not simply be learned. Rather, they came to be formed in Education, 1983). This constant state of inferiority influ-
by the process of acquisition, “a process of acquiring some- ences the global identities of U.S. students, and New Litera-
thing (usually, subconsciously) by exposure to models, a cies educators have also taken it upon themselves to defuse
process of trial and error, and practice within social groups, continual educational panics. Williams (2007) critiques this
without formal teaching” (Gee, 1996, p. 138). The acquisi- constant state of crisis where students are reported as failing
tion of a primary discourse took place from a very early or being in danger of falling behind, tracking it back to as
age and continued over time. One learned about customs, early as 1879. Instead of a knee jerk reaction to go back
common household items, and the other mundane features to basics, she puts forth another option where we teach
of their lives. By extension, “learning to read [was] always students “to understand how language, identity, and culture
learning some aspect of some discourse” (Gee, 1991, p. 6), work together” to prepare them to “read and write in any
and literate activity was very much bundled up in identity. context” (p. 181), which is particularly important within our
Learning to read in one’s primary discourse could lead to current context where rapid technological and informational
difficulties if those practices were not consistent with read- change abound. Part of being literate in these times has to
ing practices performed in formal school settings. Acquiring do with students being capable to adapt to circumstances,
secondary discourses was described as being more difficult, which requires innovative ways of thinking and problem
as certain ingrained behaviors, feelings, and thoughts might solving, not simply learning basic facts and skills.
be at odds with learning and acquisition.
In the field of literacy education, reading and texts
Agency and Aliteracy
typically have been grouped and examined as in- and out-
of-school activities. There is a long tradition in education The autonomous and ideological models Street (1984/1995)
of examining the socio-cultural aspects of reading in- and put forth are dichotomous, but they speak to the constant
out-of-school. Included in this tradition is the work of Heath interplay of institutions and the individuals that dwell
(1983) who studied three communities, a Black working- within them. Much New Literacies research draws from
class community, a White working-class community, and the tactical idea of people trying to “make do” in everyday
a racially mixed middle-class community, over a decade. life as de Certeau (1984) stated. This work explores man-
What she discovered was that children in these communities ners in which textual and social practices are intermingled
were socialized into different language practices but, that by reference to the behaviors that people engaged in order
in the context of school, middle class students who used to exist in their environments. Delineating how identity is
language most like their teachers were more likely to be created speaks to how texts and reading interact with social
academically successful. Heath’s study pointed to the effects actions in people’s lives. Within this conception of literacy,
of literacy practices in home and community settings, not power does not simply lie in institutional rule but also in
just schools. Hull and Schultz (2001) note Heath’s work, those who take part in the institution as well. For example,
as an instance “when researchers examined literacy in out- struggling readers do not simply get created and are forced
of-school contexts … [and] arrived at new constructs that to act certain ways in schools, they also find ways to butt
proved generative for literacy studies” (p. 578). up against these rules or at least mitigate circumstances in
The tradition of examining what goes on outside of school ways that they find more palatable.
was carried over more recently into what was called the New The term most often used to speak about these individu-
Literacy Studies (NLS) which sought “to investigate literacy alized actions is agency, a term that originated in the work
and discourse and to place a special emphasis on revealing, of Holland, Lachicotte, Skinner, and Cain (1998) and that
understanding, and addressing power relations” (Hull & is defined as “a person’s capacity to act upon the world”
Schultz, 2001, p. 585); this was a specific brand of critical (Heron, 2003, p. 568). Ideally, in academic circumstances,
inquiry which was used in addressing social justice issues, educators would foster a sense of positive agency in their
using the “notion of Discourse to reframe understandings students where they could find success in learning. In the
of literacy, especially in relation to identity” (p. 585). In the case of reading disabled students however, there are fre-
context of NLS, the traditionally valued discourse of school quently many more negative experiences that inhibit such
was seen in terms of power relations where certain literacy agency and that push students to exercise a different type
practices are emphasized while others are seen as secondary of agency to alleviate their negative circumstances. Such
or inferior. In NLS, there is an element of critical theory actions might include taking more passive roles in class or,
in a drive to address disparities between social groups, to at the opposite extreme, engaging in disruptive behaviors
ensure that the middle-class practices Heath (1983) saw in protest of classroom pursuits. Bound up in agency is the
as dominant are not privileged to the point where other notion that individuals have the ability to act back upon
practices are pushed aside as inferior. their social contexts. Sometimes within this relationship,
The theme of inferiority is not limited to any one identity inactivity is a viable tactic.
 Aliteracy, Agency, and Identity 131

In terms of reading, the negative example of agency such as assignment of labels to objects, response to ques-
would be aliteracy, defined by Mikulecky (1978) as capable tions whose answers were already known to the questioner,
readers “choosing not to read” (p. 3) because the stultifying and recitation of discrete points of factual information sepa-
activities that often accompany reading for school or work rated from context. Townspeople, both Black and White,
discourage any sense of enjoyment. Mikulecky identified who adopted these practices and accepted them as “normal”
aliteracy as a danger to the ever-rising state of literacy that saw their schoolwork and extracurricular activities as es-
would be needed in the United States to foster workplace sential to their children’s future success. The townspeople
growth and innovation. More recently the term has been practiced language usage most alike to that done in schools,
expanded to include “slow and frustrated readers … who in ways that were more common to the teachers’ expecta-
chose to read despite feeling enormous stress, confusion, tions, and Heath attributed their relative lack of academic
and pressure” (Ramsay, 2002, p. 56), those who will be difficulties to this close match. Differences between home
turned off of reading in the near future because of their and school uses of language and expectations about using
struggles and negative experiences with books. In both language created learning difficulties that inhibited chil-
cases, the outcomes of the task do not match up to the ef- dren’s ability to do well in school, and in turn limited their
fort put into it, so people simply do not read when it is not options for growth and employment later in life.
required. Aliteracy is a response to the disconnection some Years later, in revisiting some of the children from her
people feel between the expectations for reading that they original study, Heath (2003) found that “habits of language
hold from their families or communities and those being socialization were likely to change very slowly” (p. 191)
perpetuated by the institutional authority of school. and that the children of Trackton’s children were learning
The interplay between institutions and individuals is an and engaging in language use in similar ways to their own
important characteristic of literacy studies in general, and in parents, even in new contexts as the working-class commu-
the two sections that follow, we catalog education research nities of Heath’s prior study had disbanded and ceased to
that speaks to this relationship. The first section pertains exist for almost 20 years. Heath found that these participants
to how family and community institutions help form social were struggling to maintain housing and employment in the
and literate identities, while the second details how students new urban contexts in which they found themselves and also
exercise their agency and respond to these institutional that they were engaging in limited language interactions
pressures within the context of schools. with their children. A cycle of academic and accompanying
later-life struggles seems to have been reproduced.
A longitudinal research study of 40 families in Kansas
Home Experiences of Struggling Readers
City conducted by Hart and Risley (2003) makes a dif-
In looking at students who struggle as readers, a number of ferent point about the significant differences regarding
researchers have looked at how individuals’ social identi- the development of vocabulary in children from different
ties are formed by their family and community relations socioeconomic groups. Their analyses of data collected
and also at how these relations come to bear on students’ during home visits and recorded interactions between
educational experiences. Heath’s landmark work Ways with parents and children indicated that the vocabulary used
Words (1983) reports on data collected during a decade by parents in the upper socioeconomic group exceeded
spent living in two working-class communities located working-class parents by 678 words and parents receiving
only a few miles apart in the piedmont Carolinas where welfare by 1,202 words. The vocabulary used by children
agriculture and textiles were important industries. She of the upper socioeconomic group exceeded that used by
assigned pseudonyms to these communities, Trackton, a children from working-class families by 376 words and
Black community, and Roadville, a White community and children of families receiving welfare by 591 words. In
examined how children learned to use language and how addition, the researchers extrapolated that by age 3 that
their uses of language established their identity, roles, and there was a gap of 32 million word exchanges between the
relationships among families and friends. Heath found that upper socioeconomic group of children and those from
Roadville and Trackton residents each had differing expec- families receiving welfare. The monumental difference in
tations from those of their children’s teachers concerning the sheer number of language interactions these children
uses of language. Additionally, reading was not something would come to school with was seen as an indicator of how
typically done at home in either group, and so, ultimately, well prepared (or not) they would be for further language
both groups developed difficulties in school. Roadville and learning in classroom contexts.
Trackton students who were used to more freedom and to
learning “by watching, listening, and trying” (p. 348) were
Classroom Experiences of Struggling Readers
unsettled by the discontinuity of what was expected in terms
of reading, speaking, and learning in classrooms. Reading and learning disabled students are typically iden-
Heath compared the students of Trackton and Roadville tified and labeled via a system of educational assessment
with a group who did find scholastic success, whom she from an early age, as early as kindergarten, and they often
called the townspeople. Most critical to the townspeople’s have had to experience education practices that are geared
academic successes were certain ritualized uses of language, specifically to deal with their disability. This process of
132 Stergios Botzakis and Leigh A. Hall

labeling students as special education students is not eas- studies classroom, Brozo found seven common tactics that
ily halted, even by advocates and parents who are aware struggling readers undertake in classroom contexts in order
of the consequences of their children being put into such to mitigate their circumstances: (a) avoiding eye contact,
classes and who were prepared to protest such an assign- (b) disrupting instruction, (c) listening well, (d) using
ment (Rogers, 2002). Mueller (2001), in a series of case classmates to get answers, (e) using friends to get answers,
studies of at-risk adolescent students, described how Mick, (f) forgetting books/materials, and (g) manipulating the
a student who was designated as learning disabled at the end teacher. Some of these behaviors are helpful for students to
of second grade went through schooling that largely took participate in classroom learning, but most are demonstra-
place in resource rooms where he received extra time and tions of agency which derail learning opportunities in an
assistance in reading and writing until seventh grade. The attempt to escape from academic activity.
emphasis in these classes was placed on decoding and read- Silence is another tool students use to avoid attention
ing comprehension activities, and although well intentioned, in classroom settings. Using Gee’s concept of discursive
these activities did not help Mick form a larger concept of identity as a theoretical lens, Hall (2007) examined three
why he should engage in reading or what he could be getting middle school struggling readers who spoke of how they
out of it. In resource rooms, Mick was repeatedly confronted were strategically silent when it came to reading. In part,
with reading as an enterprise he could not master. He did they were quiet in order to find out information, to see how
not see himself as a reader nor could he see what reading other classmates handled tasks such as science laboratory
could contribute to his life. work, or where to find answers to an assignment, but more
Students who have reading disabilities are frequently often they did not speak in order to protect themselves from
called upon to read on a frustration level in their everyday peers or teachers noticing that they were having reading
classroom activities (Morris, Ervin, & Conrad, 2000), or difficulties. Because they did not want to draw attention
alternatively to take part in remedial reading with an em- to themselves or their struggles, lest others think that they
phasis on decoding and isolated reading comprehension were inferior or unintelligent, these students engaged in
skills (Mueller, 2001). These two situations can confuse, solitary, detrimental behaviors such as choosing to work by
frustrate, and leave students with an impression of reading themselves even when given group assignments, not ask-
as either a monumental task or a series of unrelated, arcane ing questions when they are confused, or not using reading
processes. Given these social contexts, reading disabled or strategies learned in class because they felt that they would
struggling students have a number of options in dealing with be a sign to others that they were poor readers. Projecting
reading, many of which are forms of aliteracy. an image of “a successful student and a good reader” (Hall,
2007, p. 137) to their teachers, parents, and peers became
Faking It Some students take part in school lessons and more important than any classroom activities or learning.
procedures and begin to see what is happening as proof of The students that Hall worked with were not unmotivated
their inferiority. This can take place in a relatively short span to learn, but their fears of being singled out caused them
of time, as Lee and Jackson (1991) indicate when they state to neglect situations and strategies that could have helped
that the label of “learning disabled” can “cripple children” them develop as readers and learners.
and place them “in the back of the line” (p. xvii). In a shared
account of Lee’s learning and Jackson’s academic assis- Dropping Out Perhaps the most drastic action that can
tance with him, they detail how by fourth grade a student be taken would be to exit the educational system entirely.
“learned how to keep [his] mouth shut” (p. 11) and avoid In terms of referring, labeling, and working with learn-
difficulty by faking his way through school, misinforming ing disabled (LD) students in the United States, there has
his friends about the special pull-out classes he was required historically been much variability (Fine, 1991), and some
to attend, ignoring notes from girls who liked him rather have critiqued this variability as a vehicle to misreport and
than admit he could not read them, and cheating off of other misrepresent graduation rates and grades on standardized
students’ work so that he could pass. He admitted that he assessments (Snell, 2002). Reading disabled students are
was discovered by teachers but that his status as a reading numbered among the LD population, and they are not
disabled student largely meant that they would turn a blind typically identified as a specific population when statistical
eye to his actions. Lee and Jackson recognize these kinds of analyses are done. U.S. Department of Education reports
actions as coping behaviors that point to the brightness and that high school non-completion rates of U.S. students
inventiveness of such students to learn “the art of conning” with learning disabilities in the 1999–2000 school year was
(p. 3) in order to avoid dealing with difficulties that make 27.6%, which is higher than the national average of 10.9%
learning difficult in school environments. (Office of Special Education Programs, 2002). Another
study, the National Longitudinal Transition Study, begun
Hiding Out in Classrooms A number of researchers with data from the school year 1988–1989, shows that
have detailed how struggling readers orchestrate a number 41.7% of the students with LD left school without graduat-
of “hiding out and bluffing behaviors” in order “to avoid ing. A 5-year follow up with these students revealed that
ridicule by exposing their ‘stupidity’ in class” (Brozo, 1991, 30% of those students had returned to some adult education
p. 324). In an observational study of an 11th-grade social setting, but only 3% of them had attained their General
 Aliteracy, Agency, and Identity 133

Equivalency Diploma (Wagner, D’Amico, Marder, New- learning disability, must be able to adapt to the demands of
man, & Blackorby, 1992). Before this study, Bruck (1987) a rapidly changing environment where shifts in language,
reviewed four other outcome studies and found that drop-out social activity, and technology abound.
rates highly depended on the population studied, and found Taking up the idea of multiliteracies, some researchers
a range of 0% (from a private school for LD students) to have expanded the definition of literacy to include such
62%. Even though specific numbers of high school drop- disparate social actions that at first glance might not be
outs who leave because of their reading disabilities is not considered worthwhile or sophisticated. These researchers
known, it is clear that students who have learning disabilities used the term literacy to apply to what may seem atypical
in general are significantly more likely to leave school and practices, some of which were not very reliant upon print
not graduate than non-LD students. and some of which did not rely on the use of technology.
They studied or highlighted activities that were usually
thought of as trivial or even detrimental literacy practices,
Instruction that Connects with Struggling Readers
such as passing notes (Finders, 1997), playing video games
The preceding research studies paint a bleak picture of (Gee, 2003), or engaging in gang activities (Moje, 2000).
what happens with struggling readers in school environ- Even though not always officially recognized as such, these
ments, but there are ways of avoiding such situations and students from these studies led complex lives and were able
drawing such students into productive, positive classroom to navigate through their increasingly complicated worlds
activities. Mick, a student who was mentioned earlier in using a variety of literacy practices. The aim of a great
this chapter (Mueller, 2001), found academic success with number of New Literacies researchers is to bridge these
reading outside of the resource room environment when he various out-of-school activities with in-school learning in
became involved in readers workshops in his seventh-grade ways that create a sense of relevance and worth. In what
classroom. Given time and space to make his own choices, follows we will present three studies from New Literacies
respond in his own manner, and receive individual attention researchers that describe opportunities to accomplish this
and feedback helped him to make a more personal con- aim.
nection to reading and the classroom. Replicating such an
occurrence, where a struggling student receives appropriate, Building on Students Interests and Competencies Work-
individualized attention and can make connections with ing with a number of middle school students in an after-
school success has been an ongoing goal of educators and school media club, Alvermann (2001) presents the case of
researchers, although via different pathways. Grady, a ninth grader who is reading at the fifth-grade level.
A group of NLS scholars, the New London Group He was not an enthusiastic reader and did not take part in
(1996), address the need for educational equity when, in- many of the literacy activities with the other students, and
stead of focusing on one type of literacy, they espoused a preferred to go off by himself to play video games. Over
notion of addressing “multiliteracies.” This term referred to time the researchers discovered that Grady was not avoiding
how different modes of communication interacted with new reading altogether but that he was doing it in isolated ways.
social relations in an attempt to address the vast diversity Over a series of email exchanges, they found that he was
in language and literacy which exists in our postmodern studying manuals on the various video games he was play-
present. Instead of hierarchical relations of literacy where ing, learning codes and special moves to help him succeed.
certain activities and abilities were privileged above oth- He was actually engaged in typically school sanctioned
ers, they shifted categories of literacy in a more horizontal activities, namely studying and taking notes in order to do
fashion. The effect of this on education was palpable. well on a later assessment, in this case embodied as video
Multiliteracies “create a different kind of pedagogy, one in game performance.
which language and other modes of meaning are dynamic The point in this observation is not to make the great
representational resources constantly being remade by leap that video games need be part of the school curricu-
their users as they work to achieve their various cultural lum but rather that this type of behavior is one that should
purposes” (New London Group, 1996, p. 64). Clearly, be highlighted and be made aware to his instructors. That
this conception draws very much on Street’s (1984/1995) Grady is capable of reading, understanding, and gathering
ideological model of reading. pertinent information and linking those actions to what
Traditionally privileged modes of literacy such as the he should be doing in school could be a powerful way to
ones Heath (1983) connected to middle-class education show him that getting a grasp on school tasks may not be
are seen as only one avenue of educational practice among as difficult as he has been led to believe. Many students
many, not the only correct way that students should be who struggle with reading already have competencies
taught. Within the New London Group’s conception of that would assist them in their academic endeavors, only
pedagogy was that schools should be truly democratic enti- they may lay unrecognized as reading that does not really
ties that “must include a vision of meaningful success for count. Grady was a reader after all, but neither he nor his
all” (p. 67) and that produce students who can engage the teachers recognized that in a way that would help him with
world critically, flexibly, and capably. According to these his school work. There was no transfer of his study skills
scholars, the students of the future, regardless of reading or to academic work.
134 Stergios Botzakis and Leigh A. Hall

Developing Critical Thinking via Alternative Avenues In risk they would not typically take when it came to more
his qualitative research on classrooms that use new literacies, traditional reading and writing. O’Brien attributes part of
Kist (2005) presented a classroom in Deux Montagnes, Que- their success to the flexibility of technology and how this
bec, a suburb of Montreal, where an English teacher worked flexibility allows students to “transform [their] sense of
with “at-risk” high school students who had “reached the competence and agency, particularly as it has been defined
end of the line” (p. 92) in terms of their positions in school. in relation to print-based activities” (p. 31). These students
Recognizing that these students required different kinds felt more capable in digital environments, and they engaged
of teaching to keep them in school, the teacher provided a more readily in activities they would be loathe doing with
different kind of classroom, one where students watched paper and pen. O’Brien partly attributed some of this change
films and critically analyzed and compared them, created to the accessibility and user-friendliness of technology, but
Flash animations, and edited video footage to create their also somewhat to the familiarity of the students with various
own narratives. Surprisingly, these students felt compelled media formats. Because they did not carry the weight of
to attend classes on a very regular basis, in contrast to their past failures with technology the same way they had with
attendance records throughout their academic careers, and print-centered texts, these students underwent a conversion
even though they were not to receive a high school diploma from helplessness to competency.
from their particular program of study. Kist likened the ar-
rangement to a kind of work-study program where students
(In)conclusion
found their interests met and where they could work in a
medium that did not intimidate them the same way that The way that research has been presented in this chapter
paper and pen assignments did. can be seen as an easy narrative, where students who are
What Kist (2005) found was that students in this class labeled as reading disabled can find school success once
could “read and write media texts with considerable so- their specific interests are appealed to and their needs ad-
phistication,” “were able to identify ideologies in a text dressed through instruction: What simply needs to be done
and relate them to their own experiences,” and “were more is to make connections between home and school, so that
willing to undertake the kind of school writing they were students can see their identities reflected in academic texts
expected to do, using media texts as a source for their and activities and are more motivated to display positive
writing” (p. 93). Students in his class found that they had agency. We do not want to leave with the impression that
competencies and abilities they were unaware of, and for this task is an easy one, or one that teachers have not been
some there was some transfer of critical thinking skills from trying to tackle with varying degrees of success. Finding
the media of film to that of reading stories and books. These specific reading strategies to address students with reading
students who typically disregarded what went on in school, disabilities may be helpful, but they must be used mindfully
who had their share of academic struggles and difficulties lest they become redundant or done simply for the sake of
were able to focus much more time, attention, and energy completion (Fisher & Frey, 2008). Focusing on students’
into their activities than they had in years. The happenings skill deficits may lead to the continuation of an achievement
in this classroom pointed to the potential of developing gap (Teale, Paciga, & Hoffman, 2007) as well as creating an
critical thinking skills with students using different contexts isolated version of what reading is. Building on students’
and media as curricula. interests may work but does not guarantee student success
without complementary instruction (Kamil, 2008; Krashen,
Facilitating Reading and Writing with Digital Literacies 2001), nor may it be possible to do within the walls of a
Similarly, presenting research on struggling adolescent school building (e.g., MacGillvray & Curwen, 2007). Using
readers and how they “multimediated,” O’Brien (2006) computers and other forms of technology does not create
noted how much more capable these students were in digital a playing field where students become equally capable
environments than in typical, paper-and-pen ones. In dif- (Wilder & Dressman, 2006). In other words, there are no
ferent media labs and centers, he found that students who easy fixes.
were identified as being at least 2 years under grade level When working toward creating competence in our stu-
were capable of composing digital reports on deer hunting, dents with reading disabilities in the 21st century, “research
webpages about specific sports teams and players, reading provides limited information about the context-specific
instructions and clues for video game versions of quests and variations, [and] teachers need to experiment to determine
murder mysteries, and incorporating visuals, movies, and how to vary their attentions given their subject-area foci and
writing in a multimedia presentation about favorite musi- their particular students’ needs and expertise” (Hinchman,
cians. Certainly these projects all built from student interest, Alvermann, Boyd, Brozo, & Vacca, 2004, p. 308). Teach-
but what O’Brien made particular note of was the ability ers need to be mindful and informed about what they are
of these students to delve into the digital environments in teaching, how they are teaching it, and to whom they are
ways that they would not approach print ones. teaching. This task is not an easy one, but one necessary
In using computers and other technologies, these students prerequisite is creating kinds of instruction where students
were not helpless but more motivated and engaged. They can see the connections between what they learn and what
took chances and used trial and error in some instances, a they will learn in school (Smith & Wilhelm, 2002; Suther-
 Aliteracy, Agency, and Identity 135

land, Botzakis, Moje, & Alvermann, 2008). Without such Kist, W. (2005). New literacies in action: Teaching and learning in multiple
a connection, academic matters will be divorced from their media. New York: Teachers College Press.
Krashen, S. (2001). More smoke and mirrors: A critique of the Na-
realities, easily dismissed, forgotten, and a cycle of aliteracy tional Reading Panel report on fluency. Phi Delta Kappan, 83(2),
will continue. 119–123.
Lankshear, C., & Knobel, M. (2006). New literacies: Everyday practices
& classroom learning, 2nd Edition. Philadelphia: Open University
References Press.
Alvermann, D. E. (2001). Reading adolescents’ reading identities: Look- Lee, C., & Jackson, R. (1991). Faking it. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.
ing back to see ahead. Journal of Adolescent & Adult Literacy, 44(8), MacGillvray, L., & Curwen, M. S. (2007). Tagging as a social literacy
676–690. practice. Journal of Adolescent and Adult Literacy, 50(5), 354–69.
Blanchett, W. J. (2006). Disproportionate representation of African Ameri- Manguel, A. (1997). The history of reading. New York: Penguin.
can students in special education: Acknowledging the role of white Mikulecky, L. (1978). Aliteracy and a changing view of reading goals.
privilege and racism. Educational Researcher, 35(6), 24–28. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the International Reading
Brozo, W. G. (1991). Hiding out in content classrooms: Coping strategies Association, Houston, TX.
of unsuccessful readers. Journal of Reading, 33(5), 324–328. Moje, E. (2000). “To be part of the story”: The literacy practices of gangsta
Bruck, M. (1987). The adult outcomes of children with learning disabilities. adolescents. Teachers College Record, 102, 651–690.
Annals of Dyslexia, 37, 252–263. Morris, D., Ervin, C., & Conrad, K. (2000). A case study of middle
Coutinho, M. J., Oswald, D. P., & Best, A. M. (2002). The influence of school reading disability. In D. W. Moore, D. E. Alvermann, & K.
socio-demographics and gender on the disproportionate identification A. Hinchman (Eds.), Struggling adolescent readers: A collection of
of minority students as having learning disabilities. Remedial and teaching strategies (pp. 8–18). Newark, DE: International Reading
Special Education, 23(1), 49–59. Association.
De Certeau, M. (1984). The practice of everyday life (S. Rendall, Trans.). Mueller, P. N. (2001). Lifers: Learning from at-risk adolescent readers.
Berkeley: University of California Press. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.
Finders, M. J. (1997). Just girls: Hidden literacies and life in junior high. National Commission on Excellence in Education. (1983). A nation at
New York: Teachers College Press. risk: The imperative for educational reform. Washington, DC: U.S.
Fine, M. (1991). Framing dropouts. Albany: State University of New Government Printing Office.
York Press. National Institute of Child Health and Human Development. (2000).
Fisher, D., & Frey, N. (2008). What does it take to create skilled readers? Report of the National Reading Panel. Teaching children to read:
Facilitating the transfer and application of literacy strategies. Voices An evidence-based assessment of the scientific research literature on
from the Middle, 15(4), 16–22. reading and its implications for reading instruction: Reports of the
Freire, P. (1970). Pedagogy of the oppressed. New York: Continuum. subgroups (NIH Publication No. 00-4754). Washington, DC: U.S.
Gee, J. P. (1991). What is literacy? In C. Mitchell & K. Weiler (Eds.), Government Printing Office.
Rewriting literacy: Culture and the discourse of the other (pp. 3–11). National Institute for Literacy. (2007). What content area teachers should
New York: Bergin & Garvey. know about adolescent literacy. Washington, DC: U.S. Government
Gee, J. P. (1996). Social linguistics and literacies: Ideology in discourses Printing Office.
(2nd ed.). Philadelphia: Routledge Falmer. New London Group. (1996). A pedagogy of multiliteracies: Designing
Gee, J. P. (2003). What video games have to teach us about learning and social futures. Harvard Educational Review, 66(1), 60–92.
literacy. New York: Palgrave Macmillan. O’Brien, D. G. (2006). “Struggling” adolescents’ engagement in multime-
Hall, L. A. (2007). Understanding the silence: Struggling readers discuss diating: Countering the institutional construction of incompetence. In
decisions about reading expository text. Journal of Educational Re- D. E. Alvermann, K. A. Hinchman, D. W. Moore, S. F. Phelps, & D.
search, 100(3), 132–141. R. Waff (Eds.), Reconceptualizing the literacies in adolescents’ lives
Hart, B. & Risley, T. (2003). The early catastrophe. American Educator, (pp. 29–45). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
47(1), 4–9. Office of Special Education Programs. (2002). Twenty-fourth annual report
Heath, S. B. (1983). Ways with words. New York: Cambridge University to Congress on the implementation of the Individuals with Disabili-
Press. ties Education Act. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education.
Heath S. B. (2003). The children of Trackton’s children: Spoken and Retrieved January 14, 2009, from http://www.ed.gov/about/reports/
written language in social change. In R. Ruddell & N. Unrau (Eds.), annual/osep/2002/index.html
Theoretical models and processes of reading (5th ed., pp.187–209). Ramsay, J. G. (2002). Hell’s bibliophiles: The fifth way of looking at an
Newark, DE: International Reading Association. alliterate. Change, 54(1), 50–56.
Heron, A. H. (2003). A study of agency: Multiple constructions of choice Rogers, R. (2002). Between contexts: A critical discourse analysis of fam-
and decision making in an inquiry-based summer school program for ily literacy, discursive practices, and literate subjectivities. Reading
struggling readers. Journal of Adolescent & Adult Literacy, 46(7), Research Quarterly, 37(3), 248–277.
568–579. Smith, M.W., & Wilhelm, J.D. (2002). “Reading don’t fix no Chevys”:
Hinchman, K. A., Alvermann, D. E., Boyd, F. B., Brozo, W. G., & Vacca, Literacy in the lives of young men. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.
R. T. (2004). Supporting older students’ in- and out-of-school literacies. Snell, L. (2002). Special education confidential: How schools use the
Journal of Adolescent & Adult Literacy, 47(4), 304–310. “learning disability” label to cover up their failures. Reason, 34(7),
Holland, D., Lachicotte, W., Skinner, D., & Cain, C. (1998). Identity 40–46.
and agency in cultural worlds. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Street, B. V. (1995). Literacy in theory and practice. New York: Cambridge
Press. University Press. (Original work published 1984)
Hull, G., & Schultz, K. (2001). Literacy and learning out of school: A Sutherland, L. A., Botzakis, S., Moje, E. B., & Alvermann, D. E. (2008).
review of theory and research. Review of Educational Research, Drawing on youth cultures in content learning and literacy. In D. Lapp,
71(4), 575–611. J. Flood, & N. Farnan (Eds.), Content area reading and learning:
Kamil, M. L. (2008). How to get recreational reading to increase read- Instructional strategies (2nd ed., pp. 133–156). Englewood Cliffs,
ing ability. In Y. Kim, V. J. Risko, D. L. Compton, D. K. Dickinson, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
M. K. Hundley, R.T. Jimenez, et al. (Eds.), 57th yearbook of the Teale, W. H., Paciga, K. A., & Hoffman, J. L. (2007). Beginning reading
National Reading Conference. Oak Creek, WI: National Reading instruction in urban schools: The curriculum gap ensures a continuing
Conference. achievement gap. The Reading Teacher, 61(4), 344–348.
136 Stergios Botzakis and Leigh A. Hall

The University of Kansas Students Tutoring for Literacy. (n.d.). History Wilder, P., & Dressman, M. (2006). New Literacies, enduring challenges?
of Literacy. Retrieved January 14, 2009, from http://www.ku.edu/~stl/ The influence of capital on adolescent readers’ internet practices. In
historyofliteracy.htm D. E. Alvermann, K. A. Hinchman, D. W. Moore, S. F. Phelps, & D.
Wagner, M., D’Amico, R., Marder, C., Newman, L., & Blackorby, J. R. Waff (Eds.), Reconceptualizing the literacies in adolescents’ lives
(1992). What happens next? Trends in post-school outcomes of youth (2nd ed., pp. 205–227). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
with disabilities: The second comprehensive report from the National Williams, B. T. (2007). Why Johnny can never, ever read: The perpetual
Longitudinal Transition Study of Special Education Students. Menlo literacy crisis and student identity. Journal of Adolescent & Adult
Park, CA: SRI International. Literacy, 51(2), 178–182.
 Part III
Assessing Reading Proficiency

EDITOR: PETER JOHNSTON

 13
Response to Intervention as an Assessment Approach
DONNA M. SCANLON
The University at Albany

Until recently, the determination of whether a child should & McNaught, 1995; Mathes et al., 2005; Gomez-Bellenge,
be considered learning disabled, has involved one basic Rogers, & Fullerton, 2003; O’Connor, 2000; Scanlon,
“test” and multiple exclusionary criteria. The test was Vellutino, Small, Fanuele, & Sweeney, 2005; Scanlon,
whether there was a substantial discrepancy between the Gelzheiser, Vellutino, Schatschneider, & Sweeney, 2008;
child’s achievement and intellectual ability, both measured Torgesen et al., 2001; Vaughn, Linan-Thompson, & Hick-
by standardized tests. Exclusionary criteria included per- man, 2003; Vellutino et al., 1996). Further, several studies
ceptual challenges such as uncorrected vision or hearing specifically evaluated the relationships between students’
difficulties and psychological and social circumstances. It response to instruction and the size of the discrepancy be-
addition, students were not to be considered for learning tween their measured IQ and achievement levels (Fletcher
disability designation unless they had had an adequate op- et al., 1994; Stanovich & Siegel, 1994; Vellutino, Scanlon,
portunity to learn. Among many problems that have been & Lyon, 2000) and found little relationship.
identified in the traditional definition of LD (see Fletcher, Together, this body of research made it clear that (a)
Denton, & Francis, 2005; Gresham, 2002; Vellutino, most early reading difficulties can be prevented through in-
Scanlon, & Lyon, 2000), perhaps the most critical, was the structional enhancements, and (b) the discrepancy between
limited attention to the role of instruction in the evolution an individual’s intellectual and achievement levels have
of learning difficulties. As the legislation provided no clear little relevance to how the student will grow as a reader, at
criteria for determining whether a child’s instruction had least during the early literacy stage. These understandings
been adequate, “adequate instruction” took on many dif- had substantial influence on the federal legislation that
ferent meanings and often simply meant that the child had governs the procedures by which children are identified as
attended school regularly. In light of the widely recognized learning disabled. With the passage of the Individuals with
variability in teacher effectiveness and the differences in Disability Educational Improvement Act (IDEIA) in 2004
service delivery models across educational settings (e.g., and in accord with the corresponding regulations issued in
some schools routinely offered remedial reading services 2006 (Yell, Shriner, & Katsiyannis, 2006), states now have
to struggling first graders while others delayed support the option of using an evaluation of a child’s response to
services until second or third grade), there were growing intervention (RTI) as a key indicator in determining whether
concerns that many children were being identified as learn- a student should be considered learning disabled. In fact,
ing disabled because of inadequacies in their instructional the legislation allows for the possibility that response to
experiences. An article by Clay (1987) was perhaps the intervention could be the sole “test” of whether a child
first clear articulation of the notion that children should not should be identified as learning disabled.
even be considered for learning disability designation until
high quality and responsive instruction had been provided
Overview of RTI
and failed to accelerate the child’s progress. Since Clay’s
article, a number of studies have instituted instructional Most RTI models involve a tiered approach to the imple-
interventions that were successful in preventing and/or mentation of instructional modifications. The most widely
remediating early reading difficulties thereby confirming described model involves three tiers. In this model, low
that intensification of instruction can reduce the incidence performing students are identified and monitored as they
of reading difficulties (e.g., Brown, Denton, Kelly, Outhred, participate in classroom instruction (often referred to as
& McNaught, 1999; Center, Wheldall, Freeman, Outhred, Tier 1 instruction). Those who do not appear to be making

139
140 Donna M. Scanlon

sufficient progress to meet grade level expectations by the RTI efforts are, basically, driven by two underlying purposes
end of the school year are provided with a second, more it is important to first consider those purposes since one’s
intensive tier of instruction in the hope of accelerating dominant purpose will influence decision making relating
their progress. Intensification might be accomplished by to the components of RTI.
providing more time in instruction, smaller instructional
groupings, or both. The second tier is intended to be pro- Prevention vs. Classification Accuracy RTI may be
vided in addition to (rather than instead of) classroom thought of as having two primary and related purposes: (a)
instruction and might be provided by a specialist teacher in the prevention of long-term learning difficulties, and (b)
a small group context. Once again, the students’ progress is improvement in the accuracy of LD classifications. From
monitored. Children who do not show accelerated progress the classification accuracy perspective, the focus is on mak-
with Tier 2 intervention are considered for possible LD ing sure that children are not classified as learning disabled
classification and such a placement becomes their third largely as a result of inadequate instructional experience.
tier of intervention. An underlying assumption of the classification accuracy
Despite the popularity of this model in discussions of perspective is that some children are qualitatively distinct
RTI, there is little to no research in which this specific from their peers with regard to their ability to learn to read
model has been explicitly evaluated (Allington, 2006). In and that they need to be identified as early as possible so
fact, in the body of research that contributed to the devel- that the necessary individualized instructional resources can
opment of RTI processes there are almost as many models be brought to bear (Fuchs & Fuchs, 2008). In comparison
of intervention as there are research groups investigating to the preventative perspective, relatively little instructional
the utility of intervention. All that is known for sure is that intervention might be offered before considering an LD
many children who struggle at the early stages of learning classification. In fact, Caffrey, Fuchs, and Fuchs (2008)
to read will show accelerated learning when provided with recently suggested that responsiveness to instruction might
more intensive and/or higher quality instruction. There is ultimately “be determined in a single assessment session”
very little research demonstrating positive impacts of inter- (p. 256) using a procedure known as dynamic assessment
ventions for older struggling readers (Vaughn et al., 2008; in which the child is tested, offered a limited amount of
Torgesen, Rashotte, Alexander, Alexander, & MacPhee, instruction related to the content/concepts tested, and then
2003) and, in what exists, positive impacts have been tested again on the same content. Such an approach seems
identified only in the context of fairly intensive intervention extreme, but it highlights the concern with classification
(Lovett et al., 2008; Torgesen et al., 2001) provided beyond accuracy that characterizes much of the research on RTI.
the classroom (Tiers 2 or 3). There is no evidence that a While the research focused on classification accuracy uses
period of classroom instruction only (Tier 1) would help more protracted periods of intervention than suggested by
older struggling readers to accelerate their progress—the Caffrey et al., the periods are, nevertheless, relatively brief
basic goal of providing intervention. (6 to 12 weeks). Moreover, the logic that guides these ap-
In RTI approaches, students’ performance is monitored proaches has strongly influenced the literature targeted at
as they proceed through the tiers and it is the documentation educational practitioners. For example, according to Brown-
of limited progress over time in spite of multiple attempts to Chidsey and Steege (2005) students could be eligible for
adjust the amount and/or type of instruction that the student LD classification after as little as 12 weeks of intervention
receives, that serves as the major criterion in deliberations effort and as young as first grade and according to Mellard
regarding LD classification. Each of the components (prog- and Johnson (2008) lack of acceleration in Tier 2 during
ress, time, and instruction) of this criterion represents a place a 9- to 12-week period may warrant referral for disability
where opinions about appropriate practice vary, sometimes determination.
dramatically. For example, with regard to documenting From a prevention perspective, on the other hand, chil-
progress, there are no commonly agreed upon instruments dren are viewed as much more malleable (Dweck, 1999)
or methods for assessing progress nor is there agreement and instruction as much more powerful in influencing the
about how frequently progress should be documented. With students’ trajectories. Efforts to intervene on behalf of
regard to the issue of timing, there is debate about when (at children who appear to be at risk of experiencing learning
what grade level) intervention efforts should begin, about difficulties would be initiated as soon as potential difficul-
how long children should remain at a given tier, and about ties can be identified on the assumption that it is easier to
how many tiers of intervention should be instituted before address knowledge gaps when they are relatively small and
discontinuing the process (either because the child no lon- before children come to view themselves as academically
ger needs support or because all intervention efforts have less able than their peers. Consistent with this perspective,
failed to accelerate progress). Instructional issues needing most of the early research on intervention for reading dif-
attention include such things as the basic nature of the ficulties provided intervention in first grade (e.g., Center,
instruction offered (i.e., what programs or approaches will Wheldall, Freeman, Outhred, McNaught, 1995; Pinnell,
be used) and the degree of coherence between classroom 1989; Torgesen & Wagner, 1999; Vellutino et al., 1996) and
and intervention settings and across the tiers. Each of these some of the more recent studies have initiated intervention
general areas will be discussed below. However, because efforts in kindergarten (O’Connor, Harty, & Fulmer, 2005;
 Response to Intervention as an Assessment Approach 141

Scanlon et al., 2005, 2008; Simmons, Kame’enui, Stool- is radically different and would seem likely to have dramati-
miller, Coyne, & Harn, 2003). Further, the interventions cally different effects on their progress. However, with the
tended to be for longer duration (1 or more years) than those exception of studies reported by Mathes et al. (2005), and
advocated by much of the practitioner literature. Foorman et al. (2003), which showed little differential ef-
Some of these studies (e.g., O’Connor et al., 2005; Scan- fect of more highly prescribed as opposed to more teacher
lon et al., 2005) have demonstrated that many children who responsive instructional approaches, there is very little
do not accelerate with Tier 2 instruction do meet grade level research evaluating the relative impact of implementing
expectations when provided with more intensive (one-to- standard protocol approaches as compared to instructional
one) intervention for a protracted period of time. Whether approaches that depend heavily on teacher planning and
children who need such intensity should be considered LD decision making.
is a question that the field will probably debate for years to It should also be noted that there are important grada-
come. However, for the children, it is fairly clear that more tions between standard protocol and problem solving
and better instruction can enable most who struggle initially approaches that are often ignored in the literature. For
to catch up and to avoid the potentially disabling effects for example, the intervention work that my colleagues and
being identified as disabled. I have done (Scanlon et al., 2005, 2008; Vellutino et al.,
1996) is often described as a standard protocol approach.
The Role of Instruction Even though intervention is However, our approach is standard only to the extent that
a central feature of RTI there has been remarkably little children who qualify for intervention are offered interven-
research on the characteristics of instruction that are as- tion provided by a teacher who has been trained in the
sociated with student progress within and across the Interactive Strategies Approach (ISA; Scanlon, Anderson,
tiers. Rather, in many studies, teachers are encouraged to & Sweeney, 2010; Vellutino & Scanlon, 2002). This ap-
implement a particular intervention program with fidelity. proach calls for the teacher to plan and deliver instruction
If students do not make progress in the context of this that is responsive to the children by taking account of both
instruction, it is often assumed that the problem lies with what the children know and are able to do and by consider-
the child rather than with the program. It could certainly be ing the characteristics and expectations of the classroom
argued, however, that the push for fidelity limits the teach- curriculum.
ers’ ability to respond to the needs of individual children
and that the child is unresponsive because the instruction is Classroom instruction. Classroom instruction repre-
unresponsive. Indeed, a student’s response to intervention sents the critical first tier in RTI approaches. The effective-
could well be construed as a test of the quality and appro- ness of classroom level instruction is evaluated by assessing
priateness of instructional efforts. While many aspects of the performance patterns of each class as compared with
instruction need consideration, in what follows I focus on other classes at the same grade level. It is widely agreed
a few that seem to be particularly important to schools as that, in situations where high numbers of students within
they attempt to develop their RTI processes. a class perform below expectations there is a need for in-
Two general models for RTI implementation have gained tervention for the classroom teacher. However, there is no
prominence. The problem solving approach (Marston, consensus regarding how to set expectations. For example,
Reschly, Lau, Muyskens, & Canter, 2007) entails collab- national, state, district, or building level norms might be
orative efforts on the part of several members of the school used. Conclusions about instructional adequacy are likely
community to identify and implement optimal instructional to be very different depending upon the reference point
interventions for each child who appears to be at risk for employed. Further, little is known about how to enhance
school learning difficulties. Within this approach, decisions the quality of instruction in situations where many students
about instructional modifications across the tiers of inter- are found to be underperforming. In fact, Chard (2004) has
vention involve a team of professionals. The team assembles argued that “the science of teaching reading has outpaced
and develops an instructional plan designed to be responsive the science of professional development in reading instruc-
to the needs of the individual. The child’s response to such tion” (p. 176).
interventions determines future intervention plans in an The most common recommendation for enhancing the
iterative manner. The alternative approach is referred to as quality of classroom instruction is that a research-based,
a standard protocol approach which, as the name suggests, core curriculum be adopted and implemented with fidelity
involves the implementation of standard interventions for (Brown-Chidsey & Steege, 2005; Fuchs, & Fuchs, 2008;
children who appear to be at risk for difficulties in particu- Mellard & Johnson, 2008). There are at least two potential
lar areas (Fuchs, Mock, Morgan, & Young, 2003). Either problems with this recommendation. One is that there are
model might entail the utilization of highly prescriptive and virtually no restrictions on the application of the label
manualized instructional programs, however, in the problem “research-based.” In fact, contrary to the belief of most
solving model, the programs selected would, presumably, educators, the effectiveness of most core curricula that carry
be selected because they were more closely matched with the research-based label have not actually be scientifically
the student’s particular skills. evaluated. Another problem with the recommendation is the
The response to children offered by these two approaches issue of implementation with fidelity which, to most, implies
142 Donna M. Scanlon

that instruction should faithfully follow the curriculum and Interventions beyond the classroom. Even though
may be taken by many to mean that teachers should not intervention is a central feature of RTI there has been re-
deviate from the curriculum even if their students are not markably little research on the characteristics of instruction
learning or have already learned the content (Achinstein that are associated with student progress within and across
& Ogawa, 2006). the tiers. Rather, as for classroom instruction, intervention
Such recommendations ignore the evidence that student teachers are encouraged to implement particular interven-
outcomes are more dependent on what teachers do than tion programs with fidelity. If students do not make progress
on the curriculum they use (Bond & Dykstra, 1967; Duffy in the context of this instruction, it is often assumed that the
& Hoffman, 1999; Nye, Konstantopoulos, & Hedges, problem lies with the child rather than with the program.
2004; Scanlon et al., 2008; Tivnan & Hemphill, 2005). It is certainly possible, of course, that the push for fidelity
The published research on teacher effectiveness generally limits the teachers’ ability to respond to the needs of indi-
demonstrates a substantial impact of classroom instruc- vidual children and that the child is unresponsive because
tion on student performance and that impact is generally the instruction is unresponsive.
stronger than the impact of adopted instructional programs Yet another concern with the interventions that may be
or approaches to instruction. Such a recommendation also offered in RTI programs is the amount and frequency of
implies a one-size-fits-all view of classroom instruction and switching between and among instructional approaches
provides little encouragement for differentiation to accom- that is sometimes recommended (e.g., Brown-Chidsey &
modate the broad range of reading abilities that characterize Steege, 2005; Mellard & Johnson, 2008). These recom-
the typical classroom. Further, this admonition is in direct mendations are made despite the fact that consistency
contrast to results reported by Taylor, Pearson, Clark, and in literacy instruction has been linked to better student
Walpole (2000) who found that whole class, undifferenti- outcomes (Mosenthal, Lipson, Torncello, Russ, & Mek-
ated instruction is more common in less effective schools. kelsen, 2004) and in face of long standing concerns about
Scanlon et al. (2008) found a similar pattern in comparing fragmentation and lack of congruency of instruction across
more and less effective kindergarten teachers—the more instructional settings (Allington & McGill-Franzen, 1989).
effective teachers spent substantially more time providing In informal interactions with several schools as they at-
instruction to small skill-based groups. Thus, schools that tempt to develop RTI programs, I have encountered many
adhere strictly to the advice to implement the core with where the belief is that, in order to properly implement an
fidelity might actually find increasing numbers of students RTI program, each struggling learner needs to be offered
qualifying for Tier 2 and Tier 3 intervention because at least two or three distinct prescriptive programs before
classroom instruction is not appropriately responsive to concluding that he/she is not responding. Reading involves
students and, as a result, what began as small gaps have a complex set of interactive processes. Many prescriptive
the opportunity to grow. Of course, lack of differentiation programs target only a subset of the processes. To provide
might well limit the growth of the more advanced readers a child with a program focused on developing phonics
because they will not be offered texts at an appropriate skills, for example, find that the program does not help to
level of challenge. accelerate the child’s growth, and then to place the child
A few studies have implemented professional de- in a program that has a very different focus, say fluency,
velopment for classroom teachers in the context of RTI is apt to further confuse the child who is already confused
implementations or other efforts to reduce the incidence of about the reading process.
early reading difficulties (e.g., Foorman and Moats, 2004; Given the sheer number of products that are available as
McCutchen et al., 2002; McGill-Franzen, 2006; O’Connor potential intervention tools there is reason to be concerned
et al., 2005; Scanlon et al., 2008). Most of these have not that RTI approaches implemented with a liberal dose of
focused on preparing teachers to implement specific core program switching will exacerbate children’s early dif-
curricula. Rather, the focus has been on the development ficulties. Indeed, such children are essentially being asked
of more generalized teacher knowledge that can be drawn to learn more than their peers. For instance, the classroom
upon regardless of the curriculum in use. For example, in and intervention teachers may use different keywords to
the Scanlon et al. study (2008), professional development remind the children of letter-sound correspondences, may
for kindergarten classroom teachers emphasized knowledge use different terminology to refer to the same concepts
related to early literacy development and helping teachers to (e.g., uppercase/capital, silent e/bossy e, period/stop dot)
identify and respond to students’ literacy learning difficul- and/or may teach different strategies for word solving or
ties using, for the most part, the curricular materials that comprehension monitoring.
were in place before the professional development program As, in the age of evidence-based practice, schools some-
began. This professional development yielded substantial times appear to feel pressured to purchase intervention
reductions in the number of at-risk kindergartners who programs that will help to solve their students’ learning diffi-
continued to qualify as at risk at the beginning of first grade culties, it is important to note that the intervention programs
and these outcomes were apparent both during the year in marketed to schools as evidence-based or research-based,
which the professional development program was provided often have not been rigorously evaluated. Rather, many are
and during the following year. merely based on the extant research. Unfortunately, there
 Response to Intervention as an Assessment Approach 143

are no restrictions on the circumstances under which an When Should the RTI Process Begin? Unlike the
instructional product can claim to be research-based. There IQ-Achievement Discrepancy approach, which has been
is nothing to stop someone from reading the research, de- characterized as a “wait to fail” approach (Fuchs & Fuchs,
veloping a program based on that research, and publishing 2006), RTI approaches generally emphasize early attention
a research-based program. Further, it should be noted that, to meeting the needs of struggling learners. Thus, the vast
among the prescriptive programs that have been evaluated, majority of research on RTI has focused in the primary
very few demonstrate efficacy with regard to promoting the grades with most studies initiating intervention attempts
development of reading comprehension—the most critical in kindergarten or first grade. A motivating factor in this
target of reading instruction (see the reports provided by emphasis on very early intervention is that it is easier to
the U.S. Department of Education’s What Works Clearing- address learning gaps when they are small and the students
house, http://ies.ed.gov/ncee/wwc). have yet to lose confidence in their learning abilities. While
Despite this relative lack of evidence that prescriptive the logic of initiating intervention as soon as children
programs have a positive impact on reading comprehension, demonstrate difficulty seems transparent, some have raised
some have argued that the use of prescriptive programs and the concern that beginning efforts to identify children who
a standard protocol approach is preferable because, gener- are at risk for later reading difficulties in kindergarten
ally, such programs require less teacher expertise (Fuchs & yields too many false positives, that is, too many children
Fuchs, 2006). However, it could certainly be argued that are identified as at risk at kindergarten entry who do not
the children who are making the slowest progress are most ultimately demonstrate reading difficulties and that, as a
in need of expert and responsive instruction. The fact that result, the schools’ instructional resources will be overly
some children do not demonstrate accelerated growth in taxed. However, my colleagues and I have found that kin-
the context of instruction that relies on highly prescriptive dergarten classroom instruction has a substantial influence
programs may well be a reflection on the program rather on children’s risk status (Scanlon & Vellutino, 1996, 1997;
than the child. Thus, the child’s lack of progress may be Scanlon et al., 2008), and it seems likely that both the high
due to faulty instructional decision making rather than to false positive rates and the high false negative rates reported
underlying characteristics of the child that would warrant by Torgesen (2002) and Jenkins and O’Connor (2002) are
a special designation. due, at least partially, to variation in the quality of kinder-
Approaches that utilize a more responsive approach garten classroom instruction. Particularly striking evidence
to intervention attempt to avoid such difficulties by hav- of the influence of classroom instruction at the kindergarten
ing intervention teachers take greater account of what is level emerged in a recent study in which my colleagues
being covered in the classroom program. For example, and I tracked children’s risk status from the beginning of
in research utilizing the Interactive Strategies Approach kindergarten to the beginning of first grade as they partici-
(Scanlon et al., 2005, 2008; Vellutino et al., 1996), the in- pated in the baseline cohort of a larger intervention study.
tervention teacher incorporates critical classroom concepts For the baseline cohort, there was substantial variation by
into her own instruction. At the very least, the interven- classroom teacher in the percentage of children identified
tion teacher makes every effort to teach about decoding as at risk at kindergarten entry who continued to qualify as
concepts and word identification strategies in ways that at risk at the end of kindergarten and the beginning of first
complement and reinforce what is being taught in the grade. Some teachers reduced the percentage of children
classroom. Further, the intervention teacher maintains who qualified as at risk by more than half (from 50% to
ongoing contact with the classroom teacher so that, as 20% at risk) while, for other teachers, there was virtually
new concepts and skills are addressed in the classroom, no change, or even a slight increase, in the percentage of
the intervention teacher can reinforce them in the interven- students who qualified as at risk from the beginning to the
tion setting. We believe that, in doing so, we magnify the end of the kindergarten with approximately 50% of the
effects of intervention by enhancing the child’s ability to children qualifying as at risk at both time points (Scanlon
profit from classroom instruction. Indeed, Borman, Wong, et al., 2008). Further, in an earlier study (Scanlon et al.,
Hedges, and D’Agostino (2001) provided evidence that 2005) we found that, when the at-risk kindergartners were
while such collaboration and coordination is rare (see also provided with intervention services in both kindergarten
Johnston, Allington, & Afflerbach, 1985), a greater degree and first grade as opposed to in first grade only, they were
of curricular congruence across instruction settings was substantially less likely to experience serious reading dif-
associated with stronger reading outcomes in the early ficulties by the end of first grade. Such data argue strongly
primary grades. in favor of initiating intervention efforts in kindergarten—if
not earlier.
Timing of Intervention Efforts Timing issues related to
intervention efforts concern questions about the grade level How long should an intervention be tried and how
at which the RTI process should be initiated and how long a many tiers should be used? The appropriate duration for
student should remain at a given tier of intervention before intervention attempts is another under-researched topic.
decisions are made about changes in instructional intensity While the practitioner oriented literature makes recom-
and/or programming. mendations suggesting that rather limited intervention
144 Donna M. Scanlon

periods will allow for a determination of whether a child to which the children have been exposed. Proponents of
should be considered for learning disability designation these measures suggest that they serve as reasonable prox-
(Brown-Chidsey & Steege, 2005; Fuchs & Fuchs, 2008; ies for more comprehensive measures of reading ability
Mellard & Johnson, 2008), there is insufficient evidence (Fuchs, Fuchs, Hosp, & Jenkins, 2001; Good, Simmons,
to support such a conclusion. For example, Vaughn et al., & Kame’enui, 2001). However, others would argue that
(2003) studied response to intervention among struggling the relationships are due to the relationship between oral
second graders who were provided with small group inter- reading accuracy (i.e., the ability to read the words) and
vention instituted in 10 week intervals. At the end of each comprehension rather than to any major influence of speed
interval, the students were re-evaluated. Children who met per se (Paris, 2005).
exit criteria were discontinued and those who had not were In addition to the endorsement of these measures by
regrouped and continued. Each successive intervention prominent researchers, the popularity of CBMs is also
interval helped additional children meet the exit criteria. due to the fact that they take little time to administer, are
Similarly, several other research groups found that more fairly highly correlated with more comprehensive and
children met grade level expectation when interventions comprehension-focused measures of reading achievement,
were continued for longer periods of time and/or when the and are more sensitive to small increments of change in
interventions became more intensive (Denton, Fletcher, reading skill than are the more comprehensive measures.
Anthony, & Francis, 2006; O’Connor et al., 2005; Phillips Further, multiple alternate forms are available which makes
& Smith, 1997; Scanlon et al., 2005). These results argue it possible to administer the same assessment frequently
for allowing a longer and more intensive period of inter- without concern for practice effects.
vention before classifications are considered. However, However, there is considerable debate about the use of
there is a need for caution in calling for greater intensity. these measures with the Diagnostic Indicators of Basic
For example, Wanzek and Vaughn (2008) recently reported Early Literacy Skills (DIBELS; Good, Kaminski, Smith,
that when first graders who did not respond well to Tier 2 Laimon, & Dill, 2001), which is widely used in the Reading
intervention were provided with additional, more intensive First program, receiving the greatest amount of attention.
intervention (2 small group sessions per day) no accelera- Unfortunately for the schools that have invested so much
tion occurred. There is, no doubt a limit to how much a time and energy in instituting this form of progress monitor-
young child can handle in terms of instructional intensity. ing, current research is highlighting serious problems with
Moreover, Wanzek and Vaughn do not indicate whether the these instruments. One problem is that such assessments
additional instruction simply utilized the same approach assume that the passages utilized at a given grade level are
to instruction that was ineffective the first time. It seems of equivalent difficulty—but they are not. For example,
likely that, for the children who are hardest to accelerate, Francis and colleagues (2008) recently pointed out that the
instruction needs to be individually tailored. For example, Spache readability estimates used to equate the DIBELS
there is some suggestive evidence emanating from work passages were quite different than estimates derived using
with the Reading Recovery model indicating that many other readability formulas. Further, Ardoin, Suldo, Witt,
children who did not show accelerated growth during their Aldrich, and McDonald (2005) found that readability indi-
first experience with Reading Recovery did accelerate ces have limited utility for predicting oral reading fluency.
when given ongoing, intensive, and individually tailored Moreover, of the eight formulas evaluated by Ardoin et al.,
intervention (Phillips & Smith, 1997). the Spache estimates were found to be among the worst
predictors of the fluency with which passages are read. The
Progress Monitoring One of the hallmarks of RTI ap- implications of these findings for assessment of progress
proaches is that the children who are identified as being at in RTI implementations is clear—depending upon the
risk are frequently assessed to monitor their progress. The passage used at a particular measurement point a student’s
monitoring is intended to yield the data needed to guide performance level may appear to have changed substantially
decisions concerning instructional modifications. Much more or substantially less than it actually has. Thus, efforts
of the research on RTI models and much of the guidance to accurately measure progress in literacy acquisition, which
offered to practitioners involves the use of curriculum is the basic reason for frequent measurement of ORF are
based measures (CBMs), typically using CBMs to refer to seriously undermined.
measures that do not actually sample the curriculum (as the Beyond the technical inadequacies of such measures
concept was originally construed). Rather, CBMs in today’s there is also serious concern about the way such measures
educational context, often consist of either brief measures might shape understandings of what constitutes reading
of oral reading speed (typically referred to as measures of competence and, therefore, influence instruction. For
oral reading fluency or ORF) or maze tests that involve example, measures such as the ORF run the clear risk of
children in selecting the correct responses while reading sending the message, to both students and teachers, that
grade level passages in which every seventh word, or so, has speed is valued more than comprehension (for elaborations
been deleted and replaced by 3 or 4 words, one of which is on these concerns see Pearson, 2006, and Samuels, 2007).
the original word. Both of these types of measures assess Further, these measures provide teachers with virtually no
speeded responding and in no way reference the curriculum information about how to respond to and plan for students
 Response to Intervention as an Assessment Approach 145

with difficulties. They simply serve to flag students who sufficient growth toward mastering the curriculum is occur-
may be struggling. ring. While such an approach has the potential to provide
In light of the inadequacies of ORF-type measures, maze more useful information to guide instruction than do ORF
measures might seem like a reasonable alternative since they or maze-type measures, the approach has serious problems,
at least focus on comprehension. However, early research particularly when used to make important decisions about
on the cloze task, which is the predecessor of the maze individual children. Teachers are not equipped to develop
task, demonstrated that accurate responses did not generally alternate forms of assessments that are appropriately reli-
require comprehension beyond the sentence or phrase level able and valid. This is a task that challenges even the most
(see Shanahan, Kamil, & Tobin, 1982, for an enlightening experienced and well-funded of test developers.
illustration in which performance levels were unchanged Yet another problem with response to intervention mea-
when passage sentences were presented in normal versus sures (whether measures are based on the curriculum or are
random order). Further, maze-type measurers clearly suffer of the proxy variety) is that, for many aspects of reading
from the same problems of lack of comparability across development, children do not grow in a way that can be
alternate forms.1 adequately represented by a straight line. In fact, Paris
Advocates for monitoring progress using the types of (2005) makes a cogent argument for the fact that linear
speed-based measures described above might argue that growth is only likely for relatively low level skills such as
the lack of comparability across forms is compensated for speeded word reading.
by the frequency with which they are administered. Thus, The discussion above should make it clear that there is
it is the students’ growth rate or slope that is of interest much to be learned about how to guide the decision-making
rather than their absolute performance level at any given process in RTI models. There is no clear evidence that out-
point in time. RTI processes call for providing students comes for struggling learners are enhanced by the addition
who show little or no growth with more intensified and/or of very frequent assessment. Even some of the strongest
different interventions. However, Schatschneider, Wagner, proponents of frequent progress monitoring acknowledge
& Crawford (2008) recently reported that slopes computed that little improvement accrues for students unless teach-
on the basis of multiple administrations of the DIBELS ORF ers are simultaneously provided with guidance on how to
measure in first grade did little to improve instructional interpret and respond to students who are making limited
decision making. Schatschneider et al. used DIBELS data progress (Stecker, Fuchs, & Fuchs, 2005). Thus, it may well
collected in the context of the Reading First implementa- be that the research that was taken to suggest that frequent
tion by the state of Florida. The sample consisted of over progress monitoring using CBM-type measures helped
23,000 first graders. The analyses attempted to predict end teachers to more effectively meet the needs of their students,
of first-grade and end of second-grade reading comprehen- was actually indexing the effects of helping teachers to think
sion performance using either a single measure of DIBELS more carefully about what their students were ready to learn.
ORF administered toward the end of first grade or a slope In support of this suggestion, it is useful to note that in a
for ORF performance computed on four administrations of series of studies on instructional approaches to preventing
the DIBELS ORF given at 2 to 3 month intervals during the early reading difficulties my colleagues and I did not collect
first-grade year. Results revealed that the use of DIBELS “formal” assessment data more than 3 or 4 times per year
slopes did nothing to enhance prediction accuracy beyond (Scanlon et al., 2005, 2008; Vellutino et al., 1996). Rather,
the accuracy obtained using a single end of year measure. the intervention teachers used checklists of instructional
Schatschneider et al. argue that their findings question a objectives (many of them ordered to highlight the typical
core assumption of RTI models—that growth over time course of development) and daily lesson sheets on which
should predict ultimate outcomes. they documented students’ skills and problem solving ap-
However, it is important to note that, in this study, no proaches. These record keeping devices were intended to
account was taken of the amount, type, quality, and timing keep the teachers focused on planning instruction that was
of instruction or intervention that the children received appropriate for their students. The records were based on
during their first and second grade. All of these factors are the teachers’ observations of the children as they taught
likely to impact student progress and end of year perfor- and so did not require interruption in instruction in order
mance. In fact, as argued above, variability in the quality to document success (or lack thereof). Of course, in order
and characteristics of instructional experiences are a major to effectively use such observation tools, teachers needed
determinant of growth in reading skills. a fair amount of engagement in professional development.
In contrast to “standardized” speed measures like those But the professional development was focused on the
described above, some RTI advocates (e.g., Brown-Chidsey direct connection between what the teacher observed the
& Steege, 2005) propose the use of true curriculum based students doing and the implications of those observations
measures that actually sample the entire curriculum. for instructional planning. No such connections exist when
Teachers are advised to create multiple versions (at least the progress monitoring data are comprised of speed-based
20) of assessments that sample content that is to be taught performance levels.
across the school year. These assessments would then be The use of observational approaches to decision making
administered as often as daily in order to determine whether also have their limitations, of course. Chief among them
146 Donna M. Scanlon

is that it is difficult to determine where to draw the line in learning difficulties on a broad enough scale to convincingly
terms of deciding whether children are making adequate argue that the construct is largely unnecessary.
progress. The periodic use of standardized but more com-
prehensive measures of literacy development could certainly Notes
augment the decision-making process. However, it must be
1. Those familiar with oral reading fluency and maze-type measures may
acknowledged that, to a certain extent, any decision about
question the suggestion that the alternate forms are not comparable
adequate progress, regardless of the tool used to evaluate owing to fairly high alternate form reliability estimates that are
progress, will ultimately involve a somewhat arbitrary provided by the test publishers. It is important to note that these
choice about what level of performance and/or what level reliabilities reflect the fact that individuals will be similarly ranked by
of growth is sufficient. alternate forms. However, their absolute performance levels (e.g., the
number of words read correctly in a minute could be very different
on the two forms [see Francis et al., 2008]).
Summary
Response to Intervention is, essentially, the latest test for References
whether a child should be considered learning disabled. Achinstein, B., & Ogawa, R. T. (2006). (In)Fidelity: What the resistance
While a student’s response is, no doubt, partly attributable of new teachers reveals about professional principles and prescriptive
to factors beyond the control of the instructional setting, in educational policies. Harvard Educational Review, 76(1), 30–63.
this chapter, the focus has been on factors that the school Allington, R. L. (1994). What’s special about special programs for children
who find learning to read difficult? Journal of Reading Behavior,
controls. The argument was made that a student’s response 26, 95–115.
to intervention, and instruction more generally, is the result Allington, R. L. (2006). Research and the three tier model. Reading
of a fairly complex interplay between and among several Today, 23(5), 20.
instructional and assessment factors: the nature and quality Allington, R. L., & McGill-Franzen, A. (1989). School response to reading
of the instruction provided at each of the tiers, the intensity failure: Chapter I and special education students in grades 2, 4 and 8.
Elementary School Journal, 89, 529–542.
and duration of instruction, the congruence of instruction
Ardoin, S. P., Suldo, S. M., Witt, J., Aldrich, S., & McDonald, E. (2005).
across tiers, the tools and timelines used to assess progress, Accuracy of readability of estimates’ predictions of CBM performance.
and so on. There are widely divergent views on how each of School Psychology Quarterly, 20(1), 1–22.
these aspects of the RTI process should be operationalized, Bentrum, K. E., & Aaron, P. G. (2003). Does reading instruction in learning
and there is far too little convergent research to support some disability rooms really work? Reading Psychology, 24, 361–382.
Bond, G. L., & Dykstra, R. (1967). The cooperative research program
of the most common recommendations that are being made,
in first-grade reading instruction. Reading Research Quarterly, 2,
particularly in the practitioner-oriented literature. All that 5–142.
we know for sure is that most early reading difficulties can Borman, G. D., Wong, K. K., & D’Agostino, J. V. (2001). Coordinating cat-
be prevented through enhanced instruction. Rather than egorical and regular programs: Effects on Title I students’ educational
withholding the most intensive instructional resources until opportunities and outcomes. In G. D. Borman, S. C. Stringfield, & R.
E. Slavin (Eds.), Title I: Compensatory education at the crossroads
a child has been identified as disabled, RTI approaches al- (pp. 79–116). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
low schools to muster their instructional resources early in Brown, W., Denton, E., Kelly, L., Outhred, L., & McNaught, M. (1999).
the child’s school career and to strive to keep achievement RRs effectiveness: A five-year success story in San Louis Coastal
gaps from growing and becoming disabling. Unified School District. ERS Spectrum (Winter), 3–10.
The foregoing discussion of RTI as an alternative ap- Brown-Chidsey, R., & Steege, M. W. (2005). Response to intervention:
Principles and strategies for effective practice. New York: Guilford.
proach to identifying children as learning disabled has, more Caffrey, E., Fuchs, D., & Fuchs, L. S. (2008). The predictive validity of
or less, taken as a given the notion that there are learning dynamic assessment: A review. Journal of Special Education, 41(4),
disabled students. However, there is certainly reason to 254–270.
question the utility of the construct. In light of the fact Center, Y., Wheldall, K., Freeman, L., Outhred, L., & McNaught, M.
that prevention/intervention efforts can be very effective (1995). An evaluation of Reading Recovery. Reading Research
Quarterly, 30, 240–263.
in reducing the number of children who experience severe Chard, D. J. (2004). Toward a science of professional development in early
reading difficulties (Denton et al., 2006; Pinnell, 1989; reading instruction. Exceptionality, 12(3), 175–191.
Pinnell, Lyons, Deford, Bryk, & Seltzer, 1999; Scanlon et Clay, M. (1987). Learning to be learning disabled. New Zealand Journal
al. 2005, 2008; Vaughn, et al., 2003; Vellutino et al., 1996) of Educational Studies, 22, 155–173.
and that most school-based post-classification instructional Denton, C. A., Fletcher, J. M., Anthony, J. L., & Francis, D. J. (2006). An
evaluation of intensive intervention for students with persistent reading
efforts tend to be largely ineffective in accelerating student difficulties. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 39, 447–466.
achievement (Allington, 1994; Bentrum & Aaron, 2003; Duffy, G. G., & Hoffman, J. V. (1999). In pursuit of an illusion: The flawed
Kavale & Forness, 1999; Torgesen et al., 2001), the value search for a perfect method. Reading Teacher, 53(1), 10–16.
of such a classification seems questionable. However, for Dweck, C. S. (1999). Self-Theories: Their role in motivation, personality,
administrative purposes, it is likely that the concept of learn- and development. Philadelphia: Taylor & Francis.
Fletcher, J. M., Denton, C. A., & Francis, D. J. (2005). Validity of al-
ing disabilities will be part of the educational landscape for ternative approaches for the identification of learning disabilities:
some time to come, partly because it represents a major Operationalizing unexpected underachievement. Journal of Learning
source of funds for schools and also because the educational Disabilities, 38(6), 545–552.
community has yet to prevent reading and other types of Fletcher, J. M., Shaywitz, S. E., Shankweiler, D., Katz, I., Liberman, I.,
 Response to Intervention as an Assessment Approach 147

Steubing, K. K., et al. (1994). Cognitive profiles of reading disability: McGill-Franzen, A. (2006). Kindergarten literacy: Matching assessment
Comparisons of discrepancy and low achievement definitions. Journal and instruction in kindergarten. New York: Scholastic.
of Educational Psychology, 86, 6–23. Mellard, D. F., & Johnson, E. (2008). RTI: A practitioner’s guide to
Foorman, B. R., Francis, D. J., Chen, D. T., Carlson, C., Moats, L., & implementing response to intervention. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin
Fletcher, J. (2003). The necessity of the alphabetic principle to phone- Press.
mic awareness instruction. Readings and Writing, 16, 289–324. Mosenthal, J., Lipson, M., Torncello, S., Russ, B., & Mekkelsen, J. (2004).
Foorman, B. R., & Moats, L. C. (2004). Conditions for sustaining research- Contexts and practices of six schools successful in obtaining reading
based practices in early reading. Remedial and Special Education, achievement. Elementary School Journal, 104(5), 343–367.
25(1), 51–60. Nye, B., Konstantopoulos, S., & Hedges, L. V. (2004). How large are
Francis, D. J., Santi, K. L., Barr, C., Fletcher, J. M., Varisco, A., & teacher effects? Educational Evaluation & Policy Analysis, 26(3),
Foorman, B. R. (2008). Form effects on the estimation of students’ 237–257.
oral reading fluency using DIBELS. Journal of School Psychology, O’Connor, R. E. (2000). Increasing the intensity of intervention in kin-
46, 315–342. dergarten and first grade. Learning Disabilities Research & Practice,
Fuchs, D., & Fuchs, L. S. (2006). Introduction to response to interven- 15(1), 43–54.
tion: What, why, and how valid is it? Reading Research Quarterly, O’Connor, R. E., Harty, K. R., & Fulmer, D. (2005). Tiers of intervention
41(1), 93–98. in kindergarten through third grade. Journal of Learning Disabilities,
Fuchs, L. S., & Fuchs, D. (2008). The role of assessment within the RTI 38(6), 532–538.
framework. In D. Fuchs, L. S. Fuchs, & S. Vaughn (Eds.), Response Paris, S. G. (2005). Reinterpreting the development of reading skills.
to intervention: A framework for educators (pp. 105–122). Newark, Reading Research Quarterly, 40(2), 184–202.
DE: International Reading Association. Pearson, P. D. (2006). Foreword. In K. S. Goodman (Ed.), The truth
Fuchs, L. S., Fuchs, D., Hosp, M. K., & Jenkins, J. R. (2001). Oral reading about DIBELS: What it is, what it does (pp. v–viii). Portsmouth, NH:
fluency as an indicator of reading competence: A theoretical, empirical, Heinemann.
and historical analysis. Scientific Studies of Reading, 5, 239–256. Phillips, G., & Smith, P. (1997). A third chance to learn: The develop-
Fuchs, D., Mock, D., Morgan, P. L., & Young, C. L. (2003). Respon- ment and evaluation of specialized interventions for young children
siveness-to-Intervention: Definitions, evidence, and implications for experiencing the greatest difficulty in learning to read. Wellington,
the learning disabilities construct. Learning Disabilities Research & NZ: New Zealand Council for Educational Reserach.
Practice, 18(3), 157–171. Pinnell, G. (1989). Reading Recovery: Helping at risk children to read.
Gomez-Bellenge, F. X., Rogers, E., & Fullerton, S. K. (2003). Reading Elementary School Journal, 90(2), 159–181.
recovery and descubriendo la lectura national report 2001–2002. Pinnell, G., Lyons, C., Deford, D. E., Bryk, A., & Seltzer, M. (1994).
Columbus: Ohio State University, Reading Recovery National Data Comparing instructional models for the literacy education of high-risk
Evaluation Center. first graders. Reading Research Quarterly, 29, 8–39.
Good, R. H., Kaminski, R. A., Smith, S., Laimon, D., & Dill, S. (2001). Samuels, S. J. (2007). The DIBELS tests: Is speed of barking at print
Dynamic indicators of basic early literacy skills (5th ed.). Eugene: what we mean by reading fluency? Reading Research Quarterly,
University of Oregon. 42(4), 563–566.
Good, R. H., Simmons D. C, & Kame’enui, E. J. (2001). The importance Scanlon, D. M., Anderson, K., & Sweeney, J. M. (2010). Early interven-
and decision-making utility of a continuum of fluency-based indicators tion for reading difficulties: The interactive strategies approach. New
of foundational reading skills for third-grade high-stakes outcomes. York: Guilford.
Scientific Studies of Reading, 5, 257–288. Scanlon, D. M., Gelzheiser, L. M., Vellutino, F. R., Schatschneider, C., &
Gresham, F. M. (2002). Responsiveness to intervention: An alternative Sweeney, J. M. (2008). Reducing the incidence of early reading dif-
approach to the identification of learning disabilities. In R. Bradley, L. ficulties: Professional development for classroom teachers vs. direct
Danielson, & D. Hallahan (Eds.), Identification of learning disabilities: interventions for children. Learning and Individual Differences, 18,
Research to practice (pp. 467–564). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum. 346–359.
Jenkins, J. R., & O’Connor, R. E. (2002). Early identification and interven- Scanlon, D. M., & Vellutino, F. R. (1996). Prerequisite skills, early in-
tion for young children with reading/learning disabilities. In R. Bradley, struction and success in first-grade reading: Selected results from a
L. Danielson, & D. Hallahan (Eds.), Identificaiton of learning disabili- longitudinal study. Mental Retardation and Developmental Disabilities
ties: Research to practice (pp. 99–149). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum. Research Reviews, 2, 54–63.
Johnston, P. H., Allington, R. L., & Afflerbach, P. (1985). The congruence Scanlon, D. M., & Vellutino, F. R. (1997). A comparison of the instructional
of classroom and remedial reading instruction. Elementary School backgrounds and cognitive profiles of poor, average and good readers
Journal, 85, 465–478. who were initially identified as at risk for reading failure. Scientific
Kavale, K. A., & Forness, S. R. (1999). Effectiveness of special education. Studies of Reading, 1, 191–216.
In C. R. Reynolds & T. B. Gutkin (Eds.), The handbook of school psy- Scanlon, D. M., Vellutino, F. R., Small, S. G., Fanuele, D. P., & Sweeney,
chology (3rd ed., pp. 984–1024). New York: Wiley. J.M. (2005). Severe reading difficulties—Can they be prevented? A
Lovett, M. W., De Palma, M., Frijters, J., Steinbach, K., Temple, M., Ben- comparison of prevention and intervention approaches. Exceptional-
son, N., et al. (2008). Interventions for Reading Difficulties. Journal ity, 13(4), 209–227.
of Learning Disabilities, 41(4), 333–352. Schatschneider, C., Wagner, R. K., & Crawford, E. C. (2008). The im-
Marston, D., Reschly, A. L., Lau, M. Y., Muyskens, P., & Canter, A. (2007). portance of measuring growth in response to intervention models:
Historical perspectives and current trends in problem solving: The Testing a core assumption. Learning & Individual Differences, 18(3),
Minneapolis story. In D. Haager, J. Klingner, & S. Vaughn (Eds.), 308–315.
Evidence-based reading practices for Response to Intervention (pp. Shanahan,T., Kamil, M. L., & Tobin, A. W. (1982). Cloze as a measure
265–285). Baltimore, MD: Brookes. of intersentential comprehension. Reading Research Quarterly, 17,
Mathes, P. G., Denton, C. A., Fletcher, J. M., Anthony, J. L., Francis, D. 229–255.
J., & Schatschneider, C. (2005). The effects of theoretically different Simmons, D. C., Kame’enui, E. J., Stoolmiller, M., Coyne, M. D., &
instruction and student characteristics on the skills of struggling read- Harn, B. (2003). Accelerating growth and maintaining proficiency: A
ers. Reading Research Quarterly, 40(2), 148–182. two-year intervention study of kindergarten and first grade children
McCutchen, D., Abbott, R. D., Green, L. B., Beretvas, S. N., Cox, S., at-risk for reading difficulties. In B. R. Foorman (Ed.), Preventing
Potter, N. S., et al. (2002). Beginning literacy: Links among teacher and remediating reading difficulties: Bringing science to scale (pp.
knowledge, teacher practice, and student learning. Journal of Learning 197–228). Baltimore, MD: York Press.
Disabilities, 35(1), 69–86. Stanovich, K. E., & Siegel, L. S. (1994). Phenotypic performance profiles
148 Donna M. Scanlon

of children with reading disabilities: A regression-based test of the Vaughn, S., Fletcher, J. M., Francis, D. J., Denton, C. A., Wanzek, J.,
phonological-core variable-difference model. Journal of Educational Wexler, J., et al. (2008). Response to intervention with older students
Psychology, 86(1), 24–53. with reading difficulties. Learning and Individual Differences, 18(3),
Stecker, P. M., Fuchs, L. S., & Fuchs, D. (2005). Using curriculum based 338–345.
measurement to improve student achievement: Review of research. Vaughn, S., Linan-Thompson, S., & Hickman, P. (2003). Response to
Psychology in the Schools, 42(8), 795–819. treatment as a means of identifying students with reading / learning
Taylor, B. M., Pearson, P. D., Clark, K. M., & Walpole, S. (2000). Effec- disabilities. Exceptional Children, 69(4), 391–409.
tive schools and accomplished teachers: Lessons about primary-grade Vellutino, F. R., & Scanlon, D. M. (2002). The interactive strategies ap-
reading instruction in low-income schools. Elementary School Journal, proach to reading intervention. Contemporary Educational Psychol-
101, 121–165. ogy, 27, 573–635.
Tivnan, T., & Hemphill, L. (2005). Comparing four literacy reform mod- Vellutino, F. R., Scanlon, D. M., & Lyon, G. R. (2000). Differentiating
els in high-poverty schools: Patterns of first grade achievement. The between difficult-to-remediate and readily remediated poor readers:
Elementary School Journal, 105(5), 419–441. More evidence against the IQ—Achievement discrepancy definition of
Torgesen, J. K. (2002). The prevention of reading difficulties. Journal of reading disability. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 33(3), 223–238.
School Psychology, 40(1), 7–26. Vellutino, F. R., Scanlon, D. M., Sipay, E. R., Small, S. G., Pratt, A.,
Torgesen, J. K., & Wagner, R. K. (1999). Preventing reading failure in Chen, R., et al. (1996). Cognitive profiles of difficult-to-remediate
young children with phonological processing disabilities: Group and and readily remediated poor readers: Early intervention as a vehicle
individual responses to instruction. Journal of Educational Psychol- for distinguishing between cognitive and experiential deficits as basic
ogy, 91(4), 579–593. causes of specific reading disability. Journal of Educational Psychol-
Torgesen, J. K., Alexander, A. W., Wagner, R. K., Rashotte, C. A., Voeller, ogy, 88, 601–638.
K., & Conway, T. (2001). Intensive remedial instruction for students Wanzek, J., & Vaughn, S. (2008). Response to varying amounts of time
with severe reading disabilities: Immediate and long-term outcomes in reading intervention for students with low response to intervention.
from two instructional approaches. Journal of Learning Disabilities, Journal of Learning Disabilities, 42(2), 126–142.
34, 33–58. Yell, M. L., Shriner, J. G., & Katsiyannis, A. (2006). Individuals With
Torgesen, J. K., Rashotte, C., Alexander, A. W., Alexander, J., & MacPhee, Disabilities Education Improvement Act of 2004 and IDEA Regula-
K. (2003). Progress toward understanding the instructional conditions tions of 2006: Implications for educators, administrators, and teacher
necessary for remediating reading difficulties in older children. In B. trainers. Focus on Exceptional Children, 39(1), 1–24.
Foorman (Ed.), Preventing and remediating reading difficulties: Bring-
ing science to scale (pp. 275–298). Parkton, MD: York Press.
 14
Patterns of Reading Disabilities across Development
LOUISE SPEAR-SWERLING
Southern Connecticut State University

Jason is a second grader in an affluent school district who The chapter begins by discussing how reading disabili-
has struggled in reading since kindergarten. Although Jason ties are generally conceptualized and defined, both in the
has an extensive oral vocabulary and excellent listening scientific literature and in educational settings. The second
comprehension, his difficulties with decoding printed section of the chapter summarizes research findings on
words have greatly impaired his reading comprehension in problems with school classification of struggling readers as
grade-appropriate text. William, a third grader in an urban having RDs; the third and fourth sections review research
school, has severe decoding difficulties similar to Jason’s on reading development and different patterns of difficulties
but also has limited vocabulary knowledge that affects his in reading and explain why more varied patterns of reading
comprehension adversely, in listening as well as reading disabilities may be identified in educational settings under
activities. Grace, an eighth grader in a suburban junior high, IDEA 2004. The fifth section presents five challenges that
progressed normally in reading in the early grades and has must be met to avoid perpetuating certain problems involved
no history of word decoding problems. However, she can- in classification of students with RDs, which can be informed
not comprehend many of the complex texts used at upper or addressed by knowledge about patterns of reading dif-
grade levels and is having particular difficulty understand- ficulties. The chapter concludes with some suggestions for
ing textbooks in content areas such as science. None of the educators with regard to assessment in reading.
children has intellectual, sensory, or emotional disabilities
that might account for his or her poor reading.
Definitions of Reading Disabilities
At one time, of these three youngsters, it is likely that
only Jason would have met identification criteria for learn- Three concepts have long been central to definitions of
ing disabilities (LDs), the category under which children reading disabilities: unexpected low achievement, the in-
with reading disabilities (RDs) are served in public schools. trinsic nature of RDs, and specificity (e.g., Fletcher, Lyon,
However, landmark changes in federal legislation, the Fuchs, & Barnes, 2007; Spear-Swerling & Sternberg,
Individuals with Disabilities Education Improvement Act 1996; Stanovich, 1986, 1991; Torgesen, 1991). Unexpected
(P.L. 108-446) of 2004 (IDEA 2004), have transformed this low achievement involves the idea that RDs cannot be
situation. It is now quite possible for all three students, and explained by other known causes of poor reading, such
many others like them, to be identified with reading dis- as other disabilities associated with reading failure (e.g.,
abilities. Is this event a desirable one? It could be, if being hearing impairment or intellectual disabilities), poverty,
identified with RDs led to some clear advantages for the poor instruction, or lack of opportunity to learn. Reading
children, for example, receiving earlier or more effective disabilities also are viewed as intrinsic, that is, they are
intervention that helped them overcome their reading dif- assumed to be caused primarily by genuine disorders in
ficulties. However, for those benefits to be realized, many learning, not by extrinsic factors such as inadequate teach-
problems with school identification of reading disabilities ing. Poor teaching or lack of educational opportunities
must be addressed. Why IDEA 2004 will likely lead to iden- certainly may exacerbate reading disabilities. However,
tification of more varied patterns of reading disabilities, and reading difficulties due mainly to these kinds of extrinsic
how knowledge about the patterns can improve educational factors, rather than to intrinsic learning problems, would
practice to benefit struggling readers (whether or not they not be considered true RDs by the vast majority of past or
have genuine RDs), are the subjects of this chapter. current authorities in the field.

149
150 Louise Spear-Swerling

Specificity means that reading disabilities entail dif- most students. RtI models emphasize high-quality general
ficulties in a subset of academic and cognitive domains education practices as a way to prevent reading problems
rather than generalized cognitive impairments or broad in many children, as well as the need to screen all children
developmental delays. In relation to reading, specificity and monitor their reading progress so that problems can
is a thorny concept, because difficulties in a relatively be detected and addressed early. Universal screening and
circumscribed area of reading, such as word recognition, progress monitoring also may avoid the potential bias
can impact literacy and overall academic functioning quite inherent in relying upon teacher referral as a gate to iden-
broadly (Stanovich, 1986). For example, inaccurate word tification and intervention (see, e.g., Shaywitz, Shaywitz,
recognition tends to be associated with slow rate of reading Fletcher, & Escobar, 1990; Speece, Case, & Molloy, 2003).
and poor reading comprehension, which in turn may affect Interventions in RtI approaches involve multiple tiers or
performance across many academic domains that depend levels, with increasing intensity of intervention across
upon good reading skills. Nevertheless, children with RDs tiers. Children who fail to make adequate progress even at
usually are viewed as having certain areas of academic the most intensive level of intervention are candidates for
strength (e.g., mathematics or vocabulary knowledge), as special education evaluation and services. Those who meet
well as typical development in most or all areas of adaptive eligibility criteria for RDs (e.g., children with inadequate
functioning (e.g., social skills and self-help skills such as progress in basic reading, reading fluency, and/or reading
dressing oneself) that contrast with their weaknesses in comprehension, who also meet exclusionary criteria) would
reading. be assumed to have genuine reading disabilities.
In federal and state educational guidelines, reading dis- IDEA 2004 and RtI approaches do not abandon the three
abilities are subsumed under the umbrella category of learn- concepts fundamental to RDs mentioned earlier: unexpect-
ing disabilities, the largest single category in which K–12 edness, specificity, and their intrinsic nature. However, in
students with disabilities are served in special education in RtI models, unexpectedness is defined partially in relation to
American public schools. Nationwide, approximately half expected progress in reading: Children with RDs are those
of all students in special education are classified with LDs who demonstrate unexpectedly poor progress despite ap-
(Denton, Vaughn, & Fletcher, 2003), with the majority of propriate intervention, with poor progress usually measured
these students identified due to problems in reading (e.g., both in relation to children’s level of performance and to
Kavale & Reese, 1992). Although educational guidelines their rate of growth (e.g., Speece et al., 2003). Moreover,
vary somewhat from state to state and require several dif- although IDEA 2004 maintains a clear distinction between
ferent criteria to be met in order for children to be identified reading disabilities and the more generalized problems
with LDs, the following criteria are prominent. characteristic of intellectual disabilities, it may lead to a
First, low achievement is necessary. With regard to weaker version of the assumption of specificity and result
RDs, children may be identified based on low achieve- in the identification of a wider range of reading problems
ment in basic reading skills, reading comprehension, or in the category of LDs, as discussed further below.
reading fluency. Second, exclusionary criteria must be met.
Exclusionary criteria require other disabilities, as well as
Problems in Classifying Struggling Readers as Having
extrinsic factors such as poverty and inadequate teaching,
RDS
to be ruled out as primary causes of children’s learning
problems in order for them to be identified with LDs. And Two basic premises of this chapter are that genuine reading
third, prior to IDEA 2004, federal and most state guide- disabilities do exist, and that identification may benefit chil-
lines required an ability-achievement discrepancy, usually dren with true RDs by providing them with early, appropri-
operationalized as a discrepancy between IQ and reading ate intervention. However, research on school identification
achievement. IQ-achievement discrepancy criteria involve of RDs has yielded many disturbing findings. For example,
comparing children’s IQ scores to their reading achievement myriad problems with the IQ-achievement discrepancy
on individually administered standardized tests; to meet the requirement have been detailed in the scientific literature
discrepancy requirement, a child’s IQ must be high relative (e.g., Fletcher et al., 2007; Siegel, 1988; Spear-Swerling &
to his or her reading achievement. However, IDEA 2004 Sternberg, 1996; Stanovich, 1991, 2000). These problems
and its accompanying 2005 federal regulations grant schools include the following: discrepancy criteria make early
the option to drop IQ-achievement discrepancy criteria and identification of RDs difficult, because it takes time for
instead to employ response-to-intervention (RtI) approaches struggling readers to amass a sufficiently large discrepancy
to identification—the landmark change alluded to above. to qualify for services; IQ tests are not valid measures of
Response-to-intervention approaches involve far more broad potential for learning and are especially problematic
systematic attempts to rule out inadequate instruction as for certain populations such as English language learners
the primary cause of a child’s reading difficulties than and low-socioeconomic status (SES) children; there is little
have previous approaches to identification of LDs. In evidence to justify an educational distinction between IQ
RtI approaches, children with RDs are conceptualized as discrepant and nondiscrepant poor readers (i.e., children
those who respond insufficiently to research-based read- whose IQs are not high enough relative to their reading
ing instruction and interventions that are effective with achievement for them to meet discrepancy criteria); and
 Patterns of Reading Disabilities across Development 151

nondiscrepant poor readers may be erroneously viewed as classified as having LDs usually show limited progress and
intellectually “limited” and incapable of improvement. In rarely catch up to their grade-level peers (Bentum & Aaron,
addition, discrepancy criteria provide little instructionally 2003; Moody, Vaughn, Hughes, & Fischer, 2000; Vaughn,
relevant information to teachers and may contribute to inad- Moody, & Schumm, 1998).
equate remedial efforts (Aaron, Joshi, Gooden, & Bentum, These kinds of research findings helped to prompt the
2008; Vaughn, Levy, Coleman, & Bos, 2002). changes in federal legislation described at the outset of
Other research on educational identification of reading the chapter, allowing the elimination of IQ-achievement
disabilities has raised concerns about the role that general discrepancy criteria and the use of response-to-intervention
education practices play in many children’s reading prob- methods of identification. However, because IDEA 2004
lems. Classroom reading instruction often fails to employ makes the elimination of IQ-achievement discrepancy
the kinds of instructional approaches found effective with criteria optional, it appears that many states will retain the
at-risk students (Allington & McGill-Franzen, in press; use of an IQ-achievement discrepancy in identification of
Juel & Minden-Cupp, 2000; Spear-Swerling & Sternberg, LDs (Zirkel & Krohn, 2008), often in conjunction with RtI
1996), both with regard to basic word-recognition skills approaches. These approaches can only be as effective as the
and to comprehension. Children enter kindergarten with quality, appropriateness, and timeliness of the intervention
substantial individual differences in language and literacy offered to struggling readers. As will be discussed next,
knowledge (e.g., Neuman & Dickinson, 2002), and unfor- struggling readers vary in their intervention needs, with
tunately, formal schooling sometimes may exacerbate rather these needs best understood in relation to typical reading
than ameliorate these initial differences. For example, Duke development.
(2000) found pervasive differences in first graders’ exposure
to and experiences with print based on the socioeconomic
Reading Development across the K–12 Grade Span
status of their schools, with students at very high-SES
schools having more library resources, more opportunities Research-based models of reading development in typical
to use those resources, and more experience with extended children (e.g., Chall, 1983; Ehri, 1991; Gough & Tunmer,
forms of text, than students at very low-SES schools. 1986; Rupley, Willson, & Nichols, 1998; Spear-Swerling,
Consistent with the idea that formal schooling sometimes 2004a; Stanovich, 2000) have emphasized the importance of
intensifies initial differences among students, Scarborough two broad types of abilities in learning to read: word recog-
(1998) points out that the relationship between SES and nition and oral language comprehension. Each of these two
reading achievement is more complex than is sometimes broad types of abilities encompasses many important related
recognized, with the SES-reading achievement correlation skills, abilities, and types of knowledge. For instance, word
much stronger at the level of the school than at the level of recognition includes knowledge of letter-sound relation-
individual students’ families. ships, an understanding of basic print concepts, the ability
Studies involving at-risk primary-grade children suggest to decode unfamiliar words, and automatic as well as ac-
that, with well-designed, research-based intervention, most curate recognition of words; oral language comprehension
struggling readers can reach grade-level expectations (Al includes vocabulary knowledge, sentence and discourse
Otaiba, 2001; Vellutino & Scanlon, 2002). Nevertheless, processing, knowledge of text and discourse structure,
the requirement to rule out inadequate instruction before background knowledge, inferencing, and the capacity to
classifying struggling readers with LDs rarely appears to use a variety of comprehension strategies.
have been addressed seriously in educational practice; in Phonological processes play an important role in word
fact, students classified with LDs frequently do not meet recognition in English and other alphabetic languages.
basic eligibility requirements for that category (MacMillan Phonological processes involve the use of phonological
& Speece, 1999; Scruggs & Mastropieri, 2002). Individual codes (abstract mental representations of speech sounds),
teachers’ readiness to refer children for learning disabilities or of actual speech, in a variety of cognitive and linguistic
evaluations is heavily influenced by contextual factors, tasks, including memory and oral language as well as writ-
including children’s gender and behavior, as well as teach- ten language (Scarborough & Brady, 2002). For example,
ers’ instructional preferences and available resources. For phonemic awareness, which involves awareness and ma-
instance, Shaywitz et al. (1990) found that, although serious nipulation of individual sounds in spoken words (e.g., be-
reading difficulties occurred roughly as often in girls as in ing able to blend orally the three separate sounds, /w/, /i/, /
boys, boys were more likely to be identified as having LDs sh/, into the spoken word wish) greatly assists decoding of
by schools, apparently because boys were more likely to be printed words. Morphemic knowledge—knowledge about
perceived by their teachers as having behavior problems. meaning units in words, such as common roots, prefixes, and
Drame (2002) gave teachers descriptions of children with suffixes—also plays an important role in word recognition,
academic or behavioral problems and found that teachers as well as in vocabulary and spelling, especially as children
who preferred whole-class groupings for reading instruction advance beyond the beginning stages of learning to read.
were more likely to recommend children for evaluations for Word recognition and comprehension abilities develop
LDs than were teachers who used a combination of grouping in tandem with each other in reading acquisition. Neverthe-
practices. Once in the special education system, children less, most models of reading development emphasize the
152 Louise Spear-Swerling

relatively greater importance of children’s acquisition of & Snowling, 1997; Spear-Swerling, 2004b), the relative
word-recognition skills in the early grades, and the rela- frequency of the patterns has varied depending on meth-
tively greater importance of higher-order comprehension odology (e.g., the specific measures used to assess reading-
abilities in the later grades. Without some threshold level related abilities and the specific criteria for defining poor
of word recognition, children cannot comprehend even the performance), as well as on the age and characteristics of the
simplest texts, so in the early grades, limitations on read- population studied. For example, Leach et al. (2003) found
ing comprehension often revolve around word recognition. that specific reading comprehension difficulties involved
However, as typical readers advance beyond Grade 3, most only about 6% of reading problems identified in third grade
have already acquired basic word-recognition skills, and the or earlier, with most reading difficulties about evenly split
texts used in school become increasingly longer and more between the other two patterns; however, reading problems
challenging in terms of comprehension, so limitations on identified after Grade 3 were highly heterogeneous, with
reading comprehension begin to center more upon language each of the three patterns constituting roughly one-third of
comprehension. poor readers. In a sample of children with a high incidence
Reading demands continue to escalate throughout of early language impairments, Catts et al. (2005) identi-
middle and high school, especially with regard to volume fied approximately 31% of struggling second-grade readers
of reading and the complexity of comprehension tasks as adequate decoders but poor comprehenders in reading,
(e.g., contrasting two different novels with similar themes, and even higher percentages of this pattern in fourth and
or analyzing and synthesizing information from a variety eighth grade (roughly 45% and 54%, respectively, of poor
of sources to write a paper). Moreover, children’s reading readers).
experiences outside of school influence their subsequent The focus of the review in this section involves children
language and literacy development; for example, indepen- learning to read English; the cognitive correlates of reading
dent pleasure reading is an important source of vocabu- disabilities and developmental patterns associated with poor
lary and background knowledge, especially among older reading may vary across languages, especially between
children and adults (Cunningham & Stanovich, 1991). In alphabetic languages like English and nonalphabetic lan-
other words, reading and oral language have an interactive, guages such as Chinese (e.g., Ho, Chan, Leung, Lee, &
mutually facilitative relationship. Of course, children’s Tsang, 2005). Of course, merely demonstrating a given
reading development also is heavily influenced by their pattern of reading difficulties does not mean that an indi-
experiences in school, and in particular, by the nature vidual has reading disabilities. Rather, to be consistent with
of instruction (Allington & McGill-Franzen, in press; past and present conceptualizations of RDs, an individual’s
Duffy, 2004; Juel & Minden-Cupp, 2000; Spear-Swerling, difficulties must be unexpected with regard to other known
2004a; Vellutino & Scanlon, 2002). Reading acquisition causes of poor reading (e.g., sensory disabilities), relatively
therefore must be viewed as a lengthy, ongoing process specific (e.g., distinct from intellectual disabilities), and ap-
that taps many interacting abilities over time, with certain parently intrinsic (e.g., not primarily associated with some
types of abilities relatively more important at particular clear extrinsic cause, such as inadequate instruction).
stages of development, and with development influenced
by experience and instruction as well as children’s innate
Specific Word Recognition Difficulties
capacities.
Children with this pattern have approximately age-appropri-
ate or better oral comprehension of language, including age-
Common Patterns of Reading Difficulties across
appropriate vocabulary knowledge, coupled with problems
Development
in word recognition. The problems typically are manifested
Researchers have identified at least three patterns com- in reading both real words and pseudowords such as gleck,
mon in struggling readers: children who have good oral although sometimes a child with a relatively strong sight
language comprehension but specific word recognition vocabulary will have difficulty only with pseudowords
difficulties, usually associated with poor decoding skills (Spear-Swerling, 2004b; Spear-Swerling & Sternberg,
(e.g., Jason in the opening anecdote to this chapter); children 1996). Spelling also is notably impaired. For children with
who have good word recognition and decoding skills but genuine reading disabilities, this is the most extensively re-
specific reading comprehension difficulties (e.g., Grace); searched pattern of RDs (e.g., Blachman, 1997; Fletcher et
and mixed reading difficulties involving both word recog- al., 2007; Stanovich, 1991, 2000; Stanovich & Siegel, 1994;
nition and comprehension (e.g., William). Here the term Torgesen et al., 2001), as well as the one with the lengthi-
comprehension-based reading difficulties will be used to est research history (e.g., Hinshelwood, 1896). Although
allude to the latter two patterns collectively. some investigators have attempted to establish different
Although the prevalence of each pattern is nontrivial subtypes of specific word recognition disabilities, such as
across many studies (Aaron, Joshi, & Williams, 1999; orthographic and phonological dyslexia (e.g., Castles &
Badian, 1999; Catts, Fey, Zhang, & Tomblin, 1999; Catts, Coltheart, 1993), evidence suggests a phonological deficit
Hogan, & Adlof, 2005; Catts, Hogan, & Fey, 2003; Leach, in most children with this pattern of RDs (Rack, Snowling,
Scarborough, & Rescorla, 2003; Nation, 2005; Nation & Olson, 1992; Shankweiler, Crain, Brady, & Macaruso,
 Patterns of Reading Disabilities across Development 153

1992; Spear-Swerling, 2004a; Stanovich, 2000; Stanovich to meet criteria for speech/language services (Nation, 2005;
& Siegel, 1994), and the term dyslexia has become a syn- Nation Clarke, Marshall, & Durand, 2004). Relatively
onym for this pattern. subtle language weaknesses may not impact reading com-
Specific word recognition difficulties frequently involve prehension until the middle grades or later, when the texts
word recognition that is slow as well as inaccurate, with used in school become much more challenging in terms of
these difficulties affecting both text reading rate and speed comprehension. However, the risk of developing reading
of reading isolated words. Furthermore, it is possible to problems at some future date is as great in young children
identify a group of poor readers whose word recognition with nonphonological language weaknesses as in those
difficulties involve only rate, not accuracy (Lovett, 1987). with difficulties in the phonological domain (Scarborough,
Slow reading is common in students with a history of 2005).
inaccurate word recognition, even after accuracy has been Oral language comprehension and reading comprehen-
remediated (Bruck, 1992; Torgesen et al., 2001). Practice sion are strongly related and draw upon many identical
plays an important role in developing speed of reading, abilities; vocabulary is one good example. Obviously,
and poor readers tend to have much more limited practice if a child does not know the meaning of a word such as
reading than do good readers, both in and out of school dejected, then even if he or she can decode the word,
(Allington, 1983; Biemiller, 1977-1978; Cunningham & comprehension will suffer, in both listening and read-
Stanovich, 1998). In children with a history of decoding ing. Common comprehension difficulties affecting both
problems, slow reading may be primarily due to cumula- listening and reading include not only vocabulary, but
tive deficits in exposure to printed words. Once established, also problems with working memory, discourse integra-
these cumulative deficits in experience may extremely dif- tion skills, inferencing, comprehension monitoring, and
ficult to overcome (Torgesen et al., 2001). Whether some many comprehension strategies such as summarization
cases of slow word recognition constitute a separate subtype and prediction (Cain, Oakhill, & Bryant, 2000; Francis
of reading disabilities emerging without a prior history of et al., 2006). However, other abilities underlying reading
inaccurate decoding, and with distinct cognitive underpin- comprehension may be more specific to reading text. For
nings such as slow naming speed (e.g., Wolf & Bowers, instance, strategies such as rereading when something in
1999), is controversial (Fletcher et al., 2007; Vellutino, a text does not make sense, and varying one’s approach
Fletcher, Scanlon, & Snowling, 2004). to reading to suit the purpose for reading (e.g., reading a
Specific word recognition difficulties appear early in text in preparation for an exam vs. skimming a text to find
schooling, when basic reading skills are first learned. Poor information for a research paper), are not usually applied
phonemic awareness—for instance, unusual difficulty in listening, because one does not ordinarily have the same
blending sounds to form words or difficulty segmenting control of the input in listening as in reading. Furthermore,
sounds in spoken words—is commonly associated with reading comprehension can be influenced by factors be-
this pattern. Assuming a child has had adequate opportunity yond cognitive-linguistic abilities, such as engagement
to learn phonological skills, poor phonemic awareness is and motivation (e.g., Guthrie, Wigfield, Metsala, & Cox,
generally believed to reflect the core deficit in dyslexia. For 1999). Hence, one might expect to find that specific read-
children with this pattern of reading disabilities, instruction ing comprehension difficulties can occur even in children
in phonemic awareness and phonics is very important, and with good listening comprehension. Consistent with this
intensive instruction in these areas may be required for view, the children with specific reading comprehension
some children to achieve grade-level performance (Vel- difficulties studied by Leach et al. (2003) functioned well
lutino & Scanlon, 2002). Early identification and timely within average range on a listening comprehension measure
remediation of inaccurate word recognition also may help and had listening comprehension far above their level of
to prevent the problems with slow reading that are often reading comprehension. Likewise, in a longitudinal study,
seen in children with specific word recognition difficulties Catts et al. (2005) found that 15% of poor readers in second
(Torgesen et al., 2001). grade, 14% in fourth grade, and 24% in eighth grade fell
into a “nonspecified” group: students who had poor reading
comprehension despite having generally adequate skills in
Specific Reading Comprehension Difficulties
both word recognition and listening comprehension.
This pattern of reading difficulties is characterized by Research on specific comprehension difficulties is at
roughly age-appropriate word recognition and phonologi- a much earlier stage of development than is research on
cal skills, coupled with reading comprehension difficulties. specific word recognition difficulties (Fletcher et al., 2007).
Often the comprehension problems emerge around fourth Given the wide range of abilities that may contribute to
grade or later, and there is no history of early decoding reading comprehension across the K–12 grade span, mul-
difficulties. Many children with this pattern appear to have tiple subtypes of RDs involving specific comprehension
oral language weaknesses that affect listening as well as difficulties may exist—for example, difficulties related
reading comprehension. That is, the children have language primarily to limitations in vocabulary knowledge vs. those
problems that are nonphonological in nature (Scarborough, related mainly to strategic weaknesses. These subtypes
2005), and that usually are not severe enough for the child would likely have different intervention needs.
154 Louise Spear-Swerling

Mixed Reading Difficulties terns of difficulties, information about the patterns is very
useful in planning instruction for individual children at
Children with mixed reading difficulties have problems particular points in time. This information also can enable
involving both word recognition and comprehension preventive educational programming for many at-risk chil-
(Catts et al., 2005; Leach et al., 2003). They share the dren. For instance, early, effective teaching of phonemic
core phonological difficulties of children with dyslexia awareness and phonics can help prevent specific word
(Stanovich, 2000; Stanovich & Siegel, 1994), but their recognition difficulties (Juel & Minden-Cupp, 2000; Vel-
reading comprehension difficulties extend beyond what lutino & Scanlon, 2002); greater emphasis on vocabulary
can be accounted for by inaccurate or slow word reading, development in early reading curricula may prevent the
to include the kinds of broader comprehension weaknesses cumulative vocabulary deficits seen in many low-SES
mentioned in the previous section, such as weaknesses in children and subsequent reading comprehension declines
vocabulary, listening comprehension, working memory, in the middle grades (Biemiller, 1999).
inferencing, or discourse integration skills. The term
garden-variety poor readers has sometimes been used for
The Impact of IDEA 2004
children with this pattern of difficulty (Gough & Tunmer,
1986). Mixed reading difficulties usually become apparent Specific word recognition difficulties are the pattern most
in the early primary grades due to the child’s poor decoding, commonly associated with reading disabilities when an
but persist even after the remediation of word-recognition IQ-achievement discrepancy is one of the requirements for
problems or even when the child is reading material he or identification, as was generally true prior to IDEA 2004.
she can decode accurately, because there is an additional IQ tests used in most school evaluations have a strong
comprehension component to the child’s difficulties. The verbal component, for example, tasks that require defining
intervention requirements of children with this pattern of word meanings or explaining how two objects are similar.
reading disabilities are relatively complex. Most will require Poor readers with strong verbal skills, and especially those
intervention that addresses not only phonemic awareness with good vocabularies (Sternberg & Grigorenko, 2002),
and phonics, but also their particular comprehension needs are more likely to have IQ scores that substantially exceed
(e.g., vocabulary development vs. comprehension strategies their reading achievement. Conversely, this IQ-reading
vs. inferencing). gap is less likely for poor readers with broad language and
vocabulary weaknesses, which are more characteristic of
children with comprehension-based reading disabilities,
Possible Shifts in Individual Children’s Patterns
including both specific comprehension difficulties and
across Development
mixed reading difficulties.
It must be emphasized that individual children’s patterns Currently, children identified with reading disabilities
of reading difficulties may shift over time. For example, usually have problems with word recognition (Fletcher et
in a longitudinal study, Chall, Jacobs, and Baldwin (1990) al., 2007). However, this situation could change in the fu-
followed a group of low-SES children with a pattern of ture with less frequent use of the discrepancy requirement.
specific reading comprehension difficulties: adequate read- With unexpectedness defined in relation to reading progress
ing progress in the early grades, but later comprehension rather than IQ, many children with comprehension-based
difficulties associated with limitations in vocabulary knowl- reading difficulties could be classified with RDs, assum-
edge. Although children’s vocabulary weaknesses became ing they meet exclusionary criteria and have failed to
apparent around Grade 4, these weaknesses did not signifi- make adequate progress with appropriate research-based
cantly impact reading comprehension until about Grade 6 interventions. Children with comprehension-based reading
or 7, with a progressive decline in reading comprehension disabilities probably will have broader academic problems
from that point on. Decelerations in vocabulary also were than do those with dyslexia. As Stanovich (2000) notes, the
associated with subsequent decelerations in word recogni- assumption of specificity central to definitions of dyslexia
tion and spelling, perhaps because of the role of vocabulary led most researchers to emphasize word recognition as its
and morphemic knowledge in reading more sophisticated locus, “rather than a process which operates across a wide
words at upper grade levels (Ehri, 1991). For instance, a variety of domains” (p. 114). It is difficult to identify a do-
pure decoding process may yield a rough approximation of main of schooling not directly influenced by comprehension
the words phenomenon and vociferous, but knowledge of processes. Although the word recognition and phonological
the meaning of the words, and oral familiarity with them, problems characteristic of dyslexia often indirectly affect
would greatly assist accurately reading them. As another many academic areas, as when students’ inaccurate or
example of a possible pattern shift, children with specific slow reading impairs their reading comprehension, these
word recognition difficulties in the early grades might show problems still are likely to be relatively narrow compared
more mixed reading difficulties later if their instruction to those of students with comprehension-based reading
does not sufficiently address vocabulary and comprehen- disabilities. For example, in content areas such as social
sion development. studies or science, a student with dyslexia usually can do
Despite possible long-term shifts in poor readers’ pat- well acquiring information presented orally, whereas some
 Patterns of Reading Disabilities across Development 155

students with comprehension-based reading disabilities may of children whose difficulties include word recognition.
have as much difficulty comprehending oral information However, the addition of nonphonological language mea-
as with reading. sures to screening assessments, such as oral vocabulary
or listening comprehension, might improve the accuracy
of early identification efforts (Gersten & Dimino, 2006;
Challenges and Opportunities
Riedel, 2007; Scarborough, 2005) as well as detect more
The provisions of IDEA 2004, and RtI approaches in partic- children with difficulties in the domain of comprehen-
ular, provide opportunities to improve educational practice sion. In some cases of specific comprehension difficulties,
and benefit struggling readers, including those with genuine nonphonological language measures might detect risk for
reading disabilities. To ensure that these provisions actually reading problems before actual reading difficulties have
help children rather than repeat past mistakes, some key emerged (e.g., Chall et al., 1990), enabling intervention
challenges will need to be met. RtI entails many technical efforts focused on vocabulary and language comprehension
problems, such as difficulties involved in bringing RtI to to prevent later reading comprehension problems entirely.
large-scale implementation in schools, as well as the need This possibility is important because, just as in the domain
for additional research in many areas, such as on the use of word recognition, once children have fallen substantially
of RtI at the middle and secondary levels (e.g., Denton et behind their peers in vocabulary knowledge and language
al., 2003; Fuchs & Deshler, 2007; Vaughn & Fuchs, 2003). comprehension, catching them up is often very difficult
These issues are important and should be addressed. Here, (Biemiller, 1999).
however, the focus will be on challenges that could be met, Nevertheless, not all students with comprehension-
or at least ameliorated, if what is already known about read- based difficulties have poor listening comprehension or
ing development and patterns of reading difficulties were poor vocabularies; therefore, even the best primary-grade
applied consistently in educational practice. identification efforts will miss some of these children,
such as those whose problems emerge only in relation to
Challenge #1: Complete Elimination of IQ-Achievement escalating reading comprehension demands at the middle
Discrepancy Criteria Unlike information about patterns and secondary levels. This phenomenon requires concep-
of reading difficulties, IQ-achievement discrepancy criteria tualizing “early identification” as involving identification
fail to provide educators with instructionally useful infor- at the point when problems first become detectable, not
mation. As of this writing, however, it appears that many necessarily identification in the primary grades.
states will continue using an IQ-achievement discrepancy
in identification of RDs, often in combination with RtI ap- Challenge #3: Diagnostic Assessment of Struggling
proaches (Zirkel & Krohn, 2008). Likewise, some profes- Readers Although some patterns of reading difficulties
sional practitioner groups, such as school psychologists, are more common at certain grade levels, each pattern oc-
appear generally to embrace RtI while remaining reluctant curs across a wide grade range. Distinguishing whether an
to eliminate the use of an IQ-achievement discrepancy individual struggling reader has specific word recognition
(Machek & Nelson, 2007). difficulties, specific reading comprehension difficulties, or
Continued use of an IQ-achievement discrepancy will mixed difficulties in both areas, necessitates diagnostic as-
perpetuate many problems mentioned earlier: limited valid- sessment that measures areas such as phonemic awareness,
ity of IQ tests as measures of broad capacity for learning, word recognition, decoding, vocabulary, oral comprehen-
time and resources expended on IQ testing that is not edu- sion, and reading comprehension. Furthermore, for children
cationally useful and sometimes actually harmful (e.g., in with comprehension-based reading difficulties, diagnostic
creating low expectations for some children), and the lack assessment of different comprehension-related abilities at
of evidence to justify an educational distinction based on the sentence and discourse levels (e.g., use of comprehen-
IQ-achievement discrepancy. A discrepancy requirement sion strategies, inferencing, understanding of text and dis-
also will tend to impede identification of children with course structure) is important for effective intervention.
true comprehension-based reading disabilities, who may Unfortunately, most existing reading comprehension
be viewed as lacking “potential” to learn, and it may serve tests are broad measures that do not help teachers pinpoint
to maintain existing identification practices with only lip specific comprehension weaknesses in individual students
service paid to RtI. The IQ-achievement discrepancy must (see Francis et al., 2006, for a counter-example). They
go. Replacing it with a focus on common patterns of reading rarely approximate the kinds of complex comprehension
difficulties would provide teachers with a much more ac- tasks required of children in school, especially beyond the
curate, educationally relevant way to conceptualize RDs. early grades, and may sometimes fail to detect children
with significant comprehension weaknesses (Allington &
Challenge #2: Early Identification of Comprehension- McGill-Franzen, in press; RAND Reading Study Group,
based Reading Disabilities At present, screening mea- 2002). Therefore, a thorough diagnostic assessment of com-
sures for reading problems in the primary grades usually prehension requires multiple measures and procedures—
emphasize phonological awareness and decoding skills. including not only standardized tests but also observations,
These measures are very helpful in early identification questionnaires, think-alouds, informal reading inventories,
156 Louise Spear-Swerling

and curriculum-based measures—as well as a consideration cial education. Encouragingly, Aaron et al. (2008) showed
of the strengths and limitations of each type of measure that intervention targeting struggling readers’ identified
(Klingner, Vaughn, & Boardman, 2007). The classroom weakness—word recognition vs. comprehension—results
and instructional context, and how individual students’ in better outcomes than does traditional resource room in-
performance may vary depending on context, also must be struction. This kind of intervention matching will be even
taken into account (Johnston & Costello, 2005). more vital as varied patterns of reading disabilities are iden-
Studies highlighting the heterogeneity of patterns of tified under IDEA 2004. Furthermore, assumptions often
reading difficulties (Catts et al., 2005; Leach et al., 2003; made for students with LDs, such as that these students can
Spear-Swerling, 2004b) have shown that word recognition readily obtain information presented verbally, may not hold
difficulties remain relatively common in older struggling as well for students with comprehension-based disabilities
readers, either as specific difficulties or as part of the mixed as for those with dyslexia. Therefore, classroom modifica-
pattern of difficulties involving both word recognition tions and accommodations for students with RDs also must
and comprehension; for instance, approximately 46% of consider individual students’ patterns of difficulties. Table
eighth-grade struggling readers in Catts et al. (2005) and 14.1 summarizes information about the performance on
approximately two-thirds of struggling readers identified reading assessments common to each pattern of reading
beyond Grade 3 in Leach et al. (2003) had difficulties difficulties and the types of interventions typically needed
with word recognition. As noted earlier, word-recognition for each pattern.
difficulties may sometimes emerge at upper grade levels,
even when children do not have a history of early decod- Challenge #5: Professional Development about Patterns of
ing problems, in relation to vocabulary weaknesses and Reading Difficulties Teacher adaptations to specific inter-
demands for reading more complex, multisyllabic words ventions and programs may be inevitable (Datnow & Cas-
(Chall et al., 1990). Diagnostic assessment of reading tellano, 2000). Moreover, teacher knowledge and skill may
comprehension should routinely include this area as well as well contribute independent variance to student outcomes
the many others important to good reading comprehension beyond that accounted for by specific interventions (McGill-
mentioned above. Franzen, 2005), and teachers who are knowledgeable about
literacy development appear less likely to refer struggling
Challenge #4: Effective Interventions Matched to Chil- readers to special education (Johnston & Costello, 2005).
dren’s Needs Evidence about different patterns of reading Although teachers rarely control many important school
difficulties demonstrates that struggling readers have differ- and district variables that can impact children’s reading
ent intervention needs. Research-based phonemic aware- achievement (e.g., selection of curriculum or availability
ness and phonics interventions will do little for children of resources), teachers remain a key influence on children’s
with specific comprehension difficulties; research-based learning (Darling-Hammond, 2007).
comprehension interventions will be insufficient for most However, even experienced teachers, including both
children with specific word recognition difficulties unless general and special educators, often lack knowledge about
accompanied by effective teaching of phonemic awareness early literacy acquisition and children’s word-recognition
and phonics. Furthermore, to avoid inadvertently manu- difficulties (Spear-Swerling, in press; Spear-Swerling,
facturing additional reading problems simply from lack Brucker, & Alfano, 2005); teacher knowledge and skill in
of opportunity to learn, interventions for various types of the area of comprehension are equally critical and take con-
reading difficulties must occur in the context of comprehen- siderable time and support to develop (Allington & McGill-
sive reading instruction that develops a range of important Franzen, in press; Duffy, 2004). Professional development
reading-related abilities and that provides ample opportuni- for general and special educators on literacy and the needs of
ties for all students to read engaging text. If appropriately struggling readers across the K–12 grade range is therefore
matched interventions and comprehensive instruction are essential. As part of preservice preparation and ongoing
not employed in RtI models, struggling readers will con- professional development, information about the different
tinue to be labeled with disabilities when the true culprits patterns of reading difficulties, and opportunities to apply
are inadequate teaching and lack of opportunity to learn. that information in diagnostic assessment and instructional
For children with genuine RDs, differentiating instruc- planning, should be routinely included. This information
tion by pattern is essential for children to benefit from can improve teachers’ abilities to identify reading problems
special education services. Studies of the reading instruction early, differentiate classroom instruction, and provide ap-
offered to students in special-education settings (Alling- propriate intervention to struggling students.
ton & McGill-Franzen, in press; Bentum & Aaron, 2003;
Vaughn et al., 1998, 2002) indicate that children in these
Suggestions for Assessment in Reading
settings frequently experience poorly differentiated instruc-
tion emphasizing worksheets and seatwork rather than The research reviewed in this chapter has a number of
actual reading, in part because of high pupil-teacher ratios implications for teachers, school administrators, and others
and highly heterogeneous groups. These problems may responsible for assessment of children’s reading achieve-
account for the limited progress of many students in spe- ment. Here are some suggestions for educators:
TABLE 14.1
Performance on Assessments and Intervention Needs Typical of Different Patterns of Reading Difficulties*
Pattern Assessments of Word Assessments of Reading Assessments of Oral Assessments of Reading Typical Intervention Needs**
Recognition and Phonemic Speed Language Comprehension Comprehension (RC)
Awareness (PA) and Oral Vocabulary
Specific word recognition Below average performance Speed of reading usually is Average or better vocabulary Usually below average, due to Explicit, systematic phonics
difficulties on tests of out-of-context word below average. and oral language poor or slow word recognition, instruction, integrated
recognition and decoding comprehension; performance but some students may perform with PA instruction if PA
skills, often accompanied by on verbally presented tasks at average levels on some RC is low; focused techniques
poor phonemic awareness (PA). usually is at least average and tests. RC difficulties may be to increase speed, such as
may be a notable strength. evident in everyday classroom repeated readings, if speed is a
performance. significant problem.
Specific reading Average or better performance Speed may or may not be Some, but not all, students Below average reading Instruction targeting the
comprehension difficulties on tests of out-of-context word impaired. are below average on tests of comprehension associated student’s specific reading/oral
recognition, decoding skills, oral vocabulary and/or oral with: 1) below average comprehension weakness(es),
and PA. language comprehension; these oral vocabulary/language such as vocabulary,
students’ difficulties may be comprehension, and/or 2) inferencing, information about
evident on verbally presented factors specific to reading text, text structure, or teaching
tasks as well as in reading. such as lack of knowledge of specific comprehension
about text structure. strategies. If speed is a
significant problem, use
focused techniques to build
speed.
Mixed reading difficulties Below average performance Speed is almost always below Some, but not all, students Below average reading Explicit, systematic phonics
on tests of out-of-context word average. are below average on tests of comprehension, due in part to instruction, integrated with
recognition and decoding oral vocabulary and/or oral poor or slow word recognition; PA instruction if PA is low;
skills, often accompanied by language comprehension; these however, RC difficulties exceed instruction that targets the
poor PA. students’ difficulties may be what can be accounted for by student’s specific reading/oral
evident on verbally presented poor word recognition. For comprehension weaknesses;
tasks as well as in reading. example, students may have focused techniques to build
difficulty comprehending even speed of reading.
when reading material that they
can decode accurately.
*In an RtI model, genuine reading disabilities are differentiated from other types of reading problems in part by lack of adequate response to appropriate interventions in students with disabilities. Students with genuine reading
disabilities usually require more intensive versions of the interventions listed in the table (e.g., more intervention time, a smaller teacher-student ratio, more opportunities for practice) not qualitatively different interventions.
**Interventions should occur in the context of a broad, comprehensive program of literacy instruction (e.g., a program that includes comprehension instruction for students with specific word recognition difficulties; and grade-
appropriate basic skills instruction, such as direct teaching of spelling skills, for students with specific comprehension difficulties).
158 Louise Spear-Swerling

1. Use technically adequate assessments appropriate to 4. Use more than one measure to assess reading com-
their intended purpose. Information about the techni- prehension, and consider the nature of the measures
cal adequacy (e.g., reliability and validity) of many when evaluating individual children’s performance.
published tests can be found in print resources such Evaluations of children’s reading comprehension should
as textbooks on reading assessment, as well as online be based on more than one measure because different
resources such as the Buros Institute’s Test Reviews measures of reading comprehension can yield quite
Online (see http://buros.unl.edu/buros/jsp/search.jsp) varied results for individual children. Among other
and the web site of the National Center on Student possibilities, some children’s performance may vary as
Progress Monitoring (www.studentprogress.org). The a function of test format, such as whether the test in-
intended purpose of a particular assessment also must volves a cloze task or a question-answering task (Spear-
be considered. For example, summative assessments, Swerling, 2004b), as well as of many other factors, such
such as many state-mandated assessments of reading as whether the child responds to questions orally or in
achievement, are meant to evaluate children’s cumula- writing (Jenkins, Johnson, & Hileman, 2004). Further-
tive learning at a particular point in time and usually more, some tests employ questions that children can
are time-consuming to administer; progress-monitoring answer without actually having read the accompanying
assessments are given more frequently to check growth, text (e.g., questions involving vocabulary or background
such as response to intervention, and often employ knowledge). On these tests, certain children, especially
brief timed tasks that correlate well with overall read- those with specific word recognition difficulties, may
ing competence in children of a given age. However, obtain falsely inflated reading comprehension scores
these brief timed tasks are not intended as a substitute (Keenan & Betjemann, 2006).
for a thorough diagnostic assessment in children whose 5. Take everyday classroom performance into account. Not
difficulties require further clarification (as is often the only can measures of reading comprehension yield dif-
case). Use of an inappropriate type of assessment, ferent results for individual children, but these measures
such as using a summative assessment for progress- also generally fail to tap many complex comprehension
monitoring or only a progress-monitoring assessment abilities required for success in reading, particularly at
when more thorough diagnostic assessment is needed, middle and upper grade levels. For instance, a child
may not yield the desired information and may waste with slow speed of reading may perform well on read-
valuable instructional time. ing comprehension tests with liberal time limits, but
2. Assess (and develop) nonphonological language abilities may nevertheless have great difficulty meeting middle
as well as phonological skills in young children. Pho- or upper grade expectations involving a high volume
nological measures will detect many reading problems of reading. Test scores should always be interpreted in
early, including specific word recognition difficulties conjunction with information about everyday classroom
and mixed reading difficulties, especially when used in performance.
conjunction with other important predictors of begin- 6. Assess important reading-related abilities in isolation
ning reading such as knowledge of letters. However, to help pinpoint struggling readers’ difficulties and
the addition of nonphonological language measures to target interventions appropriately. To locate specific
assessment batteries—for instance, measures of recep- difficulties in individual children and match interven-
tive vocabulary, expressive vocabulary, and listening tions in the manner illustrated in Table 14.1, diagnostic
comprehension—could facilitate earlier identification assessment of important reading-related abilities is
of children with specific comprehension difficulties and critical. Assessment of out-of-context performance is
help provide more comprehensive interventions for chil- necessary for accurate measurement of many reading-
dren with mixed reading difficulties (i.e., interventions related abilities, including word recognition and oral
incorporating both phonics-based and comprehension- vocabulary, because these abilities interact when chil-
based remediation, as shown in Table 14.1). Further- dren are reading in context (e.g., in passages) in ways
more, increased attention to developing nonphonological that confound interpretation of specific abilities. For
language abilities, in addition to phonological skills, in example, children with word recognition difficulties
early reading curricula might prevent reading difficulties may use semantic and syntactic cues to compensate for
in some children (Biemiller, 1999). weak decoding when reading in context, appearing to
3. Maintain identification and intervention efforts into the have better word-recognition skills than they actually do
middle grades and secondary level. Because some read- (Stanovich, 2000); children with specific reading com-
ing difficulties emerge only at later grade levels and in prehension difficulties may have significant vocabulary
relation to increasing grade expectations, primary level weaknesses that are not apparent in passages making
identification and intervention efforts cannot detect or few demands on vocabulary knowledge.
prevent all reading problems. Continued monitoring 7. For children with comprehension-based reading
of all students’ reading progress is therefore vital, as is difficulties, pinpoint specific language and read-
maintaining the availability of interventions for strug- ing comprehension problems as much as possible.
gling readers through the secondary level. Struggling readers with mixed reading difficulties or
 Patterns of Reading Disabilities across Development 159

specific reading comprehension difficulties require References

further pinpointing of weaknesses (and strengths)
Aaron, P. G., Joshi, M., & Williams, K. A. (1999). Not all reading dis-
within the domain of comprehension in order to target
abilities are alike. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 32, 120–137.
interventions correctly. For instance, an intervention Aaron, P. G., Joshi, M., Gooden, R., & Bentum, K. (2008). Diagnosis
focused on vocabulary probably will not be helpful to and treatment of reading disabilities based on the component model
a poor comprehender whose main difficulty involves of reading: An alternative to the discrepancy model of LD. Journal of
inferencing. Diagnostic assessment of comprehension Learning Disabilities, 41, 67–84.
Allington, R. L. (1983). The reading instruction provided readers of dif-
should also consider whether children’s difficulties are
fering abilities. Elementary School Journal, 83, 548–559.
confined mainly to reading comprehension or extend to Allington, R. L., & McGill-Franzen, A. (in press). Comprehension
listening comprehension; difficulties with listening or difficulties among struggling readers. Handbook of Research on
oral language should be addressed along with reading Comprehension.
in instruction. Al Otaiba, S. (2001). Children who do not respond to early literacy instruc-
tion: A longitudinal study across kindergarten and first grade. Reading
8. Routinely rule out (or rule in) word recognition dif-
Research Quarterly, 36, 344–346.
ficulties in struggling readers, even at upper grade Badian, N. (1999). Reading disability defined as a discrepancy between
levels. There is considerable debate about the relative listening and reading comprehension: A longitudinal study of stability,
percentages of struggling readers with word recogni- gender differences, and prevalence. Journal of Learning Disabilities,
tion vs. comprehension difficulties in the middle and 32, 138–148.
Bentum, K., & Aaron, P. G. (2003). Does reading instruction in learning
upper grades (see, e.g., Biancarosa & Snow, 2004, and
disability resource rooms really work? A longitudinal study. Reading
Fletcher et al., 2007, for contrasting viewpoints on Psychology, 24, 361–382.
this issue). Nevertheless, the research reviewed here Biancarosa, G., & Snow, C. E. (2004). Reading Next — A vision for
demonstrates that the possibility of word recognition action and research in middle and high school literacy: A report to
difficulties cannot be discounted in struggling readers Carnegie Corporation of New York. Washington, DC: Alliance for
of any age. Furthermore, administering a test of out-of- Excellent Education.
Biemiller, A. (1977–78). Relationships between oral reading rates for let-
context word recognition is reasonably easy and quick, ters, words, and simple text in the development of reading achievement.
usually taking only about 5 or 10 minutes. These kinds Reading Research Quarterly, 13, 223–253.
of tests, which should employ both real and pseudo- Biemiller, A. (1999). Language and reading success. Cambridge, MA:
words, should be used routinely to determine whether Brookline Books.
word recognition difficulties might be a factor in poor Blachman, B. (1997). Foundations of reading acquisition and dyslexia:
Implications for early intervention. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
reading comprehension for any struggling reader, so Bruck, M. (1992). Persistence of dyslexics’ phonological awareness
that problems can be addressed appropriately in instruc- deficits. Developmental Psychology, 28, 874–886.
tion. Cain, K., Oakhill, J. V., & Bryant, P. (2000). Phonological skills and
comprehension failures: A test of the phonological processing deficits
hypothesis. Reading and Writing, 13, 31–56.
Conclusion: Taking the Leap Castles, A., & Coltheart, M. (1993). Varieties of developmental dyslexia.
Cognition, 47, 149–180.
A popular saying counsels, “Leap, and the net will ap- Catts, H. W., Fey, M. E., Zhang, X., & Tomblin, J. B. (1999). Language
pear.” Response-to-intervention models for identification basis of reading and reading disabilities: Evidence from a longitudinal
of RDs require some major conceptual leaps: among investigation. Scientific Studies of Reading, 3, 331–361.
Catts, H. W., Hogan, T. P., & Adlof, S. M. (2005). Developmental changes
others, the convictions that struggling readers, with and
in reading and reading disabilities. In H. W. Catts & A. Kamhi (Eds.),
without disabilities, can be successful; that effective cur- The connections between language and reading disabilities (pp.
riculum and instruction can make powerful differences 25–40). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
in children’s learning; and that access to interventions Catts, H. W., Hogan, T. P., & Fey, M. E. (2003). Subtyping poor readers on
should not depend upon a disability classification. Given the basis of individual differences in reading-related abilities. Journal
of Learning Disabilities, 36, 151–164.
these conceptual shifts, as well as the practical challenges
Chall, J. (1983). Stages of reading development. New York: McGraw-
of RtI implementation, educators’ reluctance to discard Hill.
the safety net of familiar identification practices (e.g., Chall, J., Jacobs, V. A., & Baldwin, L. E. (1990). The reading crisis:
the IQ-achievement discrepancy) may be understandable. Why poor children fall behind. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University
However, it makes little sense to eschew promising, though Press.
Cunningham, A. E., & Stanovich, K. E. (1991) Tracking the unique
challenging, approaches to identification and interven-
effects of print exposure in children: Associations with vocabulary,
tion, in favor of practices that lack scientific support and general knowledge, and spelling. Journal of Educational Psychology,
are potentially damaging to children. Although further 83, 264–274.
research on RtI models certainly is necessary, educational Cunningham, A. E., & Stanovich, K. E. (1998). What reading does for the
practice could be greatly improved by applying what mind. American Educator, 22, 8–15.
Darling-Hammond, L. (2007). The flat earth and education: How America’s
already is known about children’s reading development
commitment to equity will determine our future. Educational Re-
and common patterns of reading difficulties. Doing so searcher, 36, 318–334.
could begin to provide a different, better safety net, both Datnow, A., & Castellano, M. (2000). Teachers’ responses to Success for
for teachers and children, and assist the field of LDs with All: How beliefs, experiences, and adaptations shape implementation.
its leap into the future. American Educational Research Journal, 37, 775–799.
160 Louise Spear-Swerling

Denton, C. A., Vaughn, S., & Fletcher, J. M. (2003). Bringing research- tal perspectives on children with high-incidence disabilities (pp.
based practice in reading intervention to scale. Learning Disabilities 111–113). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
Research & Practice, 18, 201–211. McGill-Franzen, A. (2005). In the press to scale up, what is at risk? Read-
Drame, E. R. (2002). Sociocultural context effects on teachers’ readiness ing Research Quarterly, 40, 366–370.
to refer for learning disabilities. Exceptional Children, 69, 41–53. Moody, S W., Vaughn, S., Hughes, M. T., & Fischer, M. (2000). Read-
Duffy, G. G. (2004). Teachers who improve reading achievement: What ing instruction in the resource room: Set up for failure. Exceptional
research says about what they do and how to develop them. In D. Children, 66, 305–316.
Strickland & M. Kamil (Eds.), Improving reading achievement through Nation, K. (2005). Children’s reading comprehension difficulties. In M.
professional development (pp. 3–22). Norwood, MA: Christopher- J. Snowling & C. Hulme (Eds.), The science of reading: A handbook
Gordon. (pp. 248–266). Oxford, UK: Blackwell.
Duke, N. K. (2000). Print environments and experiences offered to first- Nation, K., & Snowling, M. (1997). Assessing reading difficulties: The
grade students in very low- and very high-SES school districts. Reading validity and utility of current measures of reading skill. British Journal
Research Quarterly, 35, 456–457. of Educational Psychology, 67, 359–370.
Ehri, L. C. (1991). Learning to read and spell words. In L. Rieben & C. A. Nation, K., Clarke, P., Marshall, C. M., & Durand, M. (2004). Hidden
Perfetti (Eds.), Learning to read: Basic research and its implications language impairments in children: Parallels between poor reading
(pp. 57–73). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum. comprehension and specific language impairment? Journal of Speech,
Fletcher, J. M., Lyon, G. R., Fuchs, L. S., & Barnes, M. A. (2007). Language, and Hearing Research, 47, 199–211.
Learning disabilities: From identification to intervention. New York: Neuman, S. B., & Dickinson, D. K. (2002). Handbook of early literacy
Guilford. research. New York: Guilford.
Francis, D. J., Snow, C. E., August, D., Carlson, C. D., Miller, J., & Igle- Rack, J. P., Snowling, M. J., & Olson, R. K. (1992). The nonword read-
sias, A. (2006). Measures of reading comprehension: A latent variable ing deficit in developmental dyslexia: A review. Reading Research
analysis of the Diagnostic Assessment of Reading Comprehension. Quarterly, 27, 28–53.
Scientific Studies of Reading, 10, 301–322. RAND Reading Study Group. (2002). Reading for understanding: To-
Fuchs, D., & Deshler, D. (2007). What we need to know about respon- ward an R&D program in reading comprehension. Arlington, VA:
siveness to intervention (and shouldn’t be afraid to ask). Learning RAND.
Disabilities Research & Practice, 22, 129–136. Riedel, B. W. (2007). The relation between DIBELS, reading comprehen-
Gersten, R., & Dimino, J. (2006). RTI (response to intervention): Rethink- sion, and vocabulary in urban first-grade students. Reading Research
ing special education for students with reading difficulties (yet again). Quarterly, 42, 546–567.
Reading Research Quarterly, 41, 99–108. Rupley, W. H., Willson, V. L., & Nichols, W. D. (1998). Exploration of
Gough, P. B., & Tunmer, W. E. (1986). Decoding, reading, and reading the developmental components contributing to elementary school
disability. Remedial and Special Education, 7, 6-10. children’s reading comprehension. Scientific Studies of Reading, 2,
Guthrie, J. T., Wigfield, A., Metsala, J. L., & Cox, K. E. (1999). Moti- 143–158.
vational and cognitive predictors of text comprehension and reading Scarborough, H. S. (1998). Early identification of children at risk for
amount. Scientific Studies of Reading, 3, 231–256. reading disabilities: Phonological awareness and some other promis-
Hinshelwood, J. (1896). A case of dyslexia: A peculiar form of word- ing predictors. In B. K. Shapiro, P. J. Accardo, & A. J. Capute (Eds.),
blindness. Lancet, 101, 1451–1454. Specific reading disability: A view of the spectrum (pp. 75–119).
Ho, C., Chan, D., Leung, P., Lee, S., & Tsang, S. (2005). Reading-related Timonium, MD: York Press.
cognitive deficits in developmental dyslexia, attention-deficit/hyper- Scarborough, H. S. (2005). Developmental relationships between language
activity disorder, and developmental coordination disorder among and reading: Reconciling a beautiful hypothesis with some ugly facts.
Chinese children. Reading Research Quarterly, 40, 318–337. In H. W. Catts & A. Kamhi (Eds.), The connections between language
Jenkins, J. R., Johnson, E., & Hileman, J. (2004). When is reading also writ- and reading disabilities (pp. 3–24). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
ing: Sources of individual differences on the new reading performance Scarborough, H. S., & Brady, S. A. (2002). Toward a common terminol-
assessments. Scientific Studies of Reading, 8, 125–152. ogy for talking about speech and reading: A glossary of the “phon”
Johnston, P., & Costello, P. (2005). Principles for literacy assessment. words and some related terms. Journal of Literacy Research, 34,
Reading Research Quarterly, 40, 256–267. 299–334.
Juel, C., & Minden-Cupp, C. (2000). Learning to read words: Linguistic Scruggs, T. E., & Mastropieri, M. A. (2002). On babies and bathwater:
units and instructional strategies. Reading Research Quarterly, 35, Addressing the problems of identification of learning disabilities.
458–492. Learning Disabilities Quarterly, 25, 155–168.
Kavale, K. A., & Reese, L. (1992). The character of learning disabilities: Shankweiler, D., Crain, S., Brady, S., & Macaruso, P. (1992). Identify-
An Iowa profile. Learning Disability Quarterly, 15, 74–94. ing the causes of reading disability. In P. B. Gough, L. C. Ehri, & R.
Keenan, J. M., & Betjemann, R. S. (2006). Comprehending the Gray Oral Treiman (Eds.), Reading acquisition (pp. 275–305). Hillsdale, NJ:
Reading Test without reading it: Why comprehension tests should Erlbaum.
not include passage-independent items. Scientific Studies of Reading, Shaywitz, S. E., Shaywitz, B. A., Fletcher, J. M., & Escobar, M. D.
10, 363–380. (1990). Prevalence of reading disability in boys and girls: Results of
Klingner, J. K., Vaughn, S., & Boardman, A. (2007). Teaching reading the Connecticut Longitudinal Study. Journal of the American Medical
comprehension to students with learning difficulties. New York: Association, 264, 998–1002.
Guilford. Siegel, L. S. (1988). Evidence that IQ scores are irrelevant to the definition
Leach, J. M., Scarborough, H. S., & Rescorla, L. (2003). Late-emerg- and analysis of reading disability. Canadian Journal of Psychology,
ing reading disabilities. Journal of Educational Psychology, 95, 42, 201–215.
211–224. Spear-Swerling, L. (2004a). A road map for understanding reading disabil-
Lovett, M. W. (1987). A developmental approach to reading disability: ity and other reading problems: Origins, intervention, and prevention.
Accuracy and speed criteria of normal and deficient reading skill. In R. Ruddell & N. Unrau (Eds.), Theoretical models and processes of
Child Development, 58, 234–260. reading, vol. 5. Newark, DE: International Reading Association.
Machek, G. R., & Nelson, J. M. (2007). How should reading disabilities be Spear-Swerling, L. (2004b). Fourth-graders’ performance on a state-
operationalized? A survey of practicing school psychologists. Learning mandated assessment involving two different measures of reading
Disabilities Research & Practice, 22, 147–157. comprehension. Reading Psychology, 25, 121–148.
MacMillan, D. L., & Speece, D. L. (1999). Utility of current diagnostic Spear-Swerling, L. (in press). Response to intervention and teacher prepa-
categories for reearch and practice. In R. Gallimore, L. P. Bernheimer, ration. In E. Grigorenko (Ed.), Educating individuals with disabilities:
D. L. MacMillan, D. L. Speece, & S. Vaughn (Eds.), Developmen- IDEA 2004 and beyond. New York: Springer.
 Patterns of Reading Disabilities across Development 161

Spear-Swerling, L., Brucker, P., & Alfano, M. (2005). Teachers’ literacy- Torgesen, J. K., Alexander, A., Wagner, R. K., Rashotte, C., Voeller, K.,
related knowledge and self-perceptions in relation to preparation and & Conway, T. (2001). Intensive remedial instruction for children
experience. Annals of Dyslexia, 55, 266–293. with severe reading disabilities: Immediate and long-term outcomes
Spear-Swerling, L., & Sternberg, R. J. (1996). Off track: When poor readers from two instructional approaches. Journal of Learning Disabilities,
become “learning disabled.” Boulder, CO: Westview Press. 34, 33–58.
Speece, D. L., Case, L. P., & Molloy, D. W. (2003). Responsiveness Vaughn, S., & Fuchs, L. S. (2003). Redefining learning disabilities as in-
to general education instruction as the first gate to learning dis- adequate response to instruction: The promise and potential problems.
abilities identification. Learning Disabilities Research & Practice, Learning Disabilities Research & Practice, 18, 137–146.
18, 147–156. Vaughn, S., Levy, S., Coleman, M., & Bos, C. (2002). Reading instruc-
Stanovich, K. E. (1986). Cognitive processes and the reading problems tion for students with LD and EBD. Journal of Special Education,
of learning disabled children: Evaluating the assumption of specific- 36, 2–13.
ity. In J. K. Torgesen & B. Y. L. Wong (Eds.), Psychological and Vaughn, S., Moody, S. W., & Schumm, J. S. (1998). Broken promises:
educational perspectives on learning disabilities (pp. 87–131). New Reading instruction in the resource room. Exceptional Children, 64,
York: Academic Press. 211–225.
Stanovich, K. E. (1991). Discrepancy definitions of reading disability: Has Vellutino, F. R., Fletcher, J. M., Scanlon, D. M., & Snowling, M. J.
intelligence led us astray? Reading Research Quarterly, 26, 7–29. (2004). Specific reading disability (dyslexia): What have we learned
Stanovich, K. E. (2000). Progress in understanding reading: Scientific in the past four decades? Journal of Child Psychiatry and Psychol-
foundations and new frontiers. New York: Guilford. ogy, 45, 2–40.
Stanovich, K. E., & Siegel, L. S. (1994). Phenotypic performance profile Vellutino, F. R., & Scanlon, D. M. (2002). Emergent literacy skills, early
of children with reading disabilities: A regression-based test of the instruction, and individual differences as determinants of difficulties
phonological-core variable-difference model. Journal of Educational in learning to read: The case for early intervention. In S. B. Neuman
Psychology, 86, 24–53. & D. K. Dickinson (Eds.), Handbook of early literacy research (pp.
Sternberg, R. J., & Grigorenko, E. L. (2002). Difference scores in the 295–321). New York: Guilford.
identification of children with learning disabilities: It’s time to use a Wolf, M., & Bowers, P. G. (1999). The double-deficit hypothesis for the
different method. Journal of School Psychology, 40, 65–84. developmental dyslexias. Journal of Educational Psychology, 91,
Torgesen, J. K. (1991). Learning disabilities: Historical and conceptual 415–438.
issues. In B. Y. L. Wong (Ed.), Learning about learning disabilities Zirkel, P. A., & Krohn, N. (2008). RtI after IDEA: A survey of state laws.
(pp. 3–37). San Diego, CA: Academic Press. Teaching Exceptional Children, 40, 71–73.
 15
Traditions of Diagnosis
Learning from the Past, Moving Past Traditions
KATHLEEN A. GORMLEY AND PETER MCDERMOTT
The Sage Colleges

Introduction and Overview primary goal of a diagnosis is to inform instruction and not
to measure a student against a norm group. For the purposes
Assessment is about judgment and it always is interpre- of this chapter, we use the term diagnostician to mean any
tive. Summative assessments, which are often the result of professional with advanced training in assessing individual
legislative initiatives requiring data collection at specified learners’ reading performances.
times, examine individuals, schools, and/or programs and The chapter discusses major traditions in reading diag-
facilitate making judgments about past learning. On the nosis occurring throughout the last century in the United
other hand, formative assessments, which are assessments States. It examines those traditions and practices that have
for learning, happen during the process of teaching and been widely employed in reading diagnosis as well as
inform decision-making relative to the instructional pro- theories that have influenced or offer potential for inform-
cess (Chappuis & Chappuis, 2007). Both summative and ing diagnosis. Due to the focus of this book on reading, the
formative assessments have essential roles to play in literacy chapter does not review the diagnosis of writing difficulties,
education because they provide differing perspectives on although many of its challenges are similar to reading.
learners, but summative assessment is given a wider public Teaching practices frequently flow from teachers’ beliefs
platform than formative assessment. about what constitutes desired reading behaviors (e.g., De-
In this chapter reading assessment refers to the broadest ford, 1985; Shaw, Dvorak, & Bates, 2007), and diagnostic
category of educational tools and practices for measuring practices often originate from their models of reading. The
students’ reading. Federal and state agencies, school dis- professional literature at the turn to the 20th century, for
tricts, building principals, and classroom teachers all use instance, considered “good” reading to be primarily correct
assessments to fit their measurement needs. Reading as- oral pronunciation for engaging elocutions; thus diagnosis
sessments range from nationally prepared norm-referenced focused on accurate oral performance. Now, as well as for
tests that states use to compare or evaluate school districts many decades, some literacy professionals have believed
to those that are more local such as a teacher’s observations that good reading consists fundamentally of accurate
and notes of children’s oral reading of classroom books. word pronunciation, and, consequently, their diagnostic
Reading diagnosis looks at the needs of an individual practices focus on children’s oral reading accuracy. Still
learner and provides an in-depth and personalized analysis other practitioners believe that reading’s primary goal is
of the student’s reading. In this respect a reading diagnosis comprehension, and therefore their diagnostic practices
resembles a full-length movie of a student’s strengths and investigate children’s cognitive strategies for understanding
needs in reading and not just a snapshot at a given point what they read. Consequently, teachers’ models and beliefs
in time that is obtained through a group norm-referenced about reading have influenced our diagnostic traditions,
test. The primary purpose of a diagnosis is to understand and wide variability about them is found in their classroom
a student’s reading processes so that instruction can be practices.
designed and targeted to improve learning. A reading This chapter is organized into three sections. An over-
diagnosis uses multiple assessment tools and practices to view of diagnostic traditions in reading is first presented.
gather information, including analyses of a student’s oral Here, special attention is given to the growth of the testing
and silent reading with texts at varied levels of difficulty movement, the expansion of psychology as a profession
and interest. A norm-referenced test may be part of the and its influence on education, the practices and policies
array of assessments used by the diagnostician, but the in teaching reading to students with special learning needs,

162
 Traditions of Diagnosis 163

and the recent and increasing role of the federal government into why reading diagnosis tends to be bifurcated, relying
on school accountability in reading. The second section almost exclusively on either authentic or norm-referenced
addresses diagnostic traditions in schools, and the final sec- assessments. There are four major factors that have had
tion examines sociocultural research and its contributions direct bearing on reading’s diagnostic traditions:
to diagnostic theory. The three chapter sections appear as
follows: 1. The objectification of students’ reading performance;
2. The expansion of psychology as a profession;
• Overview of Diagnostic Traditions in Reading 3. Growth and influence of special education legislation
• Reading’s Diagnostic Traditions in Schools (e.g., PL94-142);
• Sociocultural Research and Its Contributions to Diag- 4. Increased involvement of federal government in educa-
nostic Theory in Reading tion.

The first two factors are closely related—the reciprocal

Overview of Diagnostic Traditions in Reading
links between the perceived value of objective psychometric
The 20th century served as a forum for extensive discussions measures and the niche of psychology in measuring learning
about public education, and foremost among these pertained (including reading) are clear. Similarly, the latter two factors
to the assessment of students’ learning. In particular, the sci- are enmeshed—the quests for access to public education
entific movement and the development of norm-referenced by all learners and the federal government’s pursuit of ac-
testing have had long lasting effects on schools. Norm- countability are entangled.
referenced testing has become a well-established tradition
in reading diagnosis that remains robust today. Objectification of Students’ Reading Performance The
Group norm-referenced testing, which is most often roots of this first factor rest with intelligence testing that
used for initial screening of reading problems, remains began with screening of millions of World War I army re-
virtually unchanged in the past 50 years. This long-standing cruits to determine job fit (e.g., identify potential officers).
attractiveness of group testing is due to ease of administra- This testing effectively segmented large numbers of military
tion, cost effectiveness, and data generated for comparison personnel into categories. Using multiple choice questions
purposes. These tests commonly identify learners who may for assessment purposes eventually expanded and resulted
need more assistance and often determine eligibility for in the sorting of children into particular levels of programs
special programs. Once students are identified as having in a tiered educational system (elementary, junior, and high
possible reading problems, they are likely to be diagnosed schools).
individually, typically by reading specialists, school psy- During the early decades of the 20th century (1900–
chologists and/or special educators. 1930), immigration was at an unprecedented level with the
Today, a dichotomy exists in current practices for diag- growth of industrialization. Population centers shifted from
nosing reading difficulties in specific learners. Although rural communities to cities, and school districts became
diagnosticians administer one-on-one assessments, they more centralized and consequently larger. Concomitantly,
tend to rely either on authentic assessment strategies that are compulsory school attendance laws resulted in increasingly
embedded in the classroom curricula (Afflerbach, 2007a), or diverse and larger numbers of students. All of these chal-
they use norm-referenced assessments (Bell & McCallum, lenges pressed schools to make decisions on how best to
2008) that provide comparable statistics (e.g., stanines and deal with large numbers of non-English speaking students
standard scores). Authentic assessment strategies include and to prepare increasing numbers of secondary students
texts and tasks that constitute real or actual reading that to enter the work force. Reading assessment incorporated
children do in and out of school. Reading and paraphrasing multiple-choice questions in group, timed tests. Thorndike,
ideas from books, magazines, or websites, for instance, are a renowned educational psychologist who asserted strong
examples of authentic texts and tasks, whereas selecting correlations among genetic inheritance, gender, and race,
answers from a series of multiple choice questions about a was tremendously influential in developing the tools for
single paragraph or pronouncing a list of unrelated words designing and interpreting reading tests (Willis, 2008).
from a norm-referenced test are not. While some diagnos- Trusting of scientific measurement to determine achieve-
ticians use a combination of these approaches (DeVries, ment and potential for achievement (intelligence testing),
2004), most tend to lean one way or the other. Although under the guise of objectivity and fairness, gained a lasting
much has been written about performance assessments (e.g., foothold in early part of the century (Monahan, 1998).
portfolios, oral presentations, dramatizations, essay writ- The scientific movement shaped thinking about reading
ing, visual arts presentations), such approaches are rarely assessment as well, and norm-referenced testing became
utilized when diagnosing reading difficulties. Performance one of the foremost traditions in diagnosis. Group norm-
assessments could demonstrate students’ literacy knowl- referenced testing in reading is widely used today to screen
edge in a variety of ways, they are rarely incorporated as students in need of further assessment, and individual norm-
part of reading diagnosis (Afflerbach, 2007b). referenced tests are often used to contextualize diagnosti-
An examination of our country’s history provides insights cians’ analyses of students’ reading performance.
164 Kathleen A. Gormley and Peter McDermott

Influence of Psychology as a Profession In the early learning disabilities (IDEA Amendments of 2004), most
decades (1900–1930) assessment of intellectual capabilities still rely on the older measure of disability: a discrepancy
extended its expertise into schools via educational psychol- between students’ intelligence scores and their classroom
ogy. Formalized instruments assessed students’ intellectual achievements (Hollenbeck, 2007). (See chapter 13 in this
and academic abilities, including the assessment of reading. volume for a detailed discussion of this issue.)
Reading was viewed as psychological processing and the Special education’s history echoes the exclusion and
descriptive statistics that quantified performance on reading segregation experienced by other minority groups (Lipsky
assessments were considered reliable and more important & Gartner, 1996). Prior to IDEA, students with disabilities
than daily performance (Pearson & Hamm, 2005). Psycho- were perceived as unable to thrive in general education
metric expertise enabled educational psychology to develop and therefore relegated to separate specialized programs.
a niche for assessing learners who were not progressing In addition, it is well documented that there has been an
suitably. The standardization of students’ intelligence and overrepresentation of students from underrepresented
reading test scores along a normal distribution became groups in special education (Artiles, 2003; Dunn, 1968;
educational psychology’s ultimate measure (McCormick Skiba, Poloni-Staudinger, Gallini, Simmons, & Feggins-
& Braithwaite, 2008). In essence, norm-referenced testing Azziz, 2006; Zhang & Katsiyannis, 2002). Some research
became customary, conventional, and time-honored with (McGill-Franzen, 1987) suggests that funding availability
little questioning of the influence of background or other has influenced the classification of children with reading
factors on reading. Quantitative information was valued difficulties—specifically, as funding increased for special
more than teacher judgment or any other qualitative in- education services, more schools classified children as
formation (Brown, 1992). The quantification of students’ learning disabled rather than remedial readers because of
reading performance in terms of reading levels, accuracy the monetary incentive to label students as having special
rates, and comprehension scores became a diagnostic tra- needs.
dition largely because of educational psychology’s use of The expansion of services to students with special needs
comparative statistics. and the inclusion movement represented needed reforms
in public education. Yet, there have been adverse effects of
Growth and Influence of Special Education Despite this legislation on reading’s diagnostic traditions. Implicit
compulsory school laws, more than 1,000,000 students in special education was the re-conceptualization of the
with disabilities were not served in public schools in 2007 origin of reading problems from that of disadvantaged
(USDE, 2007). Frequently these students were placed in backgrounds to disabilities caused by children’s psycho-
segregated settings (Hunt & Marshall, 2002), and those logical processing of print, and with this new etiology,
with significant disabilities (e.g., blindness or deafness) teachers often lowered their expectations for students with
often attended schools away from their families. PL 94-142 disabilities (McGill-Franzen, 1987; Stainback & Stainback,
[titled initially Education of All Handicapped Children Act 1984). Although there has been much improvement since
(1975) and now titled Individuals with Disabilities Educa- the original legislation, special educators often differ from
tion Act (IDEA) (1990, 1997, 2004)] was the landmark classroom and reading teachers in their theoretical views
legislation that built on the gains made by the civil rights about children’s learning to read, and these differences
movement of the 1960s. This legislation mandated free and became evidenced in a lack of coordination between class-
appropriate education, non-biased assessment and educa- room, remedial and special education services (Allington &
tion in the least restrictive environment. The 1997 IDEA McGill-Franzen, 1989; Ysseldyke, Thurlow, Mecklenburg,
amendments increased student opportunities to participate Graden, 1984). Special education’s preference for norm-
in the general education programs, improved coordination referenced testing at the expense of more formative assess-
between regular and special education, and increased the ments of reading, such as close observation and analysis of
accountability of schools in meeting the educational needs children’s interactions with print over time, increased the
of students with disabilities. prominence of standardized testing in schools.
One of the key components in IDEA is non-discrim-
inatory testing, including the use of multiple measures. Increased Involvement of Federal Government in Educa-
Although IDEA does not require norm-referenced testing, tion Individual states hold the responsibility for public
the reality is that such instruments are most often selected education through the Reserve Clause of the United States
for data sources in Individualized Educational Plans (IEPs) Constitution (i.e., Tenth Amendment). Yet, over the course
(Hunt & Marshall, 2002). Norm-referenced testing is at- of the 20th century, the federal government became increas-
tractive in special education because such instruments give ingly more active through various public policy initiatives
the impression of fairness and objectivity. Special educa- for improving student achievement, protecting the civil
tors have used the assumptions pertaining to the validity rights for all students, establishing special education leg-
and reliability of these tests to determine how discrepant islation, and more recently promoting learning standards
a student’s performance is relative to age and grade level and reducing the achievement gaps in our schools (McGill-
norms. Although some states are changing to Response to Franzen, 2000).
Intervention (RtI) policies for documenting students with In 1957 the Soviets launched Sputnik, and the U.S. gov-
 Traditions of Diagnosis 165

ernment’s immediate reaction was to increase funding for success in reading is measured and how much weight the
science and mathematics education. In 1964, as a result of results from norm-referenced testing and other commer-
President Johnson’s Great Society, monies poured into the cially prepared assessments, such as the DIBELS, should
public school systems through ESEA grants and various receive. Most importantly, NCLB’s emphasis on summative
title monies that targeted underserved or poor performing testing has resulted in more adverse than praise-worthy ef-
populations. The government enacted the Education for fects on reading’s diagnostic traditions. NCLB’s emphasis
All Handicapped Children Act in 1975, and it radically on outcome rather than process has had a negative effect
changed educational services to children with disabilities. A on reading’s diagnostic traditions because many teachers
decade later several reports critical of public education (e.g., are now more concerned about students’ progress on the
National Commission on Excellence in Education, 1983) program assessments rather than understanding their read-
noted the rising tide of mediocrity and underscored the need ing processes.
for increased expectations or standards for America’s fail-
ing schools. In 1998 the Educate America Act, commonly
Reading Diagnostic Traditions in Schools
called Goals 2000, articulated ambitious expectations that
all students would enter school ready to learn, and students’ An overview of diagnostic traditions in schools throughout
competency in reading (and other areas) would be assessed the 20th century reveals that there were significant advances
in grades 4, 8, and 12. Goals 2000 established the National in our understanding of the reading process, but diagnostic
Education Standards and Improvement Council, which had practices lagged behind. In this section three issues relating
as its task the codification of standards across states and to diagnostic traditions in schools are discussed. The first
disciplines. Most of the specialty educational associations, describes major trends and practices in the professional
including the International Reading Association (IRA), literature during the 20th century. The second discusses the
developed standards and expectations for learners (and contributions of researchers making a difference in read-
to a lesser extent teachers) in subject areas. Some states ing’s diagnostic practices, and the third examines recent
adopted educational standards with associated assessments effects of federal education legislation on diagnosis.
to determine student success in reaching them. These state
assessments, with their psychometric assurances, identified Major Trends and Practices in the Professional Literature
at-risk or low-performing students, and placed expectations about Diagnosis At the beginning of the 20th century the
on schools to improve all students’ performances in reading primary form of assessment was observing children’s oral
as well as in other subject areas. reading recitations (Gray, 1916). Later the scientific move-
The report of the National Reading Panel (NRP), funded ment introduced norm-referenced testing of children’s silent
by the National Institute of Child Health and Human Devel- reading comprehension, and these tests became widely
opment (2000), provided the basis for what would quickly used in schools.
become the most influential piece of federal legislation to In 1946 the informal reading inventory (IRI) was pro-
ever impact reading instruction and by extension reading di- posed as a new method for diagnosing children with reading
agnosis—the No Child Left Behind Act (NCLB) addressed difficulties (Betts, 1946), and it became one of most utilized
the teaching of reading in low-performing, high-poverty approaches in reading’s diagnostic traditions. Reading
schools, through its Reading First grants that required use inventories relied on existing classroom materials as the
of federally approved reading programs based on the five context for assessing children’s reading, and consequently
NRP elements (i.e., phonemic awareness, phonics, fluency, they offered greater content validity than other assessment
vocabulary, and comprehension). Despite questions (e.g., tools available at the time. Importantly the IRI placed
Goodman, 2006; IRA, 2006) about the theoretical under- teacher expertise at the center of the diagnostic process
pinning of some of the approved programs and associated because inventories required a high degree of knowledge
benchmark measures, such as the Dynamic Indicators of and skill for their construction and administration, as well
Basic Early Literacy Skills (DIBELS), many Reading as interpretations of student performance. Although most
First programs instituted the recommended instructional of the inventories today are commercially produced (Af-
programs and assessment tools (Good, Kaminski, Smith, flerbach, 2007b; Nilsson, 2008), the IRI continues to be
Laimon, & Dill, 2002; Reidel, 2007). Central among these widely used in schools and clinics for diagnosing reading
plans was the use of both norm-referenced testing and the problems and examining learners’ use of cue sources (McK-
frequent use of Curriculum-Based Measurement (CBM) for enna & Picard, 2006; Paris & Carpenter, 2003; Walpole &
documenting learners’ progress over time. Reidel (2007) McKenna, 2006).
recently concluded that the comprehension measure of the In the 1950s and 1960s there was great public interest
DIBELS (one minute Retell Fluency score) lacks empirical in the best method for teaching reading. A widely popular
support, but the measure continues to be popular. view at the time was seen in Flesch’s (1955) book, Why
The NCLB goal of having all students read at grade level Johnny Can’t Read, in which reading was seen as a code-
is praiseworthy for its vision of closing the achievement breaking activity. Later, Chall’s review of the research
gaps for children from diverse ethnic and economic back- literature (1967) concluded that a code-emphasis approach
grounds. Yet, unanswered questions concern how student was the most effective way to teach beginning reading,
166 Kathleen A. Gormley and Peter McDermott

and her work similarly received wide readership. Despite spoken words) and phonics (symbol sound associations) as
the conclusions from a nationwide longitudinal research essential understandings for learning to read. Adam’s find-
project, The First Grade Studies (Bond & Dykstra, 1967), ings resulted in extensive national discussion about early
that there was no one best method for teaching reading reading and teaching strategies for developing children’s
and that teacher knowledge was the most important factor phonemic awareness (e.g., Ehri, 1991; Ehri & McCormick,
affecting student learning, the popularity of code-emphasis 1998; Yopp & Yopp, 2000). In particular, an emerging di-
methods greatly influenced the teaching of reading. Many agnostic tradition from this research was that of assessing
diagnosticians adopted a code-emphasis model by focus- children’s ability to manipulate sounds in oral language
ing on decoding skills, with some teachers even assessing such as found in onsets and rimes (Yopp, 1995).
children’s reading with pseudo words rather than real ones, Research during the 1970s and 1980s, a time period
but often comprehension was neglected. often referred to as the “cognitive revolution,” focused
Psycholinguistic research represented a major change in on the internal processes readers use to understand text.
theoretical views about reading and its diagnostic traditions Research from these decades advanced our understanding
because of its arguments against the use of isolated lists of of the reading process, and its contributions eventually
words and nonsense words for understanding children’s improved diagnostic practices in comprehension. Prior to
reading processes (e.g., Goodman, 1967, 1969, Goodman cognitivism, diagnosticians assessed individual children’s
& Goodman, 1977; Smith, 1978). Psycholinguists demon- comprehension very differently than many do today. Chil-
strated the value of looking at reading as a meaning-making dren’s responses to comprehension questions were judged
activity. They argued that the syntactic and semantic quality as correct or incorrect depending on the textual information
of readers’ oral reading errors were of more importance that was included in their answers. Teachers used Bloom’s
than children’s accuracy at oral reading. Psycholinguistics taxonomy (1965) and developed higher order questions
influenced teachers’ views about the interactive nature of the to help inform their assessment, but comprehension was
reading process—good reading required the construction of still viewed as coming primarily from the passage itself.
meaning and not simply word recognition accuracy. Diag- Cognitive theorists demonstrated that prior knowledge
nosis began to consider whether miscues were significant (Anderson & Pearson, 1984) and text structure, particularly
and disrupted the author’s intended meaning. its propositional organization (Kintsch & van Dijk, 1978;
New understandings about oral reading fluency (Chom- Stein & Glenn, 1979), influenced readers’ understanding
sky, 1978; LaBerge & Samuels, 1974) further reinforced of what they read. Others explained that comprehension
the importance of using connected discourse as the mea- is a strategic process in which readers apply a variety of
sure of good reading, and word recognition accuracy was cognitive processes for understanding what they read (e.g.,
considered insufficient for understanding students’ reading Brown & Day, 1983; Lipson & Wixson, 1986). Most im-
abilities. Research about fluency demonstrated that both portantly, cognitivists demonstrated that comprehension is
accuracy and rate reflected a level of automaticity that al- an interactive process between the reader, the text, and the
lowed readers to attend to the meaning of what was being instructional context—it is not a recall of textual informa-
read and thereby use appropriate expression, intonation tion only (Pressley, 2002; Rowe & Rayford, 1987).
and stress (prosody). Most recently, the importance of Today, findings from the cognitive and constructive
prosody in early reading as a measure of fluency and an nature of reading comprehension are widely incorporated
indicator of comprehension has again been confirmed in into the diagnosis of students with reading difficulties. It
research (Klauda & Guthrie, 2008; Miller & Schwanen- is standard practice for diagnosticians to consider learner’s
flugel, 2008). Today, many diagnosticians use a measure prior knowledge about topics before they read, and pub-
of fluency when assessing children’s oral reading (Fountas lished informal reading inventories typically include prior
& Pinnell, 1996). knowledge assessment in their protocols. Many diagnosti-
The 1980s witnessed the whole language movement cians now routinely ask students about their thinking while
and with it some teachers began using portfolios and other reading and have them reflect on why they read the way they
classroom-based assessment measures to document and do (Garner, 1987; Paris & Jacobs, 1984; Schmitt, 1990).
showcase children’s reading processes. These portfolios of-
ten included children’ annotated lists of books that they had Major Researchers Influencing Reading’s Diagnostic Tra-
read, samples of their running records on texts of varied or ditions Although there have been numerous researchers
increasing levels of difficulty, and response journals based influencing our understanding of reading and by extension
on their independent reading, Although whole language’s reading diagnosis, there have been four who have been
emphasis on assessing children’s reading performance on particularly influential in reading’s diagnostic traditions—
classroom materials offered much promise, only a few Kenneth and Yetta Goodman, Marie Clay, and P. David
schools moved in this direction and its long-term impact Pearson. While many other researchers have contributed
on reading diagnosis was negligible. to our understandings of reading, these persons translated
Adam’s (1990) comprehensive review of research about theory into practice and greatly affected reading’s diagnostic
beginning reading pointed to the importance of phonemic traditions.
awareness (ability to focus on and manipulate phonemes in The Goodmans’ application of psycholinguistic theories
 Traditions of Diagnosis 167

to reading processes transformed the ways teachers ana- Pearson and his collaborative work with students and col-
lyzed children’s oral reading performance and retellings leagues (e.g., Fielding & Pearson, 1994; Hansen & Pearson,
of what they read (K. Goodman, 1967,1969; Goodman & 1983; Pearson & Dole, 1987; Pearson, Hiebert, & Kamil,
Goodman, 1977). Among their contributions to reading 2007; Pearson & Johnston, 1982; Pearson, 1985; Raphael &
and diagnostic practices are the value of miscue analyses, Pearson, 1985; Valencia & Pearson, 1988) have significantly
retellings, and readers’ self-evaluations of their own read- influenced reading and its diagnostic practices. His research
ing processes. Their work represented a new tradition in pertaining to prior knowledge and questioning helped us
reading diagnosis. Prior to the Goodmans’ work, children’s to better understand the complex nature of comprehension.
oral reading was assessed primarily according to word That is, a learner’s poor comprehension may reflect many
recognition accuracy and frequency of types of errors issues from not understanding what questions are asking
(e.g., omissions), and comprehension was assessed through (Raphael & Au, 2005) to limited background knowledge.
teacher questioning rather than first eliciting children’s re- As a result of his work, most published inventories (e.g.,
tells of what read. More recently the Retrospective Miscue Johns, 2008) now include protocols for assessing prior
Analysis has actively involved students in self-evaluation knowledge so that children’s performance on both familiar
and discussion of their own oral reading miscues (Y. Good- and unfamiliar topics can be assessed. Pearson’s research
man, 1996). The Goodmans highlighted the importance of pertaining to questioning helped us see how explicit, im-
looking at the syntactic and semantic quality of children’s plicit and scriptal information represents three different
mispronunciations as miscues and language strategies rather facets of overall comprehension (Pearson & Dole, 1987),
than as random mistakes associated with symbol-to-sound and he reminded us that comprehension assessment is a
association difficulties. very complex process.
Clay’s (1985, 1987, 1993a, 1993b) contributions to
emergent reading and early intervention for children with Federal Legislation and Its Effects on Reading’s Diagnos-
reading difficulties have been momentous in their effects tic Traditions Although the federal government has at-
on how young children are assessed. Prior to her research, tempted to improve literacy learning throughout the country,
schools assessed children’s early reading with norm-refer- the complexity of reading has not been incorporated into its
enced readiness tests containing question items often having legislation. This is particularly true with NCLB legislation
little to do with reading, such as knowledge of numbers, that has brought about an overemphasis on children’s per-
shapes, colors, gross and fine motor skills. In addition, formance on norm-referenced testing. Although such testing
schools typically waited several years before providing is seemingly practical and efficient in determining whether
intervention services for children encountering difficulty schools and their teachers are successful in helping children
learning to read. Clay’s work dramatically changed how learn to read, it has produced a narrowing of diagnostic
early reading was viewed, and her observational assessment practices; students’ performance on a single high-stakes
battery became a new tradition in the diagnosis of young test oversimplifies assessment because multiple measures
children having difficulty learning to read. of students’ oral and silent reading of different texts are
Instead of looking at prerequisites for learning to read as needed to be informative for teachers (Coyne, Kame’enui,
consisting of certain levels of intelligence and fixed matu- & Simmons, 2001; Snyder, Caccamise & Wise, 2005).
rational stages, Clay re-conceptualized early reading as an There is great variability in how children read (Lipson
emergent development in which children were always in & Wixson, 1986), depending on their interest in the topic,
the process of becoming readers and writers, providing they the difficulty of the text and task required. Consequently, it
were in contact with print in meaningful ways. Her promis- is highly unlikely that a norm-referenced test, particularly
ing early intervention research, as seen in Reading Recov- a group test, provides useful information to teachers about
ery, demonstrated the value of intensive early intervention children’s underlying reading processes. While there have
services by highly trained teachers rather than waiting until been admonitions against over-relying on norm-referenced
ineffective reading behaviors were well established. Clay’s assessments (e.g., Fiene & McMahon, 2007) and warnings
research has brought about substantive changes in the ways against 1 minute assessments (Goodman, 2006), such cau-
intervention programs have been implemented particularly tions have largely been ignored in governmental policies.
in regard to the importance of early intervention. Her recom- Many of these quick curriculum-based measures, such
mendations for precise observations of children’s reading as assessing children’s oral reading accuracy and rates,
behaviors over time, the specificity and importance of book originated from special education’s interest in data-based
leveling, the comprehensiveness of rich book introductions, instruction (e.g., Deno, 1985; Deno & Fuchs, 1987), but
the use of a consistent lesson structure, and the need to focus these same measures have devalued much of what we have
children’s attention to the details of print transformed old learned about comprehension and the richness and complex-
and ineffective readiness models of reading. In addition to ity of the reading process (Reidel, 2007). Instead of viewing
these many contributions, Clay’s work (1987) foreshadowed reading as a constructive activity involving the processing
recent Response to Intervention (RtI) legislation when she of cognitive, linguistic, and social sources of information,
argued that children’s reading difficulties are often sustained these curriculum-based measures have oversimplified the
and aggravated by inadequate instruction. reading process by having students read benchmark texts to
168 Kathleen A. Gormley and Peter McDermott

assess word recognition accuracy, rate and simple measures Social systems—such as rich or poor communities, White
of comprehension. or Black neighborhoods, professional or working-class
Response to Intervention is the latest outgrowth of backgrounds—are all factors that influence student reading.
NCLB, and it has already impacted reading’s diagnostic tra- Cultural issues—such as relationships that are constructed
ditions and the assumptions about the etiology of children’s between teachers and their students, teachers’ expectations
reading difficulties. In the 1960s public policy, as seen in regarding student learning, students’ motivation to succeed,
ESEA legislation, associated reading disability with pov- and school-to-home connections—further affect students’
erty and cultural disadvantageness. In 1975 the Education reading performances in school.
of All Handicapped Children Act (1975) shifted the focus Many students have been misdiagnosed and mislabeled
from children’s sociocultural environments as the associ- because diagnosticians have not considered sociocultural
ated cause of reading difficulty to children’s psychological issues affecting their reading development (McDermott,
processing of text (McGill-Franzen, 1987). The significance 2004). Often, the cognitive and linguistic strengths children
of RtI is that it represents a change in thoughts about the bring to school are unrecognized by monolingual diagnos-
etiology of reading difficulty because it encourages schools ticians who hold middle-class views about language and
to examine the quality of instruction children receive before culture. In particular, assessment, which is based on the
identifying them as disabled. experiences and views of the dominant social groups, places
The effect of RtI on reading diagnosis has the potential to low-income African American, Latino, and other minority
be quite profound. Although still relatively new to schools, children at a decided disadvantage in terms of reading. For
RtI is influencing reading’s diagnostic traditions because example, assessment tasks relying on standard English may
of its focus on the quality of instruction children receive over-identify dialect speakers as having reading difficulties
and demonstration over time that instruction, which must when the issue actually lies with language differences rather
be scientifically based, is improving student learning (Al- than difficulties in oral reading skills or comprehension
lington, 2009; Fuchs & Fuchs, 2006; Fuchs & Fuchs, 2008; strategies (Weber, 1968, 1973). These dialectal mismatches
Mesmer & Mesmer, 2008; Vaughn & Fuchs, 2003; Vaughn, may receive diagnostic/instructional attention when in fact
Linan-Thompson, & Hickman, 2003). Our concern is that they represent learners’ language patterns and not actual
what is easily measured may not represent the richness of reading difficulties. The absence of sociocultural theory
the reading process, particularly that of comprehension. in diagnosis has meant that children from minority back-
Quick and easy seems to be the guise for most RtI measures grounds are far more likely to be diagnosed with reading
(e.g., accuracy and reading rate), and we agree with Mesmer problems, labeled as having learning disabilities, and even
and Mesmer (2008) in questioning whether such measures retained in school than children from White middle-class
capture the complexity of learners’ reading vocabulary and backgrounds (Artiles, 2003).
comprehension. Norm-referenced, standardized testing is a particularly
The politics of education in the beginning of the 21st troublesome area in reading diagnosis for children from
century has affirmed norm-referenced testing results as sociocultural backgrounds that differ from the domi-
the gold standard for elementary schools. This emphasis nant society. Tests privilege students who have cultural
on norm-referenced testing has lessened our understand- familiarity with the passage topics and vocabulary, and
ing about what children know about reading and how their students who lack the same prior knowledge face greater
teachers might help them read better (Lipson & Wixson, challenge in answering the same test items; these students
2009). Recent RtI legislation offers potential for the use may answer the test items incorrectly because of a lack
of more formative and on-going measures of children’s of experience with the topic rather than then having a
reading, but as of yet it is unclear whether such formative difficulty in their reading skills (Banks, 2006; Freedle,
measures will be gathered. 2003; Moore, 1996). Sometimes children are unable to
correctly answer test items because they misconstrue the
social assumptions applied in the questions even when they
Sociocultural Research and Its Contributions to
have the knowledge to correctly answer them (Cicourel,
Diagnosis Theory
1974; Moore, 1996). Shannon (1998) argues that most
There is a wealth of research about the sociocultural influ- standardized, norm-referenced reading tests “…hide the
ences on learning to read (e.g., Delpit, 1995; Heath, 1983; social construction of privilege behind a cloud of scientific
Ladson-Billings, 1994; Willis, 1995). Despite the plethora objectivity” (p. 75).
of literature on the topic diagnosticians have treated all Diagnosticians often observe children’s interactions
students the same regardless of their sociocultural back- during reading instruction. Yet, observations of students’
grounds. classroom interactions can easily be misinterpreted when
Reading diagnosis is generally viewed as free of outside there are sociocultural differences between teachers and
influences. Yet, there are convincing arguments to the con- their students (Cazden, 2001). Language skills and pat-
trary. Johnston (1997) and Johnston and Costello (2005) terns and styles of speaking that are successful at home
explain that a reading assessment is actually influenced by do not automatically translate to success into school (Au
many of the same factors that occur in everyday interactions. & Mason, 1981; Delpit, 1995; Health, 1983). Everyday
 Traditions of Diagnosis 169

school or classroom events can even be interpreted differ- overdependence on testing to assess children’s reading
ently depending on students’ race and ethnicity (Willis, performance. Norm-referenced testing, although it may
1995). contribute, does not constitute a reading diagnosis because
Students’ life experiences affect the kinds of informa- these tests are unlikely to identify students’ reading levels,
tion they bring to school and their motivation to read. Yet, skills, strategies, or motivation to read.
schools privilege middle-class knowledge, and teachers Contextual effects on children’s reading are well estab-
are rarely aware of the richness of the life experiences lished in the research literature, but children are typically
children from minority communities bring to school and diagnosed as if reading were context free. Children from
how they can be incorporated into their lessons (Moll, low-income minority and multilingual backgrounds, in
Amanti, Neff, & Gonzalez, 1992). Furthermore, students’ particular, have been the unfortunate recipients of mis-
motivation to read is affected by their cultural backgrounds diagnosis; all too often diagnosticians misunderstand
and ethnicities (Fordham & Ogbu, 1986). Some students the interplay between children’s linguistic and cognitive
may actively decide to under-perform in school so that processes in reading with the social and cultural contexts
they do not alienate themselves from peers who do not in which they live.
value academic knowledge (Ogbu, 1995). Other students Reading’s diagnostic traditions have been slow to change
may see little value in reading because classroom materials with the growth of the digital technologies. Yet, today many
do not tie to their life experiences and perceptions of the children read on computer screens as much if not more than
world (Tatum, 2008). Yet, we do not see any evidence of with conventional printed texts. Diagnostic practices have
students’ life experiences having bearing on the diagnostic not yet addressed children’s use of the digital literacies,
approaches used with pupils. and many reading teachers have less knowledge of them
Sociocultural research pertaining to children’s language, than the children they teach. Reading diagnosis needs to
funds of knowledge, ways of speaking, and understandings catch-up and develop protocols for assessing children’s use
about the relationships between home and school should of the digital literacies if diagnoses are to be pertinent and
have informed our diagnostic practices—but they have not. education is to be relevant.
There are no simple answers to how this might be done, but The purpose of diagnosis is to inform teaching and im-
at this point the consideration of sociocultural information prove student learning, but we have lost our way. Schools
has been strikingly absent in the diagnosis of students’ have gone astray in their over emphasis on and faith in
reading achievement. norm-referenced testing. Diagnosticians should be assessing
There should be an emphasis in teachers’ professional the processes students use for decoding and constructing
development to recognize that almost all children, regard- meaning as well as learning what motivates them to read.
less of the diversity of their sociocultural backgrounds, Recent attention to what matters in student learning has been
possess the cognitive and linguistic abilities for learning to misdirected. It is now common for diagnosticians to spend
read well. Diagnostic practices need to describe and explain more time analyzing students’ performance on isolated ele-
the contexts in which children can and will succeed in read- ments of reading, such as on phonemic awareness activities
ing, rather than only focusing on what they do not know or and word recognition accuracy, than developing an under-
how their performance contrasts with a standard. The sooner standing of children’s skills and strategies with connected
diagnostic practices align with this research the better. discourse. Certainly there is hope that schools will move
past such recent traditions and improve their diagnosis of
students with reading difficulties. The recent recommenda-
Conclusion
tions for teachers’ on-going professional development, as
Throughout this chapter we identified and described suc- seen in national teaching standards (NCATE/IRA), are a
cessive changes in reading diagnostic traditions. Theoretical welcome change for connecting classroom practices with
shifts from oral reading at the beginning of the 20th century, research and diagnosis. The current use of literacy coaches
to silent in the 1930s, then to a focus on phonics in the has the potential to positively impact classroom teachers’
1960s, and eventually to an understanding of the interactive professional development, and the need for knowledgeable
and constructive nature of reading during the 1980s have and skilled reading diagnosticians is increasingly important
affected diagnostic protocols. Clay, the Goodmans, and in RtI programs.
Pearson have informed our understanding of the reading Reading diagnosis needs to be more educationally rel-
process and brought about important effects on reading’s evant, and it must respond more quickly and thoughtfully
diagnostic traditions, particularly in the assessment of to change, particularly at incorporating the digital technolo-
emergent readers, the analysis of children’s oral miscues gies and connecting students’ out-of-school experiences
and the measurement of text comprehension. to classroom learning. Diagnosticians, who embrace and
Some issues in reading diagnosis, such as the use of synthesize the findings from research into good practice,
norm-referenced testing and the role of phonics, have are critical for preparing all students, including those with
brought undue influence on how children are diagnosed in difficulties in reading and those from historically under-
schools. The federal government, especially in its NCLB represented groups, for full and successful participation in
regulations, has been primarily responsible for the current school and society.
170 Kathleen A. Gormley and Peter McDermott

References Deno, S. L. (1985). Curriculum-based measurement: The emerging alter-

native. Exceptional Children, 52, 219–232.
Adams, M. (1990). Beginning to read: Thinking and learning about print. Deno, S. L., & Fuchs, L. S. (1987). Developing curriculum-based mea-
Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. surement systems for data-based special education problem solving.
Afflerbach, P. (2007a). Best practices in literacy assessment. In Gambrell, Focus on Exceptional Children, 19(8), 1–16.
L. B., Morrow, L. M., & Pressley, M. (Eds.), Best practices in literacy DeVries, B. A. (2004). Literacy assessment and intervention in the elemen-
instruction (pp. 264–282). New York: Guilford. tary classroom. Scottsdale, AZ: Holcomb Hathaway.
Afflerbach, P. (2007b). Understanding and using reading assessment K-12. Dunn, L. M. (1968). Special education for the mildly retarded: Is much
Newark, DE: International Reading Association. of it justifiable? Exceptional Children, 13(2), 5–22.
Allington, R. L. (2009). What really matters in response to intervention: Education of All Handicapped Children Act. (1975). Public Law 94-142
Research-based designs. Boston: Pearson/Allyn & Bacon. (S. 6).
Allington, R. L., & McGill-Franzen, A. (1989). School response to reading Ehri, L. C. (1991). Development of the ability to read words. In R. Barr, M.
failure: Chapter 1 and special education students in grades 2, 4, and L. Kamil, P. Mosenthal, & P. D. Pearson (Eds.), Handbook of reading
8. Elementary School Journal, 89, 529–542. research (Vol. 2, pp. 383–417). New York: Longman.
Anderson, R. C., & Pearson, P. D. (1984). A schema-theoretic view of basic Ehri, L. C., & McCormick, S. (1998). Phases of word learning: Implica-
processes in reading comprehension. In P. D. Pearson (Ed.), Handbook tions for instruction with delayed and disabled readers. Reading &
of reading research (pp. 255–291). New York: Longman. Writing Quarterly, 14, 135–164.
Artiles, A. J. (2003). Special education’s changing identity: Paradoxes Fielding, L., & Pearson, P. D. (1994). Reading comprehension: What
and dilemmas in view of culture and space. Harvard Educational works. Educational Leadership, 51(5), 62–68.
Review, 73(2), 164–202. Fiene, J., & McMahon, S. (2007). Assessing comprehension: A classroom-
Au, K., & Mason, J. M. (1981). Social organizational factors in learning to based process. The Reading Teacher, 60(5), 406–416.
read: The balance of rights hypothesis. Reading Research Quarterly, Flesch, R. (1955). Why Johnny can’t read. New York: Harper & Row.
17, 115–152. Fordham, C., & Ogbu, J. (1986). Black school success: Coping with the
Banks, J. (2006). A comprehensive framework for evaluating hypotheses burden of “acting White.” The Urban Review, 28, 176–208.
about cultural bias in educational testing. Applied Measures in Educa- Fountas, I. C., & Pinnell, G. S. (1996). Guided reading: Good first teaching
tion, 19(2), 115–132. for all children. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.
Bell, S. M., & McCallum, R. S. (2008). Handbook of reading assessment. Freedle, R. O. (2003). Correcting the SAT’s ethnic and social-class bias:
Boston: Pearson/Allyn & Bacon. A method of reestimating SAT scores. Harvard Educational Review,
Betts, E. A. (1946). Foundations of reading instruction. New York: 73(1), 1–44.
American Book. Fuchs, D., & Fuchs, L. S. (2006). Introduction to response to interven-
Bloom, B. (1965). Taxonomy of educational objectives: The classification tion: What, why, and how valid is it? Reading Research Quarterly,
of educational goals. New York: David McKay. 41(1), 93–99.
Bond, G. L., & Dykstra, R. (1967). The cooperative research program Fuchs, L. S., & Fuchs, D. (2008). Progress monitoring within a multi-tiered
in first-grade reading instruction. Reading Research Quarterly, 2, prevention system: Best practices. In J. Grimes & A. Thomas (Eds.),
5–141. Best practices in school psychology (pp. 2147–2164). Bethesda, MD:
Brown, A., & Day, J. (1983). Macrorules for summarizing text: The National Association of School Psychologists.
development of expertise. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Garner, R. (1987). Metacognition and reading comprehension. Norwood,
Behavior, 22, 1–14. NJ: Erlbaum.
Brown, J. (1992). The definition of a profession: The authority of meta- Good, R. H., Kaminski, R. A., Smith, S. Laimon, D., & Dill, S. (2002).
phor in the history of intelligence testing (1890–1930). Princeton, NJ: Dynamic indicators of basic early literacy skills (6th ed.). Eugene, OR:
Princeton University Press. Institute for the Development of Educational Achievement. Retrieved
Cazden, C. (2001). Classroom discourse: The language of teaching and April 15, 2008, from http://dibels.uoregon.edu
learning. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann. Goodman, K. S. (1967). Reading: A psycholinguistic guessing game.
Chall, J. (1967). Learning to read: The great debate. New York: McGraw- Journal of the Reading Specialist, 6, 125–135.
Hill. Goodman, K. S. (1969). Analysis of reading miscues: Applied psycholin-
Chappuis, S., & Chappuis, J. (2007). The best value in formative assess- guistics. Reading Research Quarterly, 5, 9–30.
ment. Educational Leadership, 65(4), 14–19. Goodman, K. S. (2006). The truth about DIBELS: What it is, what it does.
Chomsky, C. C. (1978). When you still can’t read in third grade after Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.
decoding, what? In S. J. Samuels (Ed.), What research has to say Goodman, K. S., & Goodman, Y. M. (1977). Learning about psycholin-
about reading instruction (pp. 13–30). Newark, DE: International guistic processes by analyzing oral reading. Harvard Educational
Reading Association. Review, 47, 313–333.
Cicourel, A. (1974). Language use and school performance. New York: Goodman, Y. M. (1996). Revaluing readers while readers revalue them-
Academic Press. selves: Retrospective Miscue Analysis. The Reading Teacher, 49(8),
Clay, M. M. (1985). The early detection of reading difficulties (3rd ed.) 600–609.
Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann. Gray, W. S. (1916). Standardized oral reading paragraphs. Bloomington,
Clay, M. M. (1987). Learning to be learning disabled. New Zealand Journal IL: Bloomington Public Schools.
of Educational Studies, 22(2), 155–173. Hansen, J., & Pearson, P.D. (1983). An instructional study: Improving
Clay, M. M. (1993a). An observational survey of early literacy achieve- the inferential comprehension of good and poor fourth-grade readers.
ment. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann. Journal of Educational Psychology, 75(6), 821–829.
Clay, M. M. (1993b). Reading Recovery: A guidebook for teachers in Heath, S. B. (1983). Ways with words: Language, life, and work in communi-
training. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann. ties and classrooms. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
Coyne, M. D., Kame’enui, E. J., & Simmons, D. C. (2001). Prevention and Hollenbeck, A. F. (2007). From IDEA to implementation: A discussion
intervention in beginning reading: Two complex systems. Learning of foundational and future responsiveness-to-intervention research.
Disabilities Research & Practice, 16(2), 62–73. Learning Disabilities Research & Practice, 22(2), 137–146.
Deford, D. E. (1985). Validating the construct of theoretical orientation in Hunt, N., & Marshall, K. (2002). Exceptional children and youth (3rd ed.)
reading instruction. Reading Research Quarterly, 20(3), 351–367. Boston: Houghton Mifflin.
Delpit, L. (1995). Other people’s children: Cultural conflict in the class- Individuals with Disabilities Education Improvement Act. (2004) P.L.
room. New York: New Press. 108-446
 Traditions of Diagnosis 171

International Reading Association. (2006). A call to action and a frame- Ogbu, J. (1995). Literacy and black Americans: Comparative perspec-
work for change: IRA’s position on NCLB reform. Retrieved November tives. In V. Gadsden & D. A. Wagner (Eds.), Literacy among African-
1, 2008, from http://www.reading.org/publications/reading_today/ American Youth: Issues in learning, teaching, and schooling (pp.
samples/RTY-0704-monitoring.html 83–100). Cresskill, NJ: Hampton Press.
Johns, J. L. (2008). Basic reading inventory (10th ed.). Dubuque, IA: Paris, S. G., & Carpenter, R. D. (2003). FAQ’s about IRIs. The Reading
Kendall/Hunt. Teacher, 56(6), 578–581.
Johnston, P. (1997). Knowing literacy: Constructive literacy assessment. Paris, S. G., & Jacobs, J. E. (1984). The benefits of informed instruction
York, ME: Stenhouse. for children’s reading awareness and comprehension skills. Child
Johnston, P., & Costello, P. (2005). Principles of literacy assessment. Development, 55, 2083–2093.
Reading Research Quarterly, 40(2), 256–267. Pearson, P. D. (1985) The changing face of reading comprehension instruc-
Kintsch, W., & van Dijk, T.A. (1978). Toward a model of discourse tion. The Reading Teacher, 38(8), 724–738.
comprehension and production. Psychological Review, 85, 363–375. Pearson, P. D., & Dole, J. (1987). Explicit comprehension instruction:
Klauda, S. L., & Guthrie, J. (2008). Relationship of three components of Review of research and a new conceptionalization of comprehension.
fluency to reading comprehension. Journal of Educational Psychol- Elementary School Journal, 88(2), 151–165.
ogy, 100, 310–321. Pearson, P. D., & Hamm, D. N. (2005). The history of reading compre-
LaBerge, D., & Samuels, S. J. (1974). Towards a theory of automatic in- hension assessment. In S. G. Paris & S. A. Stahl (Eds.), Children’s
formation processing in reading. Cognitive Psychology, 6, 293–323. reading comprehension and assessment (pp. 13–70). Mahwah, NJ:
Ladson-Billings, G. (1994). The dreamkeepers: Successful teachers of Erlbaum.
African American children. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Pearson, P. D., Hiebert, E. H., & Kamil, M .L. (2007). Vocabulary assess-
Lipsky, D. K., & Gartner, A. (1996). Inclusion, school restructuring, and ment: What we know and what we need to learn. Reading Research
the remaking of American society. Harvard Educational Review, Quarterly, 42(2), 282–296.
66(4), 762–797. Pearson, P. D., & Johnston, P. (1982). Prior knowledge, connectivity, and
Lipson, M. Y., & Wixson, K. K. (1986). Reading disability research: An the assessment of reading comprehension. Technical Report. No. 245.
interactionist perspective. Review of Educational Research, 6(1), ERIC Document Reproduction Service ED217402.
111–136. Pressley, M. (2002). Metacognition and self-regulated comprehension.
Lipson, M. Y., & Wixson, K. K. (2009). Assessment and instruction of In A. E. Farstrup, & S. Samuels (Eds.), What research has to say
reading and writing difficulties: An interactive approach (4th ed.). about reading instruction (pp. 291–309). Newark, DE: International
Boston: Pearson/Allyn & Bacon. Reading Association.
McCormick, S., & Braithwaite, J. (2008). Fifty years of remedial and Raphael, T., & Au, K. (2005). QAR: Enhancing comprehension and
clinical reading in the United States: A historical overview. In M. J. testing taking across grades and content areas. The Reading Teacher,
Fresch (Ed.), An essential history of current reading practices (pp. 59(3), 206–221.
157–185). Newark, DE: International Reading Association. Raphael, T., & Pearson, P. D. (1985). Increasing students’ awareness of
McDermott, R. (2004). Putting literacy in its place. Journal of Education, information for answering questions. American Educational Research
184(1), 11–20. Journal, 22(2), 217–235.
McGill-Franzen, A. (1987). Failure to learn to read: Formulating a policy Reidel, B. W. (2007). The relation between DIBELS, reading comprehen-
problem. Reading Research Quarterly, 22(4), 475–490. sion, and vocabulary in urban first-grade students. Reading Research
McGill-Franzen, A. (2000). The relationship between reading policy Quarterly, 42(4), 546–567.
and instruction: A recent history. Albany, NY: National Center on Rowe, D. W., & Rayford, L. (1987). Activating background knowledge
English Learning and Achievement. (Report 13004). Retrieved April in reading comprehension assessment. Reading Research Quarterly,
30, 2008, from http://cela.albany.edu/reports/mcgill/mcgill relation- 22(2), 160–176.
ship13004.pdf Schmitt, M. C. (1990). A questionnaire to measure children’s awareness of
McKenna, M. C., & Picard, M. (2006). Revisiting the role of miscue strategic reading processes. The Reading Teacher, 43(7), 338–340.
analysis in effective teaching. The Reading Teacher, 60(4), 378–380. Shannon, P. (1998). A selective social history of the uses of reading texts.
Mesmer, E. M., & Mesmer, H. A. (2008). Response to intervention (RTI): In S. Murphy, P. Shannon, P. Johnston, & J. Hansen (Eds.), Fragile
What teachers of reading need to know. The Reading Teacher, 62(4), evidence: A critique of reading assessment (pp. 75–88). Mahwah,
280–290. NJ: Erlbaum.
Miller, J., & Schwanenflugel, P. (2008). A longitudinal study of the de- Shaw, D., Dvorak, M.J., Bates, K. (2007). Promise and possibility - hope
velopment of reading prosody as a dimension of oral reading fluency for teacher education: Pre-service literacy instruction can have an
in early elementary school children. Reading Research Quarterly, impact. Reading Research and Instruction, 46(3), 223–254.
43(4), 336–354. Skiba, R. J., Poloni-Staudinger, L., Gallini, S., Simmons, A. B., & Feggins-
Moll, L. C., Amanti, C., Neff, D., & Gonzalez, N. (1992). Funds of knowl- Azziz, R. (2006). Disparate access: The disproportionality of African
edge in teaching: Using a qualitative approach to connect homes and American students with disabilities across educational environments.
classrooms. Theory into Practice, 31(2), 132–141. Exceptional Children, 72(4), 411–424.
Monahan, T. (1998). The rise of standardized educational testing in Smith, F. (1978). Understanding reading: A psycholinguistic analysis
the United States: A bibliographic overview. Troy, NY: Rensselaer of reading and learning to read. New York: Holt, Rinehart and
Polytechnic Institute. Winston.
Moore, A. (1996). Assessing young readers: Questions of culture and Snyder, L., Caccamise, D., & Wise, B. (2005). Reading comprehension’s
ability. Language Arts, 73(5), 306–317. new look: Influences of theory and technology on practice. Topics in
National Commission on Excellence in Education. (1983). Retrieved May Language Disorders, 25(1), 33–50.
29, 2008, from http://www.ed.gov/pubs/NatAtRisk/risk/html Stainback, W., & Stainback, S. (1984). A rationale for the merger of special
National Institute of Child Health and Human Development. (2000). Report and regular education. Exceptional Children, 51, 102–111.
of the National Reading Panel. Teaching children to read: An evidence- Stein, N. L., & Glenn, C. G. (1979). An analysis of story comprehension
based assessment of the scientific research literature on reading and its in elementary school children. In R. O. Freedle (Ed.), New directions
implications for reading instruction. (NIH Publication No. 00-4769). in discourse processing: Advances in discourse processing (Vol. 2,
Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office. pp. 53–120). Norwood, NJ: Ablex.
Nilsson, N. L. (2008). A critical analysis of eight informal reading inven- Tatum, A. (2008). Toward a more anatomically complete model of literacy
tories. The Reading Teacher, 61(7), 526–536. instruction: A focus on African American male adolescents and texts.
No Child Left Behind Act of 2001. (2002), Pub. L. No.107-110, 115 Harvard Educational Review, 78(1), 155–180.
Stat. 1425 USDE. (2007). Twenty-five years of progress in educating children with
172 Kathleen A. Gormley and Peter McDermott

disabilities through IDEA. Retrieved May 21, 2008 from http://www. Willis, I. A. (1995). Reading the world of school literacy: Contextualizing
ed.gov/policy/speced/leg/idea/history.pdf the experience of a young African American male. Harvard Educa-
Valencia, S. W., & Pearson, P. D. (1988). Principles for classroom assess- tional Review, 65(1), 30–49.
ment. Remedial and Special Education, 9(1), 26–35. Willis, I. A. (2008). Reading comprehension research and testing in the
Vaughn, S., & Fuchs, L. S. (2003). Redefining learning disabilities as in- US: Undercurrents of race, class, and power in the struggle for mean-
adequate response to instruction: The promise and potential problems. ing. New York: Erlbaum.
Learning Disabilities Research & Practice, 18(3), 137–146. Yopp, H. (1995). A test for assessing phonemic awareness in young chil-
Vaughn, S., Linan-Thompson, S., & Hickman, P. (2003). Response to dren. The Reading Teacher, 49(1), 20–30.
instruction as a means of identifying students with reading/learning Yopp, H., & Yopp, R. (2000). Supporting phonemic awareness develop-
disabilities. Exceptional Children, 69(4), 391–409. ment in the classroom. The Reading Teacher, 54(2), 130–143.
Walpole, S., & McKenna, M. C. (2006). The role of information reading Ysseldyke, J. E., Thurlow, M. L., Mecklenburg, C., & Graden, J. (1984).
inventories in assessing word recognition. The Reading Teacher, 59, Opportunity to learn for regular and special education students during
592–594. reading instruction. Remedial and Special Education, 5, 29–37.
Weber, R. (1968). The study of oral reading errors. A survey of the litera- Zhang, D., & Katsiyannis, A. (2002). Minority representation in special
ture. Reading Research Quarterly, 68(4), 96–119. education: A persistent challenge. Remedial and Special Education,
Weber, R. (1973). Dialect differences in oral reading: An analysis of errors. 23(3), 180–187.
In J. L. Laffey & R. Shuy (Eds.), Language differences do they inter-
fere? (pp. 47–62). Newark, DE: International Reading Association.
 16
Reading Fluency
What Is It and How Should It Be Measured?
S. J. ALT AND S. JAY SAMUELS
University of Minnesota

According to Reading Today (Cassidy and Cassidy, A Bit of History

2003/2004), reading fluency is a very hot topic. Though
reading fluency has experienced fluctuating periods of high It could be said that the birth of reading fluency occurred
and low status over the years, it is currently experiencing a with the 1908 publication of Edmund Huey’s book, The
place of prominence in the classroom. This may be attrib- Psychology and Pedagogy of Reading, a book so instru-
uted to the shocking finding published by the NAEP (Daane, mental in the study of reading fluency that it was reissued
Campbell, Grigg, Goodman, & Oranje, 2005) that nearly 60 years later and has just been reissued a second time,
half of the fourth-grade students studied were not fluent in roughly 100 years after its original publication. There are
reading grade-level materials, and to two other prestigious two possible reasons for the book’s popularity first in 1908,
reports that emphasized the need for reading fluency to be again in 1968, and once again in 2009. One reason may be
an important goal of reading curriculums (NRC as reported that the original publication occurred before the paradigm
in Snow, Burns, & Griffin, 1998), and the finding that the of behaviorism and the reissuings have occurred again as
method of repeated reading is an effective method for the paradigm shifted from behaviorism to cognitivism and
improving word recognition, fluency, and comprehension a renewed desire to study cognitive aspects of reading (like
across grade levels (National Reading Panel, 2000). As comprehension) occurred. The second and probably primary
a result of these reports, reading fluency has gained new reason for the book’s stamina may be attributed to Huey’s
recognition as an essential element of reading programs, naissance of automaticity theory. A theory instrumental to
especially for students who struggle with reading (Alling- the findings of Samuels, LaBerge, & Bremer (1978) that
ton, 2008; Hudson, Lane, & Pullen, 2005). beginning readers become fluent readers in stages: first read-
As an extension of reading fluency’s new found notoriety, ing by letters, then by groups of letters or syllables, then by
both its definition and its measurement have fallen under whole words, and eventually whole sentences.
intense scrutiny. Now that reading fluency has been added With the re-emerging interest in reading fluency, reading
to most, if not all, reading programs, a plethora of develop- curriculums came under attack (Goodman & Goodman,
mental methods and interventions have flooded the school 1979; Smith, 1973), and reading wars between whole
systems, along with a number of mass marketers of testing language groups, skills based groups, and advocates of
products claiming to have assessments measuring reading a balanced approach. It is during this time period that
fluency. At issue here then is the question of whether or not the University of Minnesota started its research institute,
these assessments really assess reading fluency. To answer The Human Learning Center, and LaBerge and Samuels
this question we must first answer the basic question of, developed their theory of reading—a theory focusing on
what is reading fluency? the development of automaticity in word recognition. This
To this end, our goal is twofold: (a) to compose a defini- theory distinguishes a fluent reader from a non-fluent reader
tion of reading fluency based on automaticity theory. This based on automaticity. In other words, if a student is not
is important because definitions are critical in determining automatic at word recognition then the important job of
how a construct should be measured; and (b) to explore the reading for meaning has to be done in two stages. During
question of how fluency should be measured, because even the first stage the student’s attention is on the task of decod-
though reading fluency is indeed a hot topic today, due to ing the words in the text, and because the word recognition
existing conflicting definitions, it is also a battleground in task is not automatic all of the available cognitive resources
terms of how best to measure it. are being used for this task. During the second stage the

173
174 S. J. Alt and S. Jay Samuels

student switches his or her attention and cognitive resources a car, talk, and change the radio station at the same time,
to comprehension. This two-step process is slow and places and you’d be correct. For example, novice drivers cannot
a heavy demand on the memory systems. However, over a do these things as well as seasoned drivers. So, what is
period of time and with a lot of practice reading books in the difference between the novice driver and the seasoned
the student’s zone of reading ability or Zone of Proximal driver? Automaticity. The seasoned driver has developed
Development (ZPD) (Vygotsky, 1978, 1986), the student automaticity in the skills needed to drive and therefore has
becomes automatic at the decoding task. With the decod- no interference between the automatic process (driving)
ing task now being automatic, the two tasks of decoding and other concurrent activities (talking and changing the
and comprehension can be done together (LaBerge and radio station).
Samuels, 1974). What does this mean in terms of a definition for reading
While LaBerge and Samuels focused on how the au- fluency? It has a great deal to do with definitions that posit
tomatic decoding of words facilitated comprehension, decoding is occurring at the automatic level. This is because
Schreiber (1980, 1987) took a linguistic approach. He with little effort or attention being spent on decoding words,
reasoned that the route to fluency was brought about by the bulk of attention can be focused on comprehension.
students learning to parse a text (automatically) into its An example can be seen in a study by Daneman and Car-
linguistic units such as a noun phrase and verb phrase. penter (1983) where children are read stories that contain
Accordingly, fluent readers were able to use punctuation inconsistencies. The inconsistencies were either explained
to rapidly determine where to place emphasis and separate right away (at the time the inconsistencies occurred in the
text into grammatical units. For example, when we see a story) or the explanation was delayed and occurred after
question mark at the end of a sentence our voices change a number of intervening sentences. When clarification oc-
in tone and emphasis to indicate we are asking a question curs immediately (at the time of the inconsistency), there
and not making a statement. When breaking a text into was no difference between the poor comprehenders and
linguistic units occurs effortlessly, it frees up cognitive good comprehenders groups. However, if there are several
resources for comprehension. Others (i.e., Thurlow & van sentences interposed between the inconsistencies and the
den Broek, 1997) have extended the idea to be as reading clarification, poor comprehenders were much less likely
skills increase, more and more of the sub-skills become to understand the text. Therefore, Daneman and Carpen-
automatic. This has lead to the recent reconceptualization ter concluded that the crucial difference between the two
of what can be automatic in reading that goes beyond word groups is in their working memory capacity—one group
identification to include components of the comprehension (good comprehenders) had developed to the automatic
process as well, specifically that the inferential process can level freeing up working memory for comprehension and
become automatic. the other group (poor comprehenders) did not.
Regardless of whether the definition incorporates the
simultaneous decoding and comprehension of text or simply
Automaticity Theory’s Role
addresses its secondary characteristics (speed, accuracy,
Why automaticity—because reading is a complex skill that and prosody), both rely on the assumption that attentional
requires the coordination of many sub-processes within a capacity is limited. Therefore, quick and effortless word
very short period of time (less than .225 msec.). Therefore, identification is important, and the multi-task functioning of
if each sub-process requires attention to get it done, perfor- the fluent reader is made possible by the reduced cognitive
mance of the complex skill will be impossible because the demands needed for word recognition and other reading
capacity of attention will be exceeded. However, if enough processes, thus freeing cognitive resources for other func-
of the processing component sub-skills become automatic, tions, such as drawing inferences (NICHD Pub. No. 00-4769
then the load on attention will be within tolerable limits and in National Reading Panel, 2000). Automaticity theory lends
the skill can be successfully performed. Therefore getting credence to the NICHD and the NRP because, according to
students to decode at an automatic level permits allocation automaticity theory, a behavior or skill is automatic when
of attention to comprehension so the two processes can two or more complex activities can be done at the same time.
occur at the same time. In other words, when a given stimulus is repeatedly paired
There are any number of empirical research findings that with the same response, it progressively appears to take less
support the idea that people are capable of doing two things and less attentional resources, and to interfere less and less
at the same time (Allport, Antonis, & Reynolds, 1972; with other concurrent tasks (Baddeley, 1990).
Spelke, Hirst, & Neisser, 1976). Intuitively we know this to One of the most famous examples of automaticity can
be true as well. How else would we be able to drive a car, be seen in the Stroop task (Stroop, 1935; Cohen, Dunbar,
talk, and change the radio station all at the same time? How & McClelland, 1990). In this task, words that name colors
is it that we can walk and talk at the same time? Perhaps (e.g., red, green, blue) are printed in different colors. For
the answer for it lies in the fact that these actions require example, the word red printed in green ink or the word
the use of different cognitive sub-skills and therefore, green printed in red ink is shown to a participant, and the
there is no conflict between the resources required to carry task is for the participant to name the color that the word
them out. Or, you might argue that not everyone can drive is printed in, while ignoring the actual word. John Ridley
 Reading Fluency 175

Stroop (1935) found that it took longer for a fluent reader something approaching a verbatim representation of much
to name the color that the word was printed in, than a non- of a given sentence, while dumping that representation as
fluent reader. This was because a fluent reader’s automatic they move from one sentence to the next. Since this involves
reading processes identify the word almost immediately, carrying information over from one sentence to the next,
and this interferes with naming the color in which the word there must be some form of representation that is other
was printed. than a verbatim record. The quality of comprehension that
Since the mid-1970s when LaBerge and Samuels (1974) occurs will then heavily depend on the accuracy of these
presented their general theory of automatic information pro- representations and/or inferences.
cessing in reading, Shiffrin and Schneider (1977) addressed To further enhance our understanding of multiple
visual and memory search for letters and words, and Posner pathways available for reading words, we will investigate
(1978) addressed letter recognition. Both coming to the con- two possible routes for reading: the first is the grapheme
clusion and positing an expansion of Stroop’s interference to phoneme conversion route and the second is the visual
theory to include a multi-path and/or parallel processing lexicon through semantic route. The grapheme to phoneme
component. A position in agreement with LaBerge and conversion route begins with seeing the written word, pro-
Samuels (1974), whereby they state the visual processing of cessing it in the visual analysis system, sending it directly
words could take a variety of routes. Their model of visual to the grapheme phoneme conversion system, and then
memory shows that the following units could be used to having it go to the phonemic buffer before externalizing it
recognize a word: distinctive features, letters, letter groups as a spoken word—once seen the written word is processed
or spelling patterns, and the word itself. For skilled readers, through three stages before the word is spoken aloud. On
the micro-level sub-skills (e.g., knowing letter-sound rules, the other hand, the visual lexicon through semantic route
letter combinations, and the meanings of words and their (also) begins with seeing the written word and then proceeds
connections) became automatic. These units of recognition on to the following five stages; the visual analysis system,
could be processed either with the services of attention, the visual input lexicon, the semantic system, (comprehen-
as the beginning reader might use, or automatically, as a sion occurs between these two stages), the phonological
skilled reader might do. Logan (1988, 1991), in discussing output lexicon, and the phonemic level buffer before the
the LaBerge and Samuels’ model states that in addition to word is spoken aloud. The existence of these two routes
the shift in the size of the unit used in word recognition, explains why a students’ reading speed and accuracy can
there is also a strengthening of the connections between the surpass their comprehension in reading text. For example,
visual code and the phonological code. by training students to say words as quickly and accurately
While LaBerge and Samuels (1974) have traced the de- as possible (to the level of automaticity) does not necessarily
velopmental route from beginning to fluent reading in their mean the student is going to comprehend what they have
model, that is, from letter-by-letter identification leading to said. This is because by focusing on speed and accuracy
word recognition as a holistic process, they never attempted we may be forcing the use of the grapheme to phoneme
to explain the process whereby a word could be identified conversion route which bypasses the semantic system and
automatically. It took other researchers such as Logan phonological output lexicon where comprehension takes
(1997) and Stanovich (1990) to explain the mechanism place. Therefore, definitions of reading fluency that do not
whereby words could be identified with little attention and include comprehension may be implementing develop-
effort, and bring to the fore a memory phenomenon in which mental practices and assessments that merely measure the
disparate separate actions can be chunked and stored into student’s ability to “bark at text” (Samuels, 2007). Conse-
a single unit, as well as the idea of parallel processing and quently, though automaticity is a good thing for freeing up
multiple pathways available for the complex sub-processes working memory capacity so comprehension can occur,
of reading. Neurological studies of the phonological loop caution must be taken not to assume the visual lexicon
provide some clues into this phenomenon. Its association through semantic route is being taken without actually
with comprehension has been shown by the deficits in testing for comprehension.
comprehension that have occurred when heavy loads have The theory of automaticity and its relationship to begin-
been placed on the phonological store (Baddeley, 1990). ning and fluent readers can be further explained by the use of
For example, the process of overt or covert articulation fMRI to map reading sub-process. In the complex mapping
involves setting up and running speech motor programs. If of mental sub-processes, the researchers (Pihlajamaki et al.,
this sub-process has the function of maintaining items in 2000; Shaywitz, Mody, & Shaywitz, 2006) argue for the
the phonological store by refreshing (rehearsing) their fad- capacity of parallel processing. In a very complex system
ing traces, then the faster it can run, the more items will be comprised of a set of five subsystems (primary visual—
maintained and the longer the memory span. This is critical where decoding takes place, auditory, somatosensory,
to comprehension in reading text. Much of the activity that gustatory, and olfactory) each of which are connected to the
goes on during comprehension of a written text by a fluent Conceptual/Associative subsystem (where the phonological
reader depends only minimally on the sound characteristics loop resides and comprehension takes place), which itself is
of the material being read and is much more dependent on its in turn connected to each of the two motor output subsys-
meaning. Therefore, it would appear that students maintain tems (manual and vocal), and where all of these subsystems
176 S. J. Alt and S. Jay Samuels

are further interconnected to four additional subsystems at a time without phrasing, then his ability to comprehend
(hippocampal, basal ganglia, cerebellar, and amygdale); it is compromised. Further suggesting prosody coupled with
is the interconnectedness of these subsystems that permits speed and accuracy is evidence of comprehension. There-
the possibility of attaining automaticity and the by-passing fore, if a person reads with accuracy and prosody, but slowly
of some subsystems. In theory, when something is learned then no comprehension has taken place. Implicit in their
to automaticity it could conceivably enter the primary visual definition is that the articulation or enunciation of a word
subsystem, go directly to the hippocampus or amygdala (by- is directly related to knowing its meaning. For instance, if a
passing semantic operations in the Conceptual/Associative person can’t pronounce a word, then she doesn’t understand
subsystem altogether) and exit directly to the motor output it and if a person can pronounce a word she does understand
subsystem. In fact, this pathway has been shown to exist in it. A problem with this definition is that it is not always true.
studies of brain damaged patients. For example, Ellis and For example, there are individuals who know the meaning
Young (1988) found that patients who had damage to the of words but may not pronounce them correctly (perhaps
C/A (Conceptual/Associative Subsystems) while having the individuals have not used the word or heard it used in
intact VPI (Visual Perceptual Input) and VMO (Vocal Mo- conversation), and there are individuals who do not know
tor Output) were able to read without semantics or showed the meaning of words they can pronounce (they have heard it
word meaning deafness. In other words, they were able to before). The third camp consists of those who define reading
read without comprehension. fluency as the ability to simultaneously decode and com-
The further works of cognitive psychologists (Ackerman, prehend text (LaBerge & Samuels, 1974; NICHD Pub. No.
1987; Logan, 1988, 1991; Posner & Snyder, 1975; Shiffrin 00-4769 in NRP, 2000; Samuels, 2002, 2006, 2007; Wolf &
& Schneider, 1977) describe the characteristics of reading Katzir-Cohen, 2001). This approach relies on fluency being
fluency to be highly skilled and complex, and they agree a one-step process, something fluent readers do. It relies on
that the seemingly effortless automatic text processing skills automaticity theory and the belief that decoding can occur
required for reading are acquired gradually and as a result at an automatic level (fast and accurate), thereby leaving
of extended practice. This is because automatic processes working memory resources available for comprehension to
are fast and effortless (from the standpoint of allocation of occur at the same time.
cognitive resources), unitized (proceduralized) such that Though at first blush the three camp’s connotations may
they may not be easily altered by a subject’s conscious appear equivalent in that they contain secondary characteris-
control, and may allow for parallel operation with other tics of reading fluency (speed, accuracy, and prosody), they
information processing within and between tasks. Note are not. The reason they are not the same has to do with how
that when a person is automatic at decoding it allows for they deal with the issue of comprehension. The definitions
parallel processing and the person is able to perform several offered by the first two camps do not explicitly include a
tasks at the same time such as; decode words in a text, break comprehension component. One assumes speed and ac-
words into proper grammatical units, and comprehend. This curacy provides a bridge to comprehension. For example,
concept of parallel processing is essential to the definition if a listener is able to understand what the reader is read-
of fluency and to its valid measurement. ing then the reader must be able to comprehend it as well
(Armbruster, Lehr, & Osborn, 2001)—comprehension is
implicit. The other includes a third characteristic—prosody,
First Goal—A Definition
believing that if all three characteristics are done well then
Reading fluency is a complex psychological construct comprehension is a given—comprehension is explicit in the
comprised of numerous sub-processes, and because it is, it form of prosody. There are two problems with these two
can mean different things to different people. The conun- camp’s definitions. The first problem is that they misapply
drum is that there are currently three camps, each with a automaticity theory’s role in reading fluency by assuming
different definition of reading fluency. Two camps fracture if a person exhibits these secondary characteristics well and
reading fluency into its secondary characteristics of speed, quickly then the person will automatically use the freed up
accuracy, and prosody. One of these two camps defines attentional resources for comprehension. However, these
reading fluency as the ability to read a passage of text with camps do not explicitly check (measure) to see if the person
speed and accuracy (Daane et al., 2005; Armbruster, Lehr, really does comprehend what they’ve just read. A second
& Osborn, 2001), a process that occurs in two stages with problem is the misconception that the complex cognitive
word recognition or decoding occurring at stage one and processes necessary for comprehension can be measured
comprehension occurring at stage two. This two-stage behaviorally and that all individuals will display the same
process is what beginning readers do, not what fluent read- behavioral affects (expression) for comprehension. This
ers do. In another, but similar, camp are those who define is further confounded by the effect of grammar, dialecti-
reading fluency as the ability to read with speed, accuracy cal, and idiom rules for expression in reading that can be
and expression/prosody (Hudson, Lane, & Pullen, 2005; mimicked without comprehension of the involved text. For
Rasinski, 2007; Denton, Bryan, Wexler, Reed, & Vaughn, example, these definitions do not explain why a person can
2007). This camp believes that if a student spends most of read a passage of text either in a foreign language (be it an
his effort focused on word recognition or reading one word English as a second language student reading a passage in
 Reading Fluency 177

English or an English-speaking individual reading a pas- that though TOB had little difficulty reading aloud regular
sage in French) or in the form of Jabberwocky (Carroll, words and non-words, he could not read irregular words,
1872) with great speed, accuracy, and prosody and yet he had strong regularization of exception words, and he
when tested for comprehension shows none. For example, was not able to explain the meaning of any word he could
Alice of Alice’s Adventures in Wonderland reads the fol- not pronounce correctly—he took the path known as the
lowing poem: grapheme to phoneme conversion route. Further, studying
a patient known as Norman, they found Norman could
‘Twas brillig, and the slithy toves read most words well but could not read non-words, and
Did gyre and gimble in the wabe: he could reliably distinguish between exception words and
All mimsy were the borogoves, non-words even though he could not pronounce them—he
And the mome raths outgrabe. took the path known as the lexical-semantic route.
Beware the Jabberwock, my son! The definitive definition of reading fluency is seen writ-
The jaws that bite, the claws that catch! ten word goes to the visual analysis system and then to the
Beware the Jubjub bird, and shun visual input lexicon, once recognized as a word it travels to
The frumious Bandersnatch!… the semantic system, and then to the phonological output
lexicon to the phonemic level buffer, and finally comes out
and then comments, “it seems very pretty, but it’s rather as speech. This route includes the semantic system whereby
hard to understand!” So, though Alice is perfectly capable meaning is attached to the word or sentence, facilitating
of reading the poem with speed, accuracy, and prosody, she comprehension. The specious definitions of fluency are
admits to not understanding it. the grapheme phoneme conversion route—seen written
Consequently, while the secondary characteristics word, visual analysis system, grapheme phoneme conver-
(speed, accuracy, and prosody) are necessary for reading sion, phonemic level buffer, and speech. This route does
fluency, they are not sufficient. In view of this fact, the first not include the semantic system and phonological output
two camp’s definitions of reading are specious because lexicon that are necessary for word meaning attachment,
they define the two-stage process of what beginning read- and hence no comprehension is taking place. Therefore the
ers do, decode at time one and then comprehend at time only true definition of reading fluency is the one posited by
two, not what a fluent reader does, decode and comprehend the third camp—the ability to simultaneously decode and
simultaneously. It is only the third camp’s definition that comprehend text. This definition sets the ground rules for
definitively defines the one-stage process fluent readers the next goal of how reading fluency should be measured.
do, simultaneous decoding and comprehending. Even so,
we must be cautious and recognize that fluency is not a
Second Goal—How to Measure Reading Fluency
dichotomous variable where a person is considered to be
either fluent or not fluent, but one that occurs on a continuum Automaticity theory provides the foundation necessary for
(Logan, 1991). For example, a student can be very fluent defining the construct of reading fluency (the simultaneous
when reading material is of interest to him and less fluent decoding and comprehension of text) and identifies the
when he has had no previous exposure to the material or resulting secondary characteristics (speed, accuracy, and
finds it of little interest. For this reason, a fluent reader expression). These characteristics further provide concrete
should not be thought of as a stage of development in which areas for the instruction and development of reading fluency,
all words can be processed quickly, for even highly skilled and are, in turn, necessary for the assessment of that fluency.
readers can encounter uncommon, low frequency words More than ever, in these times of high-stakes testing, valid
that they are unable to recognize automatically (Shiffrin reading fluency assessments are imperative. To this end,
& Schneider, 1977). reading fluency assessments must not only measure the
Further support for the third camp’s definition comes secondary characteristics of speed, accuracy, and prosody,
from the neuropsychological research of Ellis and Young but must also explicitly assess comprehension. However,
(1988), Pihlajamaki et al. (2000), Miller and Cohen (2001), not all assessments professing to measure reading fluency
and Shaywitz et al. (2006) that shows multiple pathways for actually do (DIBELS), and even some assessments that
seeing, processing and saying written words. For example, don’t profess to measure reading fluency are being misused
the Ellis and Young mode depicts two possible routes for (CBM) to falsely report reading fluency scores. For these
the pronunciation of a written word. These routes are the reasons, reading fluency assessment tools are in need of
grapheme to phoneme conversion route and the visual extensive review.
lexicon through semantic route. Support for these two Snow, Burns, and Griffin (1998) state, “because the
routes (Ellis & Young, 1988) has been found from having ability to obtain meaning from print depends so strongly
participants read real words and non-words; non-words on the development of word recognition accuracy and
take longer to pronounce and cause more error. This error reading fluency, both should be regularly assessed in the
is presumed to occur due to the conflict between the two classroom” (p. 7). However, we must first develop a valid
different routes it could have taken. For example, when measure, and to do so we must be steadfast in our defini-
studying a patient known as TOB, Ellis and Young found tion of the construct being measured. In this case, the main
178 S. J. Alt and S. Jay Samuels

characteristic of reading fluency is the ability to do at least as a measure of fluency. CBM was also created in order
two tasks simultaneously, i.e., decoding and comprehen- to provide an alternative to mastery measurement, which
sion. Therefore, only measurement tasks that include a measured short-term accomplishments that often did not ac-
comprehension component can hope to be valid measures cumulate into broad competence (Fuchs, 2004). Placement
of reading fluency. and monitoring decisions require continuous measurement
Whereas the methods for developing reading fluency over time of a student’s performance of a skill and then
seem clear, the methods for measuring reading fluency comparing results of prior efforts to current performance.
are not so clear. One method used in the 1990s involved Further, according to Deno (1985), any other decisions
eye movements (saccads) and fixations to measure read- involved in the determination of program eligibility for a
ing speed and comprehension. Underwood, Hubbard, student should also incorporate a peer comparison. In other
and Wilkinson (1990) found eye fixation duration was a words any screening or changes in instructional goals and
successful predictor of reading comprehension. Though objectives for a student should not rest solely on their CBM
they did not find a correlation between reading speed scores but should also include a comparison of the student
and comprehension, they did find a relationship between to their peers. CBM norms, words read correctly in 1 min-
fixation durations and comprehension. Nevertheless, they ute (WCPM), were established by Hasbrouck and Tindal
caution that decreasing fixations may not lead to better (1992), and the median scores for various grades were set:
comprehension because it could be that better comprehen- Grade 2—53 WCPM, Grade 3—79 WCPM, Grade 4—99
sion leads to shorter fixations. Subsequently, Everatt and WCPM, and Grade 5—105 WCPM.
Underwood (1994) found increased information seeking Because misuse of the tool has led to the misperception
behavior is related to reading speed and comprehension, that the development of efficient word recognition skills
but reading speed had no relationship with comprehen- leads to improved comprehension (Calfee & Piontkowski,
sion. For instance, shorter initial and gaze fixations are 1981), CBM has been widely used around the country to
related to better comprehension, but the re-reading of text determine if a student is a fluent reader. In fact, McGlinchey
is not related to comprehension so much as it is to speed. and Hixson (2004) assessed the correlation between CBM
Though these are two excellent examples of using saccads and standardized reading scores and found supporting
to measure comprehension (they also show no correlation evidence for concurrent validity. However, Cramer and
between reading speed and comprehension), they are not Rosenfield (2008) found no correlations between reading
amenable to classroom implementation so much as labora- speed and reading fluency. What’s more, Pressley, Hilden,
tory clinical studies. and Shankland (2005) not only found no correlation, but
When it comes to the implementation of classroom as- found reading speed to be a poor predictor of reading flu-
sessment tools for reading fluency, the goal is to find out if ency.
students are simultaneously decoding and comprehending.
A common method of doing this is to inform the student at DIBELS. DIBELS is an acronym for Dynamic Indica-
the time of testing that they will be asked to first read a pas- tors of Basic Early Literacy Skills and is made up of mul-
sage of text orally and then be tested on comprehension by tiple measures, all of which have the term fluency attached to
either retelling as much of the story as they can or answering them. The measures are initial sound fluency, letter naming
questions about the text they just read. This method is a good fluency, phoneme segmentation fluency, nonsense word flu-
match for measuring reading fluency because it requires the ency, oral reading fluency (ORF), and retell fluency (RF).
reader to decode and comprehend simultaneously. Typically, the initial sound, letter naming, and phoneme seg-
mentation fluency are given in kindergarten; the nonsense
word and oral reading fluency are given in first grade, and
Progress Monitors or Measures of Fluency?
the oral reading fluency in the second grade. The definition
Progress Monitors of reading fluency is “the effortless, automatic ability to read
Curriculum based measurement. Curriculum Based words in connected text—the ability to translate letters to
Measurement (CBM) was developed by Dr. Stanley Deno sounds fluently and effortlessly” (Sheehan, 2007).
(1985) for the purpose of helping teachers evaluate a stu- The developers of DIBELS state that it is designed to
dent’s week-by-week growth rate while learning to read. assess a student’s development of phonological awareness,
This method required students to read for 1 minute from a alphabet understanding, and automaticity and fluency. They
text typically used in the student’s regular instruction. The also claim that the tests are indicators of a student’s early
number of words read correctly in that 1-minute period literacy development and predictive of later reading profi-
of time was the students score. Often the student is tested ciency. They are intended to identify students who are not
over three passages, and the median score is the score progressing as expected.
used for an evaluation. A week later the student would be For the ORF part of the test, students are required to
tested again on a similar passage and scored. If the student read aloud a grade-appropriate passage. During the read-
is making progress, then the score should increase from ing, the instructor/tester listens to the student reading and
week to week. Deno’s intent was for CBM to be used as a marks down missed words. These words are then subtracted
tool for measuring weekly progress in reading speed, not from the total read, and a score is assigned to the student.
 Reading Fluency 179

Errors are considered to be words that the student stumbles quickly that this is a test of speed and not comprehension.
over, skips over, or does not self-correct within a 3-second This has lead to a finding that 15% of the students who
time period. The RF part, if it is given at all, is given after took the ORF were misidentified as good readers when they
the student has read the passage. Once the passage is read, actually have poor comprehension (Riedel, 2007). This is
the instructor/tester again records the number of words the because most of the validation studies use a procedure that
student uses to retell the story. The quality of the words, how mimics what beginning readers do when they read a text, not
well they actually retell the story, is of no consequence. It what fluent readers do. At time one, the research tests oral
is the number of words used that is important. This is how reading speed, at time two (a later time), comprehension is
comprehension is measured. tested using a completely different test than what was used
The test does have a number of strengths. For instance, to test reading speed. This separation of the decoding from
the test only takes between 5 and 10 minutes per child comprehension would naturally provide significant correla-
of the instructor’s time. This is key for teachers who are tions with speed and comprehension like those found using
pressed to test upwards of 100 students three times a year. the CBM. In fact, Cramer and Rosenfield (2008) found that
The test can be repeated either in one sitting or throughout using a comprehension task coupled with a speed of reading
the school year, a quality the creators emphasize with their task that there was no correlation between reading speed
recommendation of at least three times a year. The tests are and comprehension.
free to download and are accessible to anyone who wants With the widespread use of the DIBELS tests (used to
them. So, not only can teachers download the test, but so assess more than 1,800,000 students from kindergarten to
can parents. Parents who want their children to get a head sixth grade), a number of scholars in the field of reading
start on the test can download them and practice with their have evaluated them (i.e., Cramer & Rosenfield, 2008;
children. The tests also provide information on what par- Goodman, 2006a; Pressley et al., 2005; Samuels, 2007). For
ents, teachers, and students themselves can do to improve example, Pearson (2006) stated, “DIBELS is the worst thing
their reading skills. For instance, students who are found to happen to the teaching of reading since the development
to read at an excessively slow rate may need to engage in of flash cards” (p. 5). Goodman (2006) is concerned that
repeated and assisted readings. Students whose decoding despite warnings to the contrary, the tests have become a de-
accuracy is poor may need additional word study and pho- facto curriculum in which the emphasis on speed convinces
nics instruction, and students who do poorly on the fluency students that the goal in reading is to be able to read fast
rubric (prosody) may need additional coaching and support and that understanding is of secondary importance. There
in reading with expression and meaning. Therefore, the test is certainly enough concern by these leading scholars to
not only supposedly identifies specific areas that are giving warrant further review.
students trouble; it also provides quick and easy solutions
for those problems. Measures of Fluency An appropriate measure of reading
However, the tests also have weaknesses. One of the fluency must include a measure of comprehension. It must
worst issues is that it reduces reading to discrete skills that mimic reading fluency by measuring the simultaneous de-
have, at best, minimal connection to actual reading. As a coding and comprehension of text. An appropriate method
consequence of this, students are required to do drilling of proposed by Samuels (2002) requires first determining the
nonsense words and focus on narrow slices of what is being student’s reading ability level and then choosing a one- to
read, The creators believe the whole is clearly the sum of two-page passage of text within that level which the student
the parts and that somehow comprehension emerges from will have to read orally. However, before the student begins
the fragments being tested (Goodman, 2006b). However, the reading the text orally, (s)he is given the following instruc-
tests have been shown to mis-predict reading performance, tions, “Read this passage orally and when you are done I
measuring reading speed and not comprehension (Pressley will take the passage away. You will then have to recall
et al., 2005). The retell fluency component is said to be a the content of the passage by either retelling the story to
measure of comprehension, yet though this test may be me or by answering some questions about what you have
reliable it is not valid. It may be reliable in that it is pos- just read.” This method mimics reading fluency because
sible to obtain consistent scores on the retelling; however, it requires the student to do three things at the same time:
these retellings are not valid measures of comprehension. (a) decode the text, (b) understand the text material while
They are not valid because they are measuring the number decoding, and (c) hold the material in memory until the
of words uttered regardless of whether or not those words text is completed.
make senses and actually relate to the story just read. This is a process very similar to the one used by the
This issue of validity also occurs in the ORF task. The American Guidance Services for measuring reading flu-
test lacks validity in that the speed and accuracy of the ORF ency. Its main strength is that it actually measures reading
is expected to be measuring fluency, but how can it mea- fluency—whether or not the student is decoding and com-
sure fluency when there is no comprehension component? prehending at the same time.
Therefore it does not test the construct of reading fluency
because it only tests two of the secondary characteristics— American Guidance Services Reading Fuency Indica-
speed and accuracy. Unfortunately, students catch on very tor. The Reading Fluency Indicator (RFI) created by
180 S. J. Alt and S. Jay Samuels

Kathleen Williams (2005) of American Guidance Services ficult to define a construct in terms of cognition when the
is contained in the companion assessment to GRADE prevailing paradigm in place is behaviorism. With advances
(Group Reading Assessment and Diagnostic Evaluation). in technology, such as the fMRI, and the growth of cogni-
This program provides a concise, criterion-referenced tive psychology to neuropsychology, reading fluency has
measure of oral fluency—including rate, accuracy, and found new support. Maintaining fidelity to one and only
comprehension. one definition of reading fluency is necessary if we hope to
This assessment is designed to be given individually, create valid developmental strategies and assessments. With
can be taken in 5 to 10 minutes, and provides a systematic the old behavioral ideology that fluency can be measured
approach to rating prosody, the ability to read with proper by observing an increase in reading speed, accuracy and
expression, should you choose to use it. The RFI measures prosody being replaced with the cognitive perspective that
phonological awareness, phoneme-grapheme, word read- we must also test whether or not comprehension is simul-
ing, and vocabulary prior to first grade and comprehension taneously occurring with these secondary characteristics in
beginning in the first grade. place, we are off to a good start. However, there is much
The assessment begins by first estimating a student’s work to be done. For instance, we must remember that read-
reading level by having the student pronounce a list of ing speed is just a secondary characteristic of fluency and as
words in increasing difficulty until the student is no longer such we must be sure not to push reading speed to such an
able to correctly pronounce at least 9 out of 10 words. Once extent that we compromise the true goal—comprehension.
the reading level is established, passages of text are then We must also begin to rigorously ferret out assessments
selected at that reading level for the student to read out loud. that do not measure fluency from our school systems. By
There is then a script/directions told to the student prior to retaining these tests, we are doing our children a great dis-
their reading the passage—“You are going to be reading a service. For though school staff may be doing a good job
passage of text out loud, when you are finished I will ask of implementing and developing reading fluency methods,
you some questions about what you have read.” Words read if the evaluation instruments are less than adequate then
correctly in 1 minute are recorded and the comprehension the tests will give faulty results that may very well lead to
questions are presented. Therefore the RFI tests fluency in incorrect formative and summative evaluation decisions.
terms of three components—reading time, miscues, and It is therefore time for the federal government to support
comprehension. Comprehension is tested on two levels: For studies that re-evaluate the adequacy and validity claims of
sentence comprehension the students must select missing these testing instruments claiming to measure the theoretical
target words (from a list of possible choices) from a sentence construct—reading fluency.
based on the context clues or sentence meaning. For passage
comprehension the students are given multiple choice ques-
References
tions with varying levels of understanding—questioning and
clarifying ability, predicting and summarizing ability, and Ackerman, P. L. (1987). Individual differences in skill reading: An in-
tegration of psychometric and information processing perspectives.
metacognitive strategies such as questioning, predicting,
Psychological Bulletin, 102, 3–27.
clarifying, and summarizing. Allington, R. L. (2008). What really matters in fluency: From research to
The test has strengths. It has the flexibility to view practice. New York: PearsonAllynBacon.
the student or the classroom as a whole for strengths and Allport, D. A., Antonis, B., & Reynolds, P. (1972). On the division of at-
weaknesses in reading skills. It provides information for tention: A disproof of the single channel hypothesis. Quarterly Journal
of Experimental Psychology, 24, 225–235.
individual, group, and parents that are easy to read and un-
Armbruster, B. B., Lehr, F., & Osborn, J. (2001). Put reading first: The
derstand. It provides the software for scoring and reporting research building blocks for teaching children to read. Washington,
the findings, or American Guidance Services will score it DC: National Institute of Child Health and Human Development and
for you. It also allows for comparison from year to year in U. S. Department of Education. Retrieved from http://www.nifl.gov/
growth scale values (GSV) in readiness skills so that growth nifl/publications.html
Baddeley, A. D. (1990). Human memory: Theory and practice. Boston:
can be shown in readiness even though the performance
Allyn and Bacon.
level of the student may still be below average. Calfee, R. C., & Piontkowski, D. C. (1981). The reading diary: Acquisition
A weakness of the test is that it does not give interpre- of decoding. Reading Research Quarterly, 16, 346–373.
tive information of what it means when a student gets three Carroll, L. (1872). Jabberwocky. Through the looking-Glass and what
questions wrong out of the four questions given compared Alice found there. Retrieved from http://www.jabberwocky.com/
carroll/jabber/
to a student who gets two questions wrong out of the four
Cassidy, J., & Cassidy, D. (2003, Dec./Jan. 2004). What’s hot, what’s not
questions given. for 2004. Reading Today, 3.
Cohen, J. D., Dunbar, K., & McClelland, J. L. (1990). On the control of
automatic processes: A parallel distributed processing account of the
Conclusion Stroop effect. Psychological Review, 97, 332–361.
Cramer, K., & Rosenfield, S. (2008). Effect of degree of challenge on
Reading fluency has had a wavering group of enthusiasts
reading performance. The Reading and Writing Quarterly, 24(1),
over the years, mainly due to the discrepancies in defining 119–137.
it as a psychological construct. Part of the problem arose Daane, M.C., Campbell, J.R., Grigg, W.S., Goodman, M.J., and Oranje,
due to the shifting psychological paradigms. It is very dif- A. (2005). Fourth-Grade Students Reading Aloud: NAEP 2002 Special
 Reading Fluency 181

Study of Oral Reading (NCES 2006-469). U.S. Department of Educa- grade-3 Dynamic Indicators of Basic Early Literacy Skills (DIBELS):
tion. Institute of Education Sciences, National Center for Education Speed reading without comprehension, predicting little. East Lansing,
Statistics. Washington, DC: Government Printing Office. http://nces. MI: Literacy Achievement Research Center.
ed.gov/nationsreportcard/pubs/studies/2006469.asp Rasinski, T. V. (2007). Teaching fluency artfully. In R. Fink & S. J. Samu-
Daneman, M., & Carpenter, P. A. (1983). Individual differences in integrat- els (Eds.), Inspiring reading success, interest, and motivation in an
ing information between and within sentences. Journal of Experimental age of high stakes testing (pp. 117–140). Newark, DE: International
Psychology: Learning, Memory and Cognition, 9, 561–584. Reading Association.
Deno, S. L. (1985). Curriculum-based measurement: The emerging alter- Riedel, B. (2007). The relation between DIBELS, reading comprehen-
native. Exceptional Children, 52, 219–232. sion, and vocabulary in urban first-grade students. Reading Research
Denton, C., Bryan, D., Wexler, J., Reed, D., & Vaughn, S. (2007). Fluency. Quarterly, 42(4), 546–567.
In Effective Instruction for Middle School Students with Reading Dif- Samuels, S. J. (2002a). Reading fluency: Its development and assess-
ficulties: The Reading Teacher’s Sourcebook (pp. 221–232). University ment. In A. E. Farstrup & S. J. Samuels (Eds.), What research has to
of Texas System: Texas Education Agency. say about reading instruction (3rd ed., pp. 166–183). Newark, DE:
Ellis, A. W., & Young, A. W. (1988). Human cognitive neuropsychology. International Reading Association.
London: Erlbaum. Samuels, S. J. (2002b). Reading fluency: What is it? How can I teach it?
Everatt, J., & Underwood, G. (1994). Individual differences in reading How can I measure it? Instructional Leader, 15(6), 1–12.
subprocesses: Relationships between reading ability, lexical access, Samuels, S. J. (2006). Reading fluency: Its past, present and future. In
and eye movement control. Language and Speech, 37, 283–297. T. Rasinski, C. Blachowicz, & K. Lems (Eds.), Fluency instruction
Fuchs, L. S. (2004). The past, present, and future of curriculum-based research based best practices.
measurement research. School Psychology Review, 33(2), 188–192. Samuels, S. J. (2007). The DIBLES Tests: Is Speed of Barking at Print
Goodman, K. (2006a). A critical review of DIBELS, What it is, what it What We Mean by Reading Fluency? Reading Research Quarterly,
does. Heinemann, NH: Reed Elsevier. 42(4), 568–570.
Goodman, K. (2006b). The DIBELing of little children. http://www.districtad- Samuels, S. J., LaBerge, D., & Bremer, C. D. (1978). Units of Word
ministration.com/pulse/commentpost.aspx?news=no&postid=16874 Recognition: Evidence for Developmental Changes. Journal of Verbal
Goodman, K. S., & Goodman, Y. M. (1979). Learning to read is natural. Learning and Verbal Behavior, 17, 715–720.
In L. B. Resnick & P. A. Weaver (Eds.), Theory & practice of early Schreiber, P. A. (1980). On the acquisition of reading fluency. Journal of
reading, Volume 1 (pp. 137–154). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum. Reading Behavior, 12, 177–186.
Hasbrouck, J. E., & Tindal, G. (1992). Curriculum-based oral reading flu- Schreiber, P. A. (1987). Prosody and structure in children’s syntactic pro-
ency norms for students in grades 2 through 5. Teaching Exceptional cessing. In R. Horowitz & S. J. Samuels (Eds.), Comprehending oral
Children, 24(3), 41–44. and written language (pp. 243-270). New York: Academic Press.
Hudson, R. F., Lane, H. B., & Pullen, P. C. (2005). Reading fluency as- Shaywitz, S. E., Mody, M., Shaywitz, B. A. (2006). Neural mecha-
sessment and instruction: What, why, and how? The Reading Teacher, nisms in dyslexia. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 15,
58(8), 702–714. 278–281.
Huey, E. B. (1968). The Psychology and Pedagogy of Reading. Cambridge, Sheehan, T. (2007). IDEA: Institute for the Development of Educational
MA: MIT Press. (Original work published 1908) Achievement (2002–2004). Retrieved from http://reading.uoregon.
LaBerge, D., & Samuels, S. J. (1974). Toward a theory of automatic infor- edu/flu/
mation processing in reading. Cognitive Psychology, 6, 293–323. Shiffrin, R. M., & Schneider, W. (1977). Controlled and automatic human
Logan, G. D. (1988). Automaticity, resources and memory: Theoretical con- information processing: II. Perceptual learning, automatic attending,
troversies and practical implications. Human Factors, 30, 583–598. and a general theory. Psychological Review, 84, 127–190.
Logan, G. D. (1991). Automaticity and memory. In W. Hockley & S. Smith, F. (1973). Twelve easy ways to make learning to read difficult. In
Lewandowsky (Eds.), Relating theory and data: Essays on human F. Smith (Ed.), Psycholinguistics and reading (pp. 183-196). New
memory in honor of Bennet B. Murdock (pp. 347–356), Hillsdale, York: Holt, Rinehart & Winston.
NJ: Erlbaum. Snow, C. E., Burns, M. S., & Griffin, P. (1998). Preventing reading difficul-
Logan, G. D. (1997). Automaticity and reading: Perspectives from the ties in young children. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.
instance theory of automatization. Reading and Writing Quarterly, Spelke, E. S., Hirst, W., & Neisser, U. (1976). Skills of divided attention.
13, 123–146. Cognition, 4, 215–230.
McGlinchey, M. T., & Hixson, M. D. (2004). Using curriculum-based Stanovich, K. E. (1990). Concepts in developmental theories of reading
measurement to predict performance on state assessment in reading. skill: Cognitive resources, automaticity, and modularity. Developmen-
School Psychology Review, 33, 193–203. tal Review, 10, 72–100.
Miller, E. K., & Cohen, J. D. (2001). An integrative theory. Annual Review Stroop, J. R. (1935). Studies of interference in serial verbal reactions.
of Neuroscience, 24, 167–202. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 18, 643–662.
National Reading Panel. (2000). Teaching children to read: An evidence- Thurlow, R., & van den Broek, P. (1997). Automaticity and inference
based assessment of the scientific research literature on reading and generation. Reading and Writing Quarterly, 13, 165–184.
its implications for reading instruction (NICHD Pub. No. 00-4769). Underwood, G., Hubbard, A., & Wilkinson, H. (1990). Eye fixations
Washington, DC: National Institute of Child Health and Human predict reading comprehension: The relationship between reading
Development. skill, reading speed and visual inspection. Language and Speech,
Pearson, P. D. (2006). Foreward. In Gloria Pipkin (Ed.), The truth about 33, 69–81.
DIBELS, what it is, what it does (pp. v–xix). Heinemann, NH: Reed Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). Mind in society: The development of higher
Elsevier. psychological processes (M. Cole, V. John-Steiner, S. Schribner, &
Pihlajamaki, M., Tanila, H., Hanninen, T., Kononen, M., Laakso, M., E. Souberman, Eds. & Trans.). Cambridge, MA: Harvard University
Partanen, K., et al. (2000). Verbal fluency activates the left median Press. (Original work published 1934)
temporal lobe: an fMRI study. Annals of Neurology, 47, 470–476. Vygotsky, L. (1986). Thought and language. MIT Press, Cambridge,
Posner, M. I. (1978). Chronometric explorations of mind. Hillsdale, NJ: MA: MIT Press.
Erlbaum. Williams, K. (2005). American Guidance Services (Pearson Learning)
Posner, M. I., & Snyder, R. R. (1975). Attention and cognitive control. In Reading fluency indicator: A quick individualized assessment. Circle
R. L. Solso (Ed.), Information processing and cognition: The Loyola Pines, MN: AGS Publishing.
symposium (pp. 55–85). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum. Wolf, M., & Katzir-Cohen, T., (2001). Reading Fluency and Its Interven-
Pressley, M., Hilden, K., & Shankland, R. (2005). An evaluation of end- tion. Scientific Studies of Reading, 5(93), 211–239.
 Part IV
Developmental Patterns of Reading
Proficiency and Reading Difficulties

EDITORS: S. JAY SAMUELS AND SUSAN HUPP

 17
Shifting Perspectives in Emergent Literacy Research
RENÉE M. CASBERGUE
Louisiana State University

LEA MCGEE
The Ohio State University

Toward the end of the year, two kindergarten children child be given more challenging work than his classmates?
work side-by-side at the science center in their classroom Of greater concern, is the second child showing early signs
recording their observations of caterpillars’ metamorphoses of reading disability? Should she spend more of her time
into butterflies. They then turn to a book about butterflies receiving explicit instruction to develop her phonologi-
to help them identify the stage of development they are
cal ability? Is there any benefit at all to engaging her in
observing. Cienna’s journal entry consists of a drawing
meaning-based reading and writing activities to which she is
comprised of a vertical squiggle below a single horizontal
line, underneath which she has written a series of letters— unable to produce more conventional responses? How these
jdpeiknati—which she later reads to her teacher as, “The questions are answered may depend on the manner in which
caterpillar is all wrapped up.” Roberto’s entry includes a individuals have been prepared to regard emergent literacy
drawing that clearly illustrates a primitive cocoon attached and on the research literature upon which they rely.
to a leaf. His writing says, “It md a crsls,” which he reads
as, “The caterpillar made a chrysalis.”
The children together carefully examine pictures in Shifts in Perspectives
a simple leveled text, stopping on the page showing a The term emergent literacy was coined by Marie Clay
chrysalis dangling from a leaf on a milkweed plant. Cienna (1966) to illustrate the distinction between then prevalent
points to the picture and says, “That’s what they look like
readiness views of early literacy and a more constructivist
now.” Roberto agrees and, running his finger under the line
perspective of the process of literacy development in early
of print below the picture, reads aloud, “The caterpillar
from (forms) a chrysalis.” He returns to his journal entry childhood. Readiness perspectives were based in behav-
and erases “crsls,” then copies the correct spelling from iorist theories (Skinner, 1950, 1989) that proposed most
the book. learning could be accounted for by reinforcing and shaping
responses to specific stimuli. A behaviorist view held that
That there are significant differences in the knowledge complex tasks, including learning to read and write, could
young children bring to school literacy activities, even as be reduced to their smallest constituent parts, each of which
early as kindergarten, is evident. Some children clearly could be introduced and reinforced until mastery. Alongside
have more conventional understanding of print than others. the behaviorist view, a prevailing belief of others through
They are able to write using alphabetic invented spelling, the 1960s and into the 1970s was that actual reading was
and can locate information in simple leveled books in too complex a task to be introduced to children with mental
which they are able to read most of the print. In contrast, ages younger than six. Thus, literacy instruction prior to first
some children display more emergent literacy knowledge. grade was focused on getting children ready for later reading
Their writing suggests that they have not yet mastered the and writing with simple tasks thought to be precursors to
alphabetic principle, and instead use random strings of actual literacy. Readiness activities such as having children
letters to represent meaning. They are able to use pictorial discriminate among shapes and produce rows of circles and
information in books, but show no inclination or ability to lines were believed to be necessary preparation for later
read the print independently. instruction in recognizing and writing individual alphabet
Teachers of young children are not at all surprised to letters. Auditory and visual discrimination tasks likewise
see such significant differences in the literacy development focused on preparing children to eventually discriminate
of children in their classrooms. They may have questions, among various sounds and letters. Mastery of the ability to
however, about what these differences mean. Should the first recognize and produce those letters and sounds was widely

185
186 Renée M. Casbergue and Lea McGee

accepted to be prerequisite to any attempt to elicit meaning suggest, however, that the ways those children learned to
from, or create meaning with, connected print. read at home could have significant implications for begin-
The work of some of the first early literacy researchers, ning reading instruction in schools.
however, opened the door to entirely new understandings of Early studies that attempted to determine how young
just how much knowledge about print—its forms, functions, children learned to read prior to formal instruction entailed
meanings, and links between meaning and form (McGee identifying early readers once they entered school and
& Richgels, 1990)—children are capable of constructing interviewing their parents regarding their recollections of
for themselves long before they begin formal schooling. how they supported their children’s literacy development
Embedded in constructivist theories of learning (Vygotsky, (Durkin, 1966b; Price, 1976; Read, 1975). Parents typically
1978) rather than behaviorist models, researchers over the reported they did not remember doing anything specific
next three decades and into the early 21st century expanded beyond reading aloud to their preschoolers. They did note
and honed insights about emergent literacy, examining and that their children appeared to memorize favorite storybooks
celebrating the complexity of children’s attempts to make and then make connections to the print without assistance,
sense of print and use it for their own purposes. leading to the inaccurate notion that mastery of print was
Most recently, however, emphasis seems to have shifted a process of natural development dependent primarily on
somewhat away from what young children do know to a fo- exposure and maturation.
cus on what they lack in their understanding of print. This is Other studies that entailed careful documentation of chil-
especially true regarding children deemed at risk of reading dren’s early interactions with print, however, revealed that
disability. It appears that many educators and policy makers parents might have underestimated the amount of support
are returning to a view of the preschool and kindergarten and direction they provided. Well-documented case studies
years as a time for getting children ready to read and write, (Baghban, 1984; Bissex, 1980; Dyson, 1982a, 1984; Fer-
albeit with a more sophisticated understanding of the kinds reiro, 1986; McGee & Richgels, 1989; Schickedanz, 1990;
of knowledge children need to develop in order to achieve Taylor, 1983) illustrated that parents frequently called chil-
conventional literacy in the primary grades. For the moment, dren’s attention to print in their environments, by pointing
more behaviorist perspectives seem to be winning out over out and reading aloud traffic signs, for example, or helping
constructivist views in choices about instructional programs children read boxes in the pantry to find the cereal they want.
for preschool and kindergarten children, with scripted, They also offered information—such as that reading begins
skills-based curricula increasingly commonplace. on the left side of the page, or that a particular word matches
The review of literature that follows traces trends in early an illustration. Further, they confirmed children’s observa-
literacy research over the past 40 years. From identifying tions, acknowledging for instance a child’s recognition
types of knowledge young children develop about print to that McDonalds printed on a fast food bag starts with the
investigating which instructional programs are most likely same letter as the child’s name. Parents were also observed
to improve children’s knowledge of specific aspects of providing assistance with authentic reading and writing
reading and writing, researchers from the fields of early tasks such as deciphering and creating lists, labels, signs,
childhood language and literacy development, psychology, and notes. From these case studies, researchers concluded
medicine, and special education have provided evidence that that parents of early readers did far more than simply read
supports different approaches to addressing the literacy of to their children.
children prior to first grade.
Varying Influence of Family and Home Literacy Prac-
tices Many of these case studies examined literacy prac-
Research from an Emergent Literacy Perspective
tices among mainstream, literate, middle-class families. In
Young Children’s Emergent Conceptualization of Print recognition that the ways parents engage their children with
Clay’s 1966 dissertation study, focused on young children’s print are inseparable from communities’ valuing of literacy
emergent understanding of print, was completed about the and language interaction styles, Feitelson and Goldstein
same time as Durkin’s longitudinal study of “early readers,” (1986) expressed concern that studies focused exclusively
defined as those children who entered first grade able to on interactions among well-educated parents and children
recognize basal reader vocabulary without any prior formal who appeared to effortlessly master print concepts did not
reading instruction (Durkin, 1966a). These researchers were offer information educators need in order to assist children
among the first to acknowledge that such achievement was who did not easily achieve literacy upon introduction to
even possible, directly contradicting the widely accepted print in school.
notion that preschool and kindergarten children did not have Investigations of family literacy practices across a variety
the cognitive capacity for literacy learning. Durkin cau- of communities attempted to address that concern. Clay
tioned that her relatively small sample of early readers with (1971) examined home influences on aspects of language
significantly higher IQ scores was atypical of the general and reading development among 5- and 6-year-old children
population of school children, and that her results therefore with four different language backgrounds in New Zealand.
should not be assumed to imply that literacy instruction She found that Samoan children, who as a group exhibited
could begin earlier than first grade for all students. She did “inferior” oral language achievement as compared to Maori
 Shifting Perspectives in Emergent Literacy Research 187

children upon school entry, nonetheless outperformed their storybook reading to help explain differences in children’s
more “linguistically superior” classmates on reading tasks language and literacy development. This body of research
in school. She concluded that parental attitudes favor- suggested that parents varied the aspects of storybooks upon
ing educational achievement and significant modeling of which they focused their preschoolers’ attention as well as
reading and writing at home most likely compensated for the topics they discussed. They also found that children’s
language deficits and contributed to Samoan children’s questions while listening to books read aloud were more
higher achievement. often directed toward pictures and stories than to elements
Heath’s work (1982, 1983) examined differences in of print, suggesting that shared storybook reading alone,
family dynamics, literacy activities like storybook read- while probably supporting early comprehension skill, was
ing, parenting and community interaction patterns, and the not sufficient to explain children’s mastery of print concepts.
ways those patterns affected children’s language acquisition Rather, those children with superior decoding skills likely
between African American and White families in rural and had their attention drawn to the print itself, with parents
suburban working-class communities. She found that the supplying and helping children locate high frequency or
language patterns in the African American families did not interesting words in books. Thus, this research suggests that
include the kind of simplified talk used by White families to the manner in which parents engage their children while
scaffold children’s speech, and that the types of questions sharing picture books may influence what children learn.
children were asked to answer during conversations with The research therefore did not lead to specific conclusions
adults were very dissimilar from the types of questions regarding recommended strategies for facilitating language
teachers typically ask in school settings. For example, Af- and literacy development.
rican American parents were more likely to engage children Beyond exploration of children’s understandings of
in conversations about things in the immediate environment, print through shared story reading activities, many studies
while White, middle-class parents engaged children in more investigated young children’s developing writing ability. As
conversations about past or future activities, similar to the with studies related to shared storybook reading, researchers
types of discussions conducted in many classrooms. Heath examined children’s interactions with adults or peers outside
hypothesized that these differences contributed to some of formal classroom contexts to determine the influence of
young children’s less frequent use of decontextualized those interactions on how children conceptualize writing,
language, less varied vocabularies, and difficulties adjust- the functions their writing serves, and the forms their writing
ing to the language and literacy routines and expectations takes (Burns & Casbergue, 1992; DeBaryshe & Buell, 1996;
of typical classrooms. Dyson, 1984; Henderson & Beers, 1980; Read, 1986; Zutell,
Others, including Ninio and Bruner (1978), Leseman 1976). Again, these researchers noted that adults varied
and de Jong (1998), Schieffelin and Cochran-Smith (1984), in the elements of writing to which they called children’s
Snow (1983), and Teale (1986) conducted extensive investi- attention, with some focusing more heavily on meaning
gations of the connections between the ways children learn and composition, and others addressing specific aspects of
about oral and written language and family communication print, especially letter identification, letter formation, and
patterns. They identified a variety of ways that parents spelling. These findings suggest that children may enter
provided opportunities for children to develop language formal schooling with very different understandings of
and literacy skills, ranging from structured interactions print, differences that may put some children at risk of early
like storybook reading to more casual interactions such as literacy difficulty depending on the focus of their classroom
reading environmental print aloud and engaging children in literacy program. A program that focuses heavily on mastery
using grocery lists as a natural part of daily living routines. of letters and sounds, for example, may disadvantage those
They also noted that some families provided almost no sup- children whose prior experience with writing was more
ported interactions with print. As did Heath, many of these focused on function and meaning. Conversely, a program
researchers suggested that differences between home and in which children are expected to begin composing from
school literacy practices might underlie some children’s the first day of school, without significant concern at first
struggles to become literate upon school entry. for correct spelling and letter formation, may disadvantage
Beyond exploring the types and frequency of opportuni- children whose home experience leads them to define writ-
ties for children to engage with print in their homes, other ing as handwriting and copying.
researchers (e.g., Britto, Brooks-Gunn, & Griffin, 2006;
Bus & van Ijzendoorn, 1995; Elley 1989; Ezell & Justice, Emergent Writing Attempting to develop more specific
1998; Hammett, van Kleeck, & Huberty, 2003; Justice, understanding of children’s writing development, whether
Weber, Ezell, & Bakeman, 2002; Justice, Kaderavek, in home or school contexts, early literacy researchers ex-
Bowles, & Grimm, 2005; Justice & Kaderavek, 2003; amined the nature of children’s emerging concepts about
Leseman & de Jong, 1998; Labbo, 1996; Mason, 1980; writing, especially the manner in which they attempted to
Purcell-Gates, 1996; Senechal, LeFevre, Thomas, & Daley, map print onto oral language. Read’s (1971) groundbreak-
1988; Yaden, Smolkin, & Conlon, 1989; van Kleeck & ing work established consistent patterns in children’s seem-
Beckley-McCall, 2002) moved toward investigating spe- ingly random use of letters in their early spelling attempts
cific aspects of parents’ interactions with children during and laid the ground work for others who identified stages of
188 Renée M. Casbergue and Lea McGee

invented spelling (e.g., Beers & Henderson, 1977; Gentry, displayed by children through their play (Christie & Stone,
1978; Paul, 1975; Richgels, 1995; Zutell, 1976). Those 1999; Kantor, Miller, & Fernie, 1992; Pellegrini & Galda,
stages illustrated the manner in which children gradually 1993; Neuman & Roskos, 1992, 1997; Rowe, 1998) sug-
came to understand the alphabetic principle—that alpha- gested the importance of play in the school curriculum for
bet letters represent sounds in spoken language—and the young children.
increasingly sophisticated ways in which sounds can be The body of literature briefly summarized thus far is
encoded, from use of letter names to determine sounds to varied in its focus, including studies of how children begin
strategies that move beyond phonetic information, as in the to develop early concepts about print, the role of adult/child
use of syllable juncture rules and morphemic consistency interactions in supporting emergent literacy development,
to determine spellings. and the broader contexts within which children engage in
Other researchers turned their attention to broader as- reading and writing. What the studies all have in common
pects of children’s writing, recognizing that children’s con- is an attempt to deepen understanding of children’s devel-
struction of meaning and the ways in which they understand oping conceptualization of print—its forms, functions, and
print can be used for both communication and exploration meanings, and the connections among all three.
of ideas is not always cleanly related to their encoding ef-
forts (Dyson, 2002). Much of this work investigated how
Emergent Literacy Intervention Research
children evolve in their understanding of symbolic language
in general, and the manner in which written symbols rep- Understanding of the ways in which children developed
resent meaning. Investigations of children’s drawings and concepts about written language offered researchers new
talk while drawing (Dyson, 1982b; 1984) and of the social hypotheses about how to maximize children’s early literacy
and cultural contexts within which their communications development. That new knowledge spurred intervention
are situated (Clay, 1998; Dyson, 1997; Purcell-Gates, studies, an avenue of research that became increasingly
1996) illustrate the complexity of knowledge children must relevant as differences in children’s literacy achievement
orchestrate in order to develop the ability to write with in early primary grades became a focus of concern. Indeed,
increasing sophistication. This complexity of knowledge many researchers have noted that the preschool years are
about symbol systems, forms, functions, and meanings of critical to children’s language and literacy development,
writing underscores the importance of approaches to early with gaps in achievement between children from low- and
writing instruction that allow children to explore all of these middle-income families appearing well before first grade
aspects of writing as opposed to those that focus children’s (Chaney, 1992; Dickinson & Snow, 1987; Dickinson &
attention more narrowly on learning letters and sounds to Sprague, 2002; Hart & Risley, 1995; Fernandez-Fein &
the exclusion of more meaning based aspects. Baker, 1997; Justice & Ezell, 2001; Laosa, 1983; Walker,
Greenwood, Hart, & Carta, 1994).
Emergent Literacy During Play One context for both
reading and writing that has been researched extensively is Family Literacy Interventions One body of intervention
children’s dramatic play. Case studies of children’s literate research included studies of programs designed to address
behaviors prior to school cited earlier almost universally disparities noted between the home and community literacy
include descriptions of children experimenting with print environments of low socioeconomic status and middle-class
as part of their dramatic play. Recognizing that literacy families. Some federal initiatives such as the Even Start
behaviors occur in everyday activities—and that play Family Literacy Program and programs sponsored by the
comprises a large portion of preschoolers’ activity—many National Center for Family Literacy included services to
researchers turned their attention to documenting the types both adults and children from low-income households, at-
of literate behaviors demonstrated by children during play, tempting to address parents’ literacy levels and children’s
both at home and at school. Neuman and Roskos (1992) preparation for formal schooling (Brizius & Foster, 1993;
observed children at play in classroom centers to document Darling & Hayes, 1989). Evaluations of parent and child
the variety of ways they used print in their attempts to read outcomes from Even Start revealed some increases in the
and write, especially during dramatic play. While most of number of parents earning GEDs as compared to control
the attempts were pretend reading and writing, they were groups, and positive gains in home learning environments.
accompanied by rich language interactions and exploration Although control group parents demonstrated similar gains
of print as, for example, when two 4-year-olds discussed in learning environments even without Even Start services,
how to write phone numbers when taking messages from parents participating in Even Start activities demonstrated
pretend callers. As they compared their notes, one child a wider range of different kinds of reading materials avail-
pointed out to the other that what was supposed to be a able to children and, after the second year, stronger gains
phone number couldn’t be correct because it contained let- in cognitive stimulation of children as compared to the
ters. He then proceeded to show his friend how to write a control group (St. Pierre et. al, 1995; Tao, Games, & Tarr,
phone number by writing a string of nine numerals, explain- 1998). Evaluations of programs following the National
ing that phone numbers couldn’t have any “abc’s.” Thus, Center for Family Literacy model also demonstrated posi-
research containing detailed analyses of specific knowledge tive outcomes for children, including higher than predicted
 Shifting Perspectives in Emergent Literacy Research 189

gains in vocabulary and higher teacher ratings for academic language arts program that focused on recognizing and
performance, motivation to learn, and classroom behavior writing letters and connecting letters to sounds prior to first
(Darling & Hayes, 1989, 1996; Philliber, Spillman, & grade as compared to classmates who did not participate
King, 1996). in such a literacy focused program. She found that read-
In addition to these types of comprehensive programs, ing achievement of children in the experimental group
researchers have investigated the effects of intervention ap- surpassed that of those in the control group at the end of
proaches that entailed coaching parents to effectively imple- each year in grades 1 through 4, illustrating the power of
ment strategies for engaging their children with print. Most specific literacy interventions focused on preschool and
of the suggested strategies were among those that had been kindergarten children (Durkin, 1974).
demonstrated to be successful for middle-income parents More recent interventions incorporated knowledge
and children, including actively engaging children in read gained from studies of children’s emergent literacy devel-
aloud sessions, directly calling their attention to print, and opment. Whether examining the effects of creating library
assisting them in writing for a variety of purposes. Studies corners with related literacy activities (McGill-Franzen,
that focused on assisting parents to engage in these types of Allington, Yokoi, & Brooks, 1999; Morrow & Weinstein,
rich literacy interactions with their children (e.g., Delgado- 1986), redesigning dramatic play areas to provide oppor-
Gaitan, 1994; Edwards, 1991, 1994; Ezell & Justice, 2000; tunities for authentic engagement with print (Hall, 1987;
Ezell, Justice, & Parsons, 2000; Justice & Ezell, 2000; Neuman & Roskos, 1989), or infusing classrooms with clus-
Neuman & Gallagher, 1994; Neuman, Hagedorn, Delano, tered print materials to provoke sustained interaction with
& Daly, 1995; Neuman, 1996; Whitehurst, Arnold, et al., print (Neuman & Roskos, 1990), classroom environment
1994; Whitehurst, Epstein, et al., 1994) demonstrated that research demonstrated that enhanced literacy environments
parents could adapt their book sharing and other literacy increased both the amount and complexity of children’s
routines and in many cases impact children’s vocabularies literacy play. Further studies provided evidence that play in
and understanding of print concepts. Collectively, they literacy enhanced preschool environments positively influ-
provided evidence that parents can learn to use research- enced children’s understanding and creation of narratives
tested strategies for sharing books with their children. For (Branscombe & Taylor, 2000), production of oral language
examples parents have successfully learned to use dialogic (McCune, 1995), and emergent writing (Pellegrini, Galda,
reading and draw their children into writing (grocery lists, Dresden, & Cox, 1991).
notes, and so on), resulting in significant positive effects Most recently, the Early Reading First program (U. S.
on preschool children’s knowledge of concepts about print, Dept. of Education, 2001), has spurred a variety of interven-
writing ability, linguistic awareness, expressive language, tions designed to transform adequate preschool classrooms
and mean length of utterance. into exemplary early literacy environments. Each federally
funded project must address the classroom literacy envi-
Preschool Classroom Interventions Another avenue of ronment as well as provide research-based instruction to
intervention research focused on improving classrooms as develop emergent literacy for 3- and 4-year-old children.
early literacy environments. The variable impact of the qual- All projects must also have a strong professional develop-
ity of preschool experiences on children’s social, cognitive, ment component for preschool teachers. An independent
language, and literacy skills has been widely documented national evaluation of Early Reading First found that the
(Burchinal et al., 2000; NICHD, 1999; Peisner-Feinbert program had positive, statistically significant impacts on
& Burchinal, 1997). Even within relatively high quality several classroom and teacher outcomes, including improve-
childcare and preschool environments, however, effec- ments in language environments, book-reading practices,
tive attention to language and literacy development is not provision of phonological-awareness activities, teaching
always a given (Bryant, Buchinal, Lau, & Sparling, 1994; practices to support print and letter knowledge and writing,
Dickinson, 2002; Dunn, Beach, & Kontos, 1994; High/ and extensiveness of child-assessment practices. Analysis
Scope, 1997; Justice, 2004; Burchinal et al., 2000). The of effects of these improvements revealed positive impact
National Research Council, through its report, Prevent- on children’s print and letter knowledge, but not oral lan-
ing Reading Difficulties in Young Children (Snow, Burns, guage (expressive and receptive language and vocabulary)
& Griffin, 1998), implored early childhood educators to or phonological awareness, as compared to control groups
implement research-based approaches to support literacy, from similar backgrounds (Jackson, et. al., 2007).
particularly those working in programs that serve low- All of the interventions described above have in com-
income children. mon a comprehensive approach to improving the literacy
Recognizing the urgency of improving literacy instruc- development of young children. They entail improvements
tion in early childhood, many researchers had long since in physical environments, materials, instructional strategies,
developed intervention programs designed to improve and adult-child interactions. The goal of these interventions,
preschool classroom environments in support of young and the research that supports them, is overall improve-
children’s emergent literacy. As early as 1974, Durkin ment in children’s language and literacy, with particular
completed a longitudinal study of reading achievement emphasis on receptive and expressive vocabulary, phono-
in primary grades of children who enrolled in a 2-year logical awareness, print concepts, and comprehension. The
190 Renée M. Casbergue and Lea McGee

interventions typically reflect a constructivist perspective “phonics first” or “phonics only” approaches, instead high-
that honors children’s ability to construct understanding of lighting the importance of embedding phonics instruction
print through their own exploration as well as via explicit in meaningful reading.
instruction. These basic findings and recommendations have been
supported in most meta-analyses and reviews of research
on approaches to reading instruction conducted since then
Basic Skills Research
(Adams, 1990; Anderson, Hiebert, Wilkinson, & Scott,
At the same time that the emergent literacy research cited 1985; Balmuth, 1982; NRP, 2000; Stahl, 2002). Large
thus far was conducted, a parallel line of research took a experimental studies also yielded similar findings that
more reductionist approach to early literacy. Beginning supported the importance of early systematic phonics in-
in the 1990s, a decided emphasis on one aspect of early struction, with some researchers interpreting their findings
literacy—phonological skill—emerged. A series of national to recommend synthetic over analytic approaches (Foor-
reports in the 1990s spurred renewed interest in basic skills man, Fletcher, Francis, Schatschneider, & Mehta, 1998;
approaches to literacy. Based in large part on studies of Vellutino & Scanlon, 1987; Vellutino et al., 1996; Johnson
children with severe reading disabilities conducted by the & Watson, 1997). It is important to note that most of the
National Institute of Child Health and Human Develop- studies measured reading achievement of children exposed
ment (NICHD), these reports encouraged direct, explicit to different approaches by assessing isolated word reading
approaches to teaching basic skills deemed to be prereq- or phonological awareness rather than comprehension of
uisite to literacy development. Particular attention was connected text (Taylor, Anderson, Au, & Raphael, 2000;
devoted to developing phonemic awareness in preschool Stahl, 2002). In fact, in an advance report of the findings
and kindergarten children, and phonics skills in first grade of the National Early Literacy Panel, Shanahan (2008)
and beyond. Reports from the Center for the Future of noted that the vast majority of studies located by the panel
Teaching and Learning (1996) and the National Reading in its meta-analysis of early literacy research were devoted
Panel (2000) shifted attention away from holistic emergent to identifying variables that predict later decoding, with
literacy research toward studies investigating “scientifically many fewer investigations of variables that predict com-
based” approaches to teaching basic skills. prehension.
Both reports, and the studies from which their recom- It is this definition of reading as word identification, or
mendations were drawn, were guided by models of research in many cases, the ability to decode nonsense words, that
that assumed learning problems among struggling readers led to such intense interest in phonological awareness as
were due to deficits within the children themselves. Driven a precursor to literacy, a relatively new focus in contrast
by a medical approach to understanding the sources of to early phonics studies focused on connections between
reading disabilities, researchers from the fields of medicine, oral and written language. Thus, studies of the effects of
psychology, speech and language pathology, and special phonological awareness instruction, including phonemic
education worked to identify causes for children’s difficul- awareness training and other code-based activities, on mea-
ties as a means to develop instructional interventions and sures of participating children’s reading achievement began
therapies to ameliorate disabilities. Beginning in the late to dominate the research literature (e.g., Ball & Blachman,
1980s, consensus began to emerge among such researchers 1991; Blachman, 1994; Bradley & Bryant, 1983; Ehri &
that basic cognitive deficits, especially in language domains, Wilce, 1985; Foorman, Francis, Novy, & Liberman, 1991;
including the phonological domain, greatly impact chil- Lundberg, Frost, & Petersen, 1988; Vellutino, 1991). Of
dren’s ability to master the alphabetic code (Boudreau & 291 intervention studies that met the National Early Lit-
Hedberg, 1999; Larrivee & Catts, 1999; Lewis, O’Donnell, eracy Panel’s criteria for inclusion in its meta-analysis, 78
Freebaim, & Taylor, 1998; Lombardino, Riccio, Hynd, & of the interventions were categorized as “helping children
Phnheiro., 1997; Vellutino, 1987; Vellutino et al., 1996). Yet make sense of the code,” with many fewer studies in each
these researchers also acknowledged that the cause of those of the other four categories of interventions (reading and
deficits could be ineffective early literacy instruction that sharing books with children, parent and home programs
failed to help young children make the connection between focused on improving young children’s literacy, preschool
letters and sounds (Vellutino & Scanlon, 2002). and kindergarten programs, and language enhancement
Interest in instructional approaches to beginning reading studies) (Shanahan, 2008).
certainly preceded release of the national reports. Bond Collectively, code-based intervention studies demon-
and Dykstra (1967), Chall (1967), and Levin and Wil- strated that children who received instruction in phonol-
liams (1970) each attempted to establish the research base ogy had fewer instances of reading problems, particularly
supporting various approaches to teaching young children when reading achievement was assessed with measures
to read. Whether reporting results of their own studies or emphasizing decoding. The studies did not demonstrate
synthesizing the work of others, their conclusions were similarly large effects on oral reading, comprehension,
similar, supporting the importance of code-based instruc- word recognition, or spelling, particularly if letters were
tion. All stopped short of recommending any particular not included in the training (Hohn & Ehri, 1983; NRP,
approach to teaching the code, however, and eschewed 2000; Shanahan, 2008). Nonetheless, this body of research
 Shifting Perspectives in Emergent Literacy Research 191

formed the basis of many subsequent federal initiatives to contexts. Kouri, Selle, and Riley (2006) investigated the
shape early literacy instruction nationwide, most notably effects on language impaired children’s oral reading of both
through mandates included in the No Child Left Behind meaning-based and phonemic key word activities prior to
legislation. The shift in perspective away from constructivist reading, and found both to be effective strategies, with the
toward reductionist views of early literacy is reflected in phonemic activity more effective only for facilitating cor-
the types of assessments and instructional programs those rection of miscues. Many others conducted studies of the
who accept Reading First and Early Reading First funding effects of storybook reading and other meaning-embedded
are required to use. interventions on children’s knowledge of print concepts,
phonemic awareness, and word learning (e.g., Englert et
al., 1995; Englert, Raphael, & Mariage, 1994; Ezell &
Discussion
Justice, 2000; Justice, 2002; Justice & Ezell, 2002; Justice
Because many of the studies supporting skills-based, & Kaderavek, 2002; Justice, Meier, & Walpole, 2005;
reductionist approaches to research and instruction were Klenk, 1994; McFadden, 1998; and van Kleeck, Woude,
conducted on behalf of children with reading disabilities, & Hammett, 2006). All found meaning-based approaches
it is tempting to assume that there is consensus regarding to be effective for increasing the emergent literacy skills
appropriate instruction for both struggling young readers of children with language impairments or those otherwise
and those at risk for later reading difficulties. That is not at risk for reading disability.
the case. This suggests that there is more agreement regarding
At roughly the same time that the National Reading approaches to emergent literacy instruction among early
Council (Snow et al., 1998) and the National Reading Panel childhood literacy researchers, speech and language pa-
(2000) were reviewing decades of experimental research thologists, and special educators than is commonly recog-
to determine the most effective ways to prevent reading nized. Why, then, the continued emphasis on reductionist,
disability, many special educators began to call for a move medical models of assessment and teaching promoted by
away from deficit thinking toward social constructivist policy makers who have been able to significantly influence
approaches in the education of children with special needs the direction of federal funding and the mandates that come
(Denti & Katz, 1995; Dudley-Marling & Dippo, 1995; attached to it?
Poplin, 1985, 1988; Trent, Artiles, & Englert, 1998). While The answer apparently does not lie simply in which body
deficit models of instruction emphasize direct instruc- of research is more convincing. Rather, it appears that politi-
tion of target literacy skills—often through repetition of cal considerations, and a desire on the part of some officials
predetermined, scripted prompts, social constructivist ap- charged with administering programs under No Child Left
proaches stress the individualized nature of learning and Behind to privilege the vendors of some favored programs
acknowledge that children construct their own knowledge over others (U.S. Dept. of Education, 2006), are at the heart
with varying levels and types of support from those with of a continued reliance on narrowly focused research aimed
more skill. Social constructivist researchers and theorists at the 10%–20% of the population affected by specific read-
emphasized the importance of embedding skills instruction ing disability (Harris & Sipay, 1990; Shaywitz, Escobar,
within meaningful literate activity. Relying on Vygotskian Shaywitz, Fetcher, & Makuch, 1992) to influence programs
theories, they posited that it is impossible for children with for all children. While many of the programs supported by
disabilities to become active learners when knowledge is policy makers are worthwhile and effective, it is important
separated from goal-embedded contexts, forcing children that those who influence literacy instruction not lose sight
with disabilities to amass discrete aspects of print into mean- of the value of continued research into the full range of
ingful wholes (Trent et al., 1998). Rather than relying on literate behavior that must continue to be investigated by
reductionist approaches, they used Vygotsky’s (1978, 1993) researchers and supported by knowledgeable teachers.
work to suggest that “teachers should mediate performance In response to the findings of the National Early Literacy
in ways that enable a child to solve a problem or achieve Panel, Shanahan (2008) noted the preponderance of stud-
a goal that would be beyond his or her unassisted efforts. ies that used decoding as the primary measure of reading
Such scaffolds make it possible for the learner to participate ability and called for more research designed to identify
in a complex process from the very beginning” (Trent et predictors of comprehension as the ultimate measure of
al., 1998, p. 286). This includes the complex process of reading achievement. In the limited number of studies that
becoming literate. did utilize this broader measure of reading achievement,
An examination of leading journals in the fields of spe- researchers found that children’s concepts about print and
cial education and speech and language pathology from the print awareness were better predictors of later achievement
1980s through 2007 reveals that, in keeping with this social than were phonological variables that predict later decoding.
constructivist perspective of instruction for children at risk Thus, it is worth considering that in terms of preventing
of reading disability, the preponderance of articles related later reading disabilities, preschool children might best be
to early literacy instruction in particular (as opposed to served by programs that attend to all of the predictors of
instruction for children in first grade and beyond) espouse later reading achievement, not just those that focus on the
approaches that embed skills instruction in meaningful phonological ability that impacts later decoding.
192 Renée M. Casbergue and Lea McGee

References Darling, S., & Hayes, A. (1989). The William R. Kenan Jr. Charitable
Trust Family Literacy Project, First Report 1988–1989. Louisville,
Adams, M. (1990). Beginning to read: Thinking and learning about print. KY: National Center for Family Literacy.
Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. Darling, S., & Hayes, A. (1996). The power of family literacy. Louisville,
Anderson, R., Hiebert, E., Wilkinson, I., & Scott, J. (1985). Becoming a KY: National Center for Family Literacy.
nation of readers. Champaign, IL: Center for the Study of Reading. DeBaryshe, B. D., & Buell, M. J. (1996). What a parent brings to the table:
Baghban, M. (1984). Our daughter learns to read and write. Newark, DE: Young children writing with and without parental assistance. Journal
International Reading Association. of Literacy Research, 28(1), 71–91.
Ball, E., & Blachman, B. (1991). Does phoneme awareness training in Delgado-Gaitan, C. (1994). Sociocultural change through literacy: Toward
kindergarten make a difference in early word recognition and devel- empowerment of families. In B. Ferdman, R. Weber, & A. Ramirez
opmental spelling? Reading Research Quarterly, 26, 49–66. (Eds.), Literacy Across Languages and Cultures (pp. 143–170). Albany,
Balmuth, M. (1982). The roots of phonics: A historical introduction. New NY: State University of New York Press.
York: McGraw-Hill. Denti, L., & Katz, M. (1995). Escaping the cave to dream new dreams:
Beers, J., & Henderson, E. (1977). A study of developing orthographic A normative vision for learning disabilities. Journal of Learning Dis-
concepts among first grade children. Research in the Teaching of abilities, 28, 415–424.
English, 11, 133–148. Dickinson, D., & Snow, C. (1987). Interrelationships among prereading
Bissex, G. (1980). Gnys at wrk: A child learns to write and read. Cam- and oral language skills in kindergartners from two social classes.
bridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Early Childhood Research Quarterly, 2, 1–25.
Blachman, B. (1994). Early literacy acquisition: The role of phonologi- Dickinson, D., & Sprague, K. (2002). The nature and impact of early
cal awareness. In G. Wallach & K. Butler (Eds.), Language learning childhood care environments on the language and early literacy de-
and disabilities in school children and adolescents: Some underlying velopment of children from low-income families. In S. Neuman & D.
principles and applications (pp. 253–274). Columbus, OH: Merrill. Dickinson (Eds.), Handbook of early literacy research (pp. 263–280).
Bond, G., & Dykstra, R. (1967). The cooperative research program in first- New York: Guilford.
grade reading instruction. Reading Research Quarterly, 2, 5–142. Dudley-Marling, C., & Dippo, D. (1995). What learning disability does:
Boudreau, D., & Hedberg, N., (1999). A comparison of early literacy Sustaining the ideology of schooling. Journal of Learning Disabilities,
skills in children with specific language impairment and their typically 28, 408–414.
developing peers. American Journal of Speech-Language Pathology, Dunn, L., Beach, S., & Kontos, S. (1994). Quality of literacy environment
8, 249–260. in day care and children’s development. Journal of Research in Child-
Bradley, L. ,& Bryant, P. (1983). Categorizing sounds and learning to read: hood Education, 9, 23–34.
A causal connection. Nature, 303, 419–421. Durkin, D. (1966a). The achievement of pre-school readers: Two longitu-
Branscombe, N., & Taylor, J. (2000). “It would be good as Snow White”: dinal studies. Reading Research Quarterly, 1(4), 5–36.
Play and prosody. In K. Roskos & J. Christie (Eds.), Play and literacy Durkin, D. (1966b). Children who read early. New York: Teachers Col-
in early childhood: Research from multiple perspectives (pp.169–188). lege Press.
Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum. Durkin, D. (1974). A six year study of children who learned to read in
Britto, P., Brooks-Gunn, J., & Griffin, R. (2006). Maternal reading and school at the age of four. Reading Research Quarterly, 10(1), 9–61.
teaching patterns: Associations with school readiness in low-income Dyson, A. H. (1982a). Reading, writing, and language: Young children
African American families. Reading Research Quarterly, 41, 68–89. solving the written language puzzle. Language Arts, 59, 829–839.
Brizius, J., & Foster, S. (1993). Generation to generation: Realizing the Dyson, A. (1982b). The emergency of visible language: Interrelationships
promise of family literacy. Ypsilanti, MI: High/Scope Press. between drawing and early writing. Visible Language, 16, 360–381.
Bryant, D., Burchinal, M., Lau, L., & Sparling, J. (1994). Family and Dyson, A. H. (1984). Learning to write: Learning to do school: Emergent
classroom correlates of Head Start children’s developmental outcomes. writers’ interpretations of school literacy tasks. Research in the Teach-
Early Childhood Research Quarterly, 9, 289–310. ing of English, 18(3), 233–263.
Burchinal, M., Roberts, J., Riggins, R., Zeisel, S., Neebe, E., & Bryant, Dyson, A. (1997). Writing superheroes: Contemporary childhood, popular
D. (2000). Relating quality of center-based child care to early cogni- culture, and classroom literacy. New York: Teachers College Press.
tive and language development longitudinally. Child Development, Dyson, A. (2002). Writing and children’s symbolic repertoires: Develop-
71, 339–357. ment unhinged. In S. Neuman & D. Dickinson (Eds.), Handbook of
Burns, M. S., & Casbergue, R. (1992). Parent-child interactions in a early literacy research (pp. 126–141). New York: Guilford.
writing context. Journal of Reading Behavior: A Literacy Journal, Edwards, P. (1991). Fostering literacy through parent coaching. In E. H.
20, 289–312. Hiebert (Ed.), Literacy for a diverse society: Perspectives, practices,
Bus, A., & van Ijzendoorn, M. (1995). Mothers reading to their 3 year and policies (pp. 199–214). New York: Teachers College Press.
olds: The role of mother-child attachment security in becoming literate. Edwards, P. (1994). Responses of teachers and African-American moth-
Reading Research Quarterly, 30, 998–1015. ers to a book reading intervention program. In D. K. Dickinson (Ed.),
Center for the Future of Teaching and Learning. (1996). Thirty years of Bridges to literacy: Children, families, and schools (pp. 175–208).
NICHD research: What we now know about how children learn to Cambridge, MA: Blackwell.
read. Effective School Practices, 15, 33–46. Ehri, L., & Wilce, L. (1985). Movement into reading: Is the first stage of
Chall, J. (1967). Learning to read: The great debate. New York: McGraw- printed word learning visual or phonetic? Reading Research Quarterly,
Hill. 20, 163–179.
Chaney, C. (1992). Language development, metalinguistic skills, and Elley, W. (1989). Vocabulary acquisition from listening to stories. Reading
print awareness in 3-year-old children. Applied Psycholinguistics, Research Quarterly, 24, 174–187.
13, 485–514. Englert, C., Garmon, A., Mariage, T., Rozendal, M., Tarrant, K., & Urba,
Christie, J., & Stone, S. (1999). Collaborative literacy activity in print- J. (1995). The early literacy project: Connecting across the literacy
enriched play centers: Exploring the “zone” in same-age and multi-age curriculum. Learning Disability Quarterly, 18, 253–275.
groupings. Journal of Literacy Research, 31, 109–131. Englert, C., Raphael, T., & Mariage, T. (1994). Developing a school-based
Clay, M. (1966). Emergent reading behavior (Unpublished doctoral dis- discourse for literacy learning: a principled search for understanding.
sertation). University of Auckland, Auckland, New Zealand. Learning Disability Quarterly, 17, 2–32.
Clay, M. (Ed.). (1971). Research on language and reading in Pakeha and Ezell, H., & Justice, L. (1998). A pilot investigation of parent questions
Polynesian groups. Newark, DE: International Reading Association. about print and pictures to preschoolers with language delay. Child
Clay, M. (1998). By different paths to common outcomes. Portland, ME: Language Teaching and theory, 13, 273–278.
Stenhouse. Ezell, H., & Justice, L., (2000). Increasing the print focus of adult-child
 Shifting Perspectives in Emergent Literacy Research 193

shared book reading through observational learning. American Journal language impairment. Topics in Early Childhood Special Education,
of Speech-Language Pathology, 9, 36–47. 23, 137–150.
Ezell, H., Justice, L., & Parsons, D. (2000). A clinic-based book reading Justice, L., Kaderavek, J., Bowles, R., & Grimm, K. (2005). Phonological
intervention for parents and their preschoolers with communication awareness, language impairment, and parent-child shared reading: A
impairment. Child Language Teaching and Theory, 16, 121–140. feasibility study. Topics in Early Childhood Special Education, 25,
Feitelson, D., & Goldstein, Z. (1986). Patterns of book ownership and 143–156.
reading to young children in Israeli school-oriented and non-school- Justice, L. M., Meier, J., & Walpole, S. (2005). Learning new words from
oriented families. The Reading Teacher, 39, 924–930. storybooks: Findings from an intervention with at-risk kindergarteners.
Fernandez-Fein, S., & Baker, L. (1997). Rhyme and alliteration sensitiv- Language, Speech, and Hearing Services in Schools, 36, 17–32.
ity and relevant experiences among preschoolers from diverse back- Justice, L., Weber, S., Ezell, H., & Bakeman, R. (2002). A sequential
grounds. Journal of Literacy Research, 29, 433–459. analysis of children’s responsiveness to parental print references
Ferreiro, C. (1986). The interplay between information and assimilation during shared book-reading interactions. American Journal of Speech-
in beginning literacy. Norwood, NJ: Ablex. Language Pathology, 11, 30–40.
Foorman, B., Fletcher, J., Francis, D., Schatschneider, C., & Mehta, P. Kantor, R., Miller, S., & Fernie, D. (1992). Diverse paths to literacy.
(1998). The role of instruction in learning to read: Preventing read- Reading Research Quarterly, 27, 184–201.
ing failure in at-risk children. Journal of Educational Psychology, Klenk, L. (1994). Case study in reading disability: An emergent literacy
90, 37–55. perspective. Learning Disabilities Quarterly, 17, 36–54.
Foorman, B., Francis, D., Novy, D., & Liberman, D. (1991). How letter- Kouri, T., Selle, C., & Riley, S. (2006). Comparison of meaning and
sound instruction mediates progress in first-grade reading and spelling. graphophonemic feedback strategies for guided reading instruction of
Journal of Educational Psychology, 83, 456–469. children with language delays. American Journal of Speech-Language
Gentry, J. (1978). Early spelling strategies. Elementary School Journal, Pathology, 15, 236–246.
79, 88–92. Labbo, L. D. (1996). Beyond storytime: A sociopsychological perspective
Hall, N. (1987). The literate home corner. In P. Smith (Ed.), Parents and on young children’s opportunities for literacy development during story
teachers together (pp. 134–144). London: Macmillan. extension time. Journal of Literacy Research, 28(3), 405–429.
Hammett, L., van Kleeck, A., & Huberty, C. (2003). Patterns of parents’ Laosa, L. (1983). Families as facilitators of children’s intellectual develop-
extratextual interactions during book sharing with preschool children: ment at 3 years of age. In L. M. Laosa & I. E. Spiegal (Eds.), Families as
A cluster analysis study. Reading Research Quarterly, 38, 442–468. learning environments for children (pp. 1–45). New York: Plenum.
Harris, A., & Sipay, E. (1990). How to increase reading ability (9th ed.). Leseman, P., & de Jong, P., (1998). Home literacy: Opportunity, instruc-
New York: Longman. tion, cooperation and social-emotional quality predicting early reading
Hart, B., & Risley, R. (1995). Meaningful differences in the everyday achievement. Reading Research Quarterly, 33(3), 294–318.
experience of young American Children. Baltimore, MD: Brookes. Levin, H., & Williams, J. (Eds.). (1970). Basic studies on reading. New
Heath, S. B. (1982). What no bedtime story means: Narrative skills at York: Basic Books.
home and school. Language and Society, 11(1), 49–76. Lewis, B., O’Donnell, B., Freebaim, L., & Taylor, H. (1998). Spoken lan-
Heath, S. B. (1983). Ways with Words: Language, life and work in com- guage and written expression - Interplay of delays. American Journal
munities and classroooms. New York: Cambridge University Press. of Speech-Language Pathology, 7, 77–84.
Henderson, E. H., & Beers, J. W. (1980). Developmental and cognitive Lombardino, L., Riccio, C., Hynd, G., & Phnheiro, S. (1997). Linguistic
aspects of learning to spell: A reflection of word knowledge. Newark, deficits in children with reading disabilities. American Journal of
DE: International Reading Association. Speech-Language Pathology, 6, 71–78.
High/Scope Educational Research Foundation. (1997). Early returns: First Lundberg, I., Frost, J., & Petersen, O. (1988). Effects of an extensive
year report of the Michigan school-readiness programs evaluation. program for stimulating phonological awareness in preschool children.
Ypsilianti, MI: Author. Reading Research Quarterly, 23, 263–285.
Hohn, W., & Ehri, L. (1983). Do alphabet letters help prereaders acquire Mason, J. M. (1980). When do children begin to read: An exploration of
phonemic segmentation skill? Journal of Educational Psychology, four year old children’s letter and word reading competencies. Reading
75, 752–762. Research Quarterly, 15(2), 203–227.
Jackson, R., McCoy, A., Pistorino, C., Wilkinson, A., Burghardt, J., Clark, McCune, L. (1995). A normative study of representational play at the
M., et al. (2007). National evaluation of Early Reading First: Final transition to language. Developmental Psychology, 31, 198–201.
report. U.S. Department of Education, Institute of Education Sciences, McFadden, T. (1998). Sounds and stories: Teaching phonemic awareness
Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office. in interactions around text. American Journal of Speech-Language
Johnston, R. S., & Watson, J. (1997). Developing reading, spelling and Pathology, 5–13.
phonemic awareness skills in primary school children. Reading, 31, McGee, L., & Richgels, D. (1989). K is Kristen’s: Learning the alphabet
37–40. from a child’s perspective. The Reading Teacher, 43, 216–225.
Justice, L. (2004). Creating language-rich preschool classroom environ- McGee, L., & Richgels, D. (1990). Literacy’s beginnings. New York:
ments. Teaching Exceptional children, 37, 36–44. Allyn & Bacon.
Justice, L., & Ezell, H. (2000). Enhancing children’s print and word McGill-Franzen, A., Allington, R., Yokoi, L., & Brooks, G. (1999). Put-
awareness through home-based parent intervention, American Journal ting books in the room seems necessary but not sufficient. Journal of
of Speech-Language Pathology, 9, 257–269. Educational Research, 93, 67–74.
Justice, L., & Ezell, H. (2001). Descriptive analysis of written language Morrow, L., & Weinstein, C. (1986). Encouraging voluntary reading: The
awareness in children from low income households. Communication impact of literature programs on children’s use of library corners.
Disorders Quarterly, 22, 123–134. Reading Research Quarterly, 21, 330–346.
Justice, L., & Ezell, H. (2002). Use of storybook reading to increase print National Reading Panel. (2000). Report of the National Reading Panel.
awareness in at-risk children. American Journal of Speech-Language Washington, DC: National Institute of Child Health and Development.
Pathology, 11, 17–29. Retrieved from http://www.nationalreadingpanel.org
Justice, L. M., & Kaderavek, L. M. (2002). Using shared book reading Neuman, S. (1996). Children engaging in storybook reading: The influence
to promote emergent literacy. Teaching Exceptional Children, 34, of access to print resources, opportunity, and parental interaction. Early
8–13. Childhood Research Quarterly, 29, 495–513.
Justice, L., & Kaderavek, J. (2003). Topic control during shared sto- Neuman, S., & Celano, D. (2006). The knowledge gap: Implications of
rybook reading: Mothers and their children with mild to moderate leveling the playing field for low-income and middle-income children.
Reading Research Quarterly, 41, 176–201.
194 Renée M. Casbergue and Lea McGee

Neuman, S., & Gallagher, P. (1994). Joining together in literacy learning: Schickedanz, J. (1990). Adam’s righting revolutions. Portsmouth, NH:
Teenage mothers and children. Reading Research Quarterly, 29, Heinemann.
382–401. Schieffelin, B., & Cochran-Smith, M. (1984). Learning to read culturally:
Neuman, S., Hagedorn, T., Delano, D., & Daly, P. (1995). Toward a col- Literacy before schooling. In H. Goelman, A. Oberg, & F. Smith (Eds.),
laborative approach to parent involvement in early education: A study Awakening to literacy (pp. 3–23). Exeter, NH: Heinemann.
of teenage mothers in an African-American community. American Senechal, M., LeFevre, J., Thomas, E., & Daley, K. (1998). Differential
Educational Research Journal, 32, 801–827. effects of home literacy experiences on the development of oral and
Neuman, S., & Roskos, K. (1989). Preschoolers’ conceptions of literacy as written language. Reading Research Quarterly, 32, 96–116.
reflected in their spontaneous play. In S. McCormick & J. Zutell (Eds.), Shanahan, T. (2008). The National Early Literacy Panel: What research
Cognitive and social perspectives for literacy research and instruction does a review of research recommend? Paper presented at the Interna-
(pp. 87–94). Chicago: National Reading Conference. tional Reading Association Annual Conference, Atlanta, GA.
Neuman, S., & Roskos, K. (1990). The influence of literacy-enriched Shaywitz, S., Escobar, M., Shaywitz, B., Fetcher, J., & Makuch, R. (1992).
play settings on preschoolers’ engagement with written language. Evidence that dyslexia may represent the lower tail of a normal dis-
In J. Zutell & S. McCormick (Eds.), Literacy theory and research: tribution of reading ability. New England Journal of Medicine, 326,
analyses from multiple perspectives (pp. 179–187). Chicago: National 145–150.
Reading Conference. Skinner, B. F. (1950). Are theories of learning necessary? Psychological
Neuman, S., & Roskos, K. (1992). Literacy objects as cultural tools: Review, 57(4), 193–216.
Effects on children’s literacy behaviors in play. Reading Research Skinner, B. F. (1989). Recent issues in the analysis of behavior. New
Quarterly, 27, 202–225. York: Merrill.
Neuman, S., & Roskos, K. (1997). Literacy knowledge in practice: Con- Snow, C. (1983). Literacy and language: Relationships during the pre-
texts of participation for young writers and readers. Reading Research school years. Harvard Educational Review, 53, 165–189.
Quarterly, 32, 10–33. Snow, C., Burns, M. S., & Griffin, P. (1998). Preventing reading difficulties
NICHD Early Child Care Research Network. (1999). Child outcomes when in young children. Washington, DC: National Research Council.
child care center classes meet recommended standards for quality. Stahl, S. (2002). Teaching phonics and phonological awareness. In S.
American Journal of Public Health, 89, 1072–1077. Neuman & D. Dickinson (Eds.), Handbook of early literacy research
Ninio, A., & Bruner, J. (1978). The achievement and antecedents of label- (pp. 333–347). New York: Guilford.
ling. Journal of Child Language, 5, 5–15. St. Pierre, R., Swartz, J., Gamse, B., Murray, S., Deck, D., & Nickel, P.
Paul, R. (1975). Invented spelling in kindergarten. Young Children, (1995). National evaluation of the Even Start Family Literacy Program,
31,195–200. final report. Bethesda, MD: Abt Associates.
Peisner-Feinberg, E., & Burchinal, M. (1997). Concurrent relations Tao, F., Games, B., & Tarr, H. (1998). National evaluation of the Even Start
between child care quality and child outcomes: The study of cost, Family Literacy Program, 1994–1997, final report. Washington, DC:
quality, and outcomes in child care centers. Merrill-Palmer Quarterly, U.S. Department of Education, Planning, and Evaluation Service.
43, 451–477. Taylor, B., Anderson, R., Au, K., & Raphael, T. (2000). Discretion in
Pellegrini, A., & Galda, L. (1993). Ten years after: A reexamination of the transition of reading research to policy. Educational Researcher,
symbolic play and literacy research. Reading Research Quarterly, 29, 16–26.
28, 162–175. Taylor, D. (1983). Family literacy: Young children learning to read and
Pellegrini, A., Galda, L., Dresden, J., & Cox, S. (1991). A longitudinal write. Exeter, NH: Heinemann.
study of the predictive relations among symbolic play, linguistic Teale, W. (1986). Home background and young children’s literacy develop-
verbs, and early literacy. Research in the Teaching of English, 25, ment. In W. H. Teale & E. Sulzby (Eds.), Emergent literacy: Writing
215–235. and reading (pp. 173–206). Norwood, NJ: Ablex.
Philliber, W., Spillman, R., & King, R. (1996). Consequences of family Trent, S., Artiles, A., & Englert, C. (1998). From deficit thinking to social
literacy for adults and children: Some preliminary finds. Journal of constructivism: A review of theory, research, and practice in special
Adolescent and Adult Literacy, 39, 558–565. education. Review of Research in Education, 23, 277–307.
Poplin, M. (1985). Reductionism from the medical model to the classroom: U.S. Department of Education. (1993). Life in preschool: Volume one of
The past, present and future of learning disabilities. Research Com- an observational study of early childhood programs for disadvantaged
munications in Psychology, Psychiatry and Behavior, 10, 37–70. four-year-olds: Final report, 1993. Cambridge, MA: Abt Associates.
Poplin, M. (1988). The reductionistic fallacy in learning disabilities: U.S. Department of Education, (2006). The Reading First Program’s
Replicating the past by reducing the present. Journal of Learning grant application process: Final inspection report. Washington, DC:
Disabilities, 21, 389–400. Author.
Price, E. (1976). How thirty-seven gifted children learned to read. The van Kleeck, A., & Beckley-McCall, A. (2002). A comparison of mothers’
Reading Teacher, 30(1), 44–48. individual and simultaneous book sharing with preschool siblings.
Purcell-Gates, V. (1996). Stories, coupons, and the “TV Guide:” Rela- American Journal of Speech-Language Pathology, 11, 175–189.
tionships between home literacy experiences and emergent literacy van Kleeck, A., Woude, J., & Hammett, L. (2006). Fostering literal and
knowledge. Reading Research Quarterly, 31(4), 406–428. inferential language skills in head start preschoolers with language
Read, C. (1971). Pre-school children’s knowledge of English phonology. impairment using scripted book-sharing discussions. American Journal
Harvard Educational Review, 41, 1–34. of Speech-Language Pathology, 15, 85–95.
Read, C. (1975). Children’s categorization of speech sounds in English. Vellutino, F. (1987). Dyslexia. Scientific American, 34–41.
Urbana, IL: National Council of Teachers of English. Vellutino, F. (1991. Introduction to three studies on reading acquisition:
Read, C. (1986). Children’s creative spelling. London: Routledge & Convergent findings on theoretical foundations of code-oriented
Kegan Paul. versus whole language approaches to reading instruction. Journal of
Richgels, D. J. (1995). Invented spelling ability and printed word learning Educational Psychology, 83, 189–264.
in kindergarten. Reading Research Quarterly, 30(1), 96–109. Vellutino, F., & Scanlon, D. (1987). Phonological coding, phonological
Richgels, D. (2002). Invented spelling, phonemic awareness, and reading awareness, and reading ability: Evidence from a longitudinal and
and writing instruction. In S. Neuman & D. Dickinson (Eds.), Hand- experimental study. Merrill-Palmer Quarterly, 33, 321–363.
book of early literacy research (pp. 142–158). New York: Guilford. Vellutino, F., & Scanlon, D. (2002). The interactive strategies approach
Rowe, D. (1998). The literate potentials of book-related dramatic play. to reading intervention. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 27,
Reading Research Quarterly, 33, 10–35. 573–635.
 Shifting Perspectives in Emergent Literacy Research 195

Vellutino, F., Scanlon, D., Sipay, E., Small, S., Pratt, A., Chen, R., et al. Whitehurst, G., Arnold, D., Epstein, J., Angell, A., Smith, M., & Fischel,
(1996). Cognitive profiles of difficult-to-remediate and readily remedi- J. (1994). A picture book reading intervention to day care and home
ated poor readers: Early intervention as a vehicle for distinguishing for children from low-income families. Developmental Psychology,
between cognitive and experiential deficits as basic causes of specific 3, 679–689.
reading disability. Journal of Educational Psychology, 88, 601–638. Whitehurst, G., Epstein, J., Angell, A., Payne, D., Crone, D., & Fischel, J.
Vygotsky, L. (1978). Mind in society. Cambridge, MA: Harvard Univer- (1994). Outcomes of an emergent literacy intervention in Head Start.
sity Press. Journal of Educational Psychology, 86, 542–555.
Vygotsky, L. (1993). The collective as a factor in the development of the Yaden, D., Smolkin, L., & Conlon, A. (1989). Preschoolers’ questions
abnormal child. In R. W. Rieber & A. S. Carton (Eds.), The collected about pictures, print conventions, and story text during reading aloud
works of L. S. Vygotsky: The fundamentals of defectology (abnormal at home. Reading Research Quarterly, 24, 188–214.
psychology and learning disabilities), Vol. 2 (pp. 191–208). New Zutell, J. (1976). Spelling strategies of preschool children and their
York: Plenum. relationships to the Piagetian concept of decentration. Dissertation
Walker, D., Greenwood, C., Hart, B., & Carta, J. (1994). Prediction of Abstracts International, 36, 5030A.
school outcomes based on early language production and socioeco-
nomic factors. Child Development, 65, 606–621.
 18
Developmental Patterns of Reading
Proficiency and Reading Difficulties
MARCIA INVERNIZZI AND LATISHA HAYES
University of Virginia

Difficulty with word recognition is by far the most appar- recognition. When word recognition processes demand
ent symptom a of reading disability, and its prevalence is too much cognitive capacity, few cognitive resources are
so great that consensus exists that word-level reading dif- left to allocate to higher-level processes of text integration
ficulties are synonymous with the most profound reading and comprehension. (p. 281)
difficulty known as dyslexia. Indeed, the very definition
Thus, there is general consensus that the ability to read
of dyslexia offered by the International Dyslexia Associa-
and decode words accurately and effortlessly is a prereq-
tion (IDA) focuses on word recognition and describes the
uisite to reading fluently and with understanding, even
disability as being primarily “characterized by difficulties
though these latter constructs integrate other cognitive and
with accurate and/or fluent word recognition and by poor
linguistic processes as well. Given this degree of agreement
spelling and decoding abilities” (IDA, 2002).
regarding the pivotal role of word recognition in reading,
Despite individual differences among the reading dis-
the ability to read words accurately and fluently has been
abled, the major problem characterizing children with dys-
the focus of most research on reading disabilities. Most
lexia is difficulty with word recognition. This basic problem
germane to this volume is the research on the development
with word recognition leads to profound interferences with
of word recognition skill, since an understanding of how
overall reading and writing fluency that pervade all areas
children learn to read and write words is key to helping
of academic achievement. Even definitions of reading flu-
them do so more easily.
ency and reading comprehension rely on theories of word
In this chapter we review the predominant theories of
recognition for their explanatory power. While the construct
word recognition and focus on their explanatory appeal
of reading fluency involves more than word recognition
in reconciling the word recognition behaviors of disabled
and includes such cognitive processes such as automatic-
readers. The chapter will then turn to the more recent de-
ity, rapid naming, and the prosodic rendering of text, most
velopmental models of word recognition that emphasize
studies specifically addressing fluency problems describe
learning and instruction. Developmental theories of word
concomitant difficulties with word recognition and theoreti-
reading emphasize the interrelatedness of word recogni-
cal discussions of reading fluency center around accurate
tion, decoding, and spelling skill and the interaction among
and automatic word recognition (Fletcher, Lyon, Fuchs,
phonology, orthography, and semantics. Children’s spell-
& Barnes, 2007). For this reason, the major measurement
ing attempts have long been considered a window through
used as a proxy for reading fluency has been the number
which to view their understanding of how written words
of words recognized correctly per minute, reflecting the
work, and the chapter will present studies linking the de-
emphasis on accurate and automatic reading of words.
velopment of orthographic knowledge to word recognition.
Theories of reading comprehension also assume adequate
The chapter will conclude with a discussion of instructional
word reading skills and research has repeatedly found
implications.
that levels of reading comprehension approach levels of
listening comprehension as word recognition and decoding
skills become accurate and automatic (Perfetti, 1985). As Models of Word Recognition
Stanovich (1994) stated:
Written word recognition involves the access of a word’s
Reading for meaning (comprehension) is greatly hindered pronunciation and meaning from memory. The nature of
when children are having too much trouble with word that access has been the subject of controversy for many

196
 Developmental Patterns of Reading Proficiency and Reading Difficulties 197

years. Some say the access is direct from the visual ortho- from the study of adults who sustained sudden brain injury
graphic display to meaning while others say the access is resulting in an acquired reading disability (alexia), not from
mediated through phonological processes which themselves the study of children who struggle to learn to read (devel-
are controversial. Still others conceptualize the recognition opmental dyslexia). Second, investigations of children with
of written words as a complex interactive process involving word reading disabilities reveal difficulty with both the
networks of weighted connections that are ever changing phonological and orthographic routes. Standing in contrast
in relation to experience with print. From a pedagogical to the either-or paradigm of the dual route model, Stanovich,
point of view, the most important aspect of written word Seigel, and Gottardo (1997) reported that most children
recognition is how it develops. Only by understanding this with word reading disabilities experienced problems with
development can we begin to plan effective instruction for both phonological and orthographic components of word
students with word recognition difficulties. This section recognition. Manis, Seidenberg, Doi, McBride-Chang, and
discusses three models of word recognition: dual route, con- Peterson (1996) also found that children with dyslexia had
nectionist, and developmental. A discussion of variations of difficulties reading both pseudowords and irregularly spelled
the first two models, such as the dual-route cascaded model exception words, and in their research, the so-called surface
and other computational models, may be found elsewhere dyslexics performed no differently than matched reading
(cf. Coltheart, 2007). level controls. Third, Zabell and Everatt (2002) found that
even adults who met the description of phonological or sur-
The Dual Route Theory of Word Recognition The most face dyslexia were not significantly different on a variety of
predominant theory of word recognition is the dual route phonological processing measures. Fourth, many argue that
theory. According to that theory of word recognition, words are read utilizing multiple connections as opposed
individuals are able to identify words either by linking to only two separate routes of word recognition. Manis et
the graphemes to phonemes, which, in turn, link to the al. argued that their results were more in keeping with a
lexical store of known words in memory, or, conversely, connectionist model of word recognition (Foorman, 1994;
by linking the word’s visual, orthographic display directly Seidenberg & McClelland, 1989) in which reading phoneti-
to the word’s meaning without phonological mediation. cally regular or irregularly spelled exception words of any
The former way of identifying words is referred to as kind activates everything that is known about the word’s
the phonological or sub-lexical route, and explains how phonological, orthographic, and semantic representations.
individuals are able to read pseudowords such as redoip or Fifth, difficulty reading irregularly spelled exception words
chasidoolid that have no meaning at all. The latter route, does not appear to be an indicator of a specific disability
often termed the visual or orthographic, route, explains but rather an indicator of experience with print. Griffiths
how individuals read irregularly spelled exception words and Snowling (2002) argued that while the decoding deficit
such as have or sugar. One reason the dual route theory has that characterizes dyslexia stems from poorly specified
maintained such longevity is because it provides a possible phonological representations, difficulty reading irregularly
explanation for these two word reading phenomena that are spelled exception words is primarily the result of limited
often associated with subtypes of dyslexia. Individuals who print exposure. This argument was based on their finding
can’t read pseudowords like blait, but whose reading of ir- that while measures of phonological processing contributed
regularly spelled exception words is relatively unimpaired, unique variance to pseudoword reading the only unique
are referred to as “deep” or “phonological” dyslexics. In predictor of irregularly spelled exception word reading was
contrast, individuals who can read pseudowords but have a measure of reading experience. Rather than concluding
difficulty reading irregularly spelled exception words like that the accurate recognition of irregularly spelled excep-
ocean are often called “surface” or “orthographic” dyslex- tion words occurs via a visual or orthographic route, these
ics. Instructional implications of this model have sometimes researchers suggested that orthographic processing is de-
led to the use of a whole word method for “phonological” pendent on experience with print. Since surface dyslexia is
dyslexics who cannot access the deeper phonological most often reported as a characteristic of younger children,
underpinnings of written words but who can nevertheless Stanovich (1994) posited that the inability to read exception
capitalize on the visual orthographic display on the surface. words could simply be a transient delay in the development
Conversely, the logic of this theory has sometimes led to of word recognition skills due to inexperience.
a phonics-based approach for orthographic dyslexics who These findings, in combination with the prevalence of
have difficulty with the surface, orthographic representa- dyslexic children’s struggle with both the phonological
tion despite their ability to access the deeper phonologi- and orthographic aspects of words, undermine the dual
cal elements within a written word. The concept of deep route theory of word recognition. Moreover, Vellutino,
(phonological) versus surface (orthographic) dyslexia has Scanlon, and Chen (1995) have questioned the very no-
led to metaphorical descriptions differentiating Phoenician tion of orthographic coding as a separate construct in the
(phonological) from Chinese (orthographic) readers (Baron dual route theory of word recognition, on the grounds that
& Strawson, 1976). phonological knowledge and orthographic knowledge are
There are several limitations to the dual route theory inseparable and must work together to help young readers
of word recognition. First, the dual route theory evolved crack the alphabetic code.
198 Marcia Invernizzi and Latisha Hayes

Connectionist Models of Word Recognition An alterna- simply involves differential weighting of the connections.
tive model that considers the interplay of phonological, In this light, performance on any given word is influenced
orthographic, and semantic information are connectionist by knowledge of other words.
models of word recognition. These models seek to explain Connectionist models have been successful in “learning”
developmental dyslexia by configuring a computational to pronounce thousands of words of all degrees of spelling-
model of the reading impairment and seeing if it simulates to-sound consistency and suggest that the most optimal
the dyslexic behavior (Seidenberg, 2005). Connectionist learning algorithms involve multiple layers of information
models of word recognition provide a way to test causal about the visual and linguistic identities of written words
hypotheses about various reading impairments and can that are simultaneously distributed across many connec-
also test the learning potential of different simulated tions. Some connectionist models are also known as neural
instructional practices. Though the technical aspects of network models and involve both “cooperative and competi-
these computational models are challenging, they offer an tive” interactions among inputs (Plaut, 2007). Cooperative
interesting check on the many theoretical assumptions un- input is processed through a linear integration function
derlying theories of word recognition and consider different while competitive input is processed through a nonlinear
types of information (phonological, orthographic, semantic) activation function. The linear integration function explains
as they interact rather than different types of processing how readers deal with words with cooperating (or similar)
that are separated into two different routes. Growing from properties. Through a linear integration function, readers
parallel processing models (e.g., Just & Carpenter, 1987; can generalize properties of known words to unknown
Rayner & Pollatsek, 1998) that avoid the serial requirements words. For example, the nonword zill would be pronounced
of the earlier models, connectionist models challenge two correctly given positive connections to words like hill, pill,
critical assumptions of the dual-route theory: (a) recogniz- fill that have the same sound and spelling pattern. However,
ing words involves either learning rules for pronouncing since some words are only partially regular, these models
regularly spelled words like gave and save, or memorizing use a nonlinear activation function to explain how read-
irregularly spelled exception words like have, and (b) rule ers approach irregular exception or words that may have
and memory systems are acquired and governed by two features that compete with features that are phonetically
different mechanisms or routes. regular. The nonlinear activation function allows the reader
Following the logic of Venezky and Massaro (1979) to pronounce have with a “short a” rather than with a “long
and Glusko (1979), connectionist models of word recog- a” like gave by weighting connections to other words that
nition question the categorical labeling of written words share similar features such as had or salve.
as “regular” or “irregular,” and argue that words can have Unlike the dual route theory of word recognition,
orthographically regular patterns even if individual letter connectionist models consider the process of learning,
sounds are irregular, as in eigh words like eighth, freight, which could provide important information not only about
or neigh. Instead of describing written words categorically developmental dyslexia but also about remediation. Learn-
as either regular or irregular, connectionists consider the ing is conceptualized as “a slow incremental increase in
consistency of spelling-to-sound relationships on a con- knowledge, represented by increasingly strong and ac-
tinuum. Many of the so-called “exception” words share curate connections between different units” (Plaut, 2007,
commonalities with regularly spelled words. For example, p. 25) that are impacted by feedback from performance.
the word pint shares three fourths of the letter—sound Nevertheless, connectionist models are computer-based
consistencies found in regularly spelled words like pant simulations, and depend on unspecified “hidden units” that
and pine (Seidenberg, 2005). Additionally, when pattern is increase the “computational capacity of the network and
taken into account, pint follows the i-consonant-consonant provide the basis for abstraction” to account for learning
pattern in kind, find, mind, blind, and grind. By forcing (Seidenberg, 2005, p. 239). Teachers, however, need to
exception words like pint into one of only two possible know what those hidden units are to plan their instruction
categories (or routes), the spelling-sound regularities that with struggling readers and look to developmental models
do exist are ignored. In this view, rather than two different as a more practical guide.
routes for word recognition and two different correspond-
ing instructional approaches (whole words vs. phonics) Developmental Models of Word Recognition The devel-
connectionist models theorize a “learning device” that can opment of word recognition skill is not an all or nothing
discover whatever phonological, orthographic, and semantic phenomenon. Like most aspects of learning to read and
correspondences occur across many different words. Just write, the ability to recognize words in print is acquired
like beginning readers who struggle to read a new word, gradually in accord with developmental increments of
the connectionist model learns to compute an accurate oral and written word knowledge. Some researchers have
pronunciation from a given spelling pattern by finding an referred to these increments as stages (Chall, 1983; Gough
appropriate set of weights across orthographic and other lin- & Hillinger, 1980; Mason, 1980; Marsh, Friedman, Welch
guistic systems such as phonology, syntax, and semantics. & Desberg, 1980; Frith, 1985; Henderson, 1990; Stuart &
Rather than two separate routes of word recognition, read- Coltheart, 1988), although some object to the use of the
ing pseudowords and irregularly spelled exception words word ‘stage’ because of implied thresholds of mastery
 Developmental Patterns of Reading Proficiency and Reading Difficulties 199

required to move from one stage to the next (Ehri, 1998; According to Ehri’s theory of word recognition, words
Seymour & Duncan, 2001). The term phase is preferred by are entered into memory via connections that are formed to
this group as a more flexible construct that does not require link each grapheme to its phoneme. Connections apply not
that thresholds be met before moving on. This term is often only to regularly spelled real and pseudowords, but also to
applied to more “cascaded” models of word reading that irregularly spelled exception words. Like the connection-
accommodate overlap between stages (Snowling & Hulme, ists, Ehri and Rosenthal (2007) point out that most letters
2007 p.102). Whether stages or phases, most agree that in irregularly spelled exception words can be connected to
learning to read involves a gradual increase in linguistic phonemes in their pronunciations, for example, “all but the
awareness of connections between oral and written word S is island, all but the W in sword, all but the UE in tongue
forms, and that these connections underlie the ability to (p. 392).” Thus, according to Ehri, regularly spelled real and
recognize words. pseudowords and irregularly spelled exception words are
both identified by the same processes—that is, by forming
Ehri’s Model of Word Recognition Building on a con- connections between graphemes and phonemes. As read-
nectionist framework, Ehri’s (1998) developmental phase ers remember combinations of graphemes and phonemes,
model posits a single route to word recognition, a route that larger sequences of letters or spelling patterns become
is created by forming connections among the spelling, pro- familiar units that fasten words into memory. These letter
nunciation, and meaning of a word in memory. As children sequences may be within-word spelling patterns or rimes
learn to map the spelling of words (their visual display) with (e.g., EAT in neat, seat, heat), syllables, or affixes (e.g.,
their pronunciations (their phonological correspondence), ING, NESS). Polysyllabic words may be remembered by
this orthographic/phonological linkage secures the word forming connections between these larger orthographic
in memory (Ehri, 1999). Through the orthography, the units and syllables in pronunciation the three units in RE-
phonological aspects of a word are bonded to the word’s HEAT-ING, for example.
other linguistic identities, such as its syntactic function, Rather than two separate routes to word recognition,
pronunciation, and meaning. Incremental knowledge of Ehri’s theory suggests that phonemic (pronunciation) and
the orthography gradually amalgamates the phonological, graphemic (spelling) knowledge grows over time, becomes
syntactic, and semantic identities of a word and glues it into mutually reinforcing, and eventually, indistinguishable.
memory. Thorough knowledge of the grapheme-phoneme Several studies have shown that children do retain specific
system provides immediate access to the word in memory word spellings in memory after seeing the word in print
because seeing the orthography automatically activates (Ehri, 1980, Retisma, 1983; Share, 2004). In addition,
its pronunciation, meaning, and use. Thus, according to studies have shown that seeing printed words while simul-
Ehri’s theory of word reading, “sight words” are not read taneously hearing them yields greater memory for them
by a visual route, but are recognized “at first sight” through than hearing them alone (Ehri & Wilce, 1979). Still other
immediate recognition of the orthographic display, which work has shown that spelling knowledge influences speech
in turn, activates the phonological, syntactic, and semantic perception (Ehri & Wilce, 1980). Readers who know how
information necessary to read the word successfully. Even to spell the words pitch and rich, for example, will segment
the proper pronunciation of difficult exception words such those words in to four and three phonemes respectively,
as colonel, derived from the Old Italian colonnello (com- despite the fact that they are pronounced identically. Simi-
mander of a column of soldiers) is activated by repeated as- larly, readers are better able to determine identical sounding
sociation of the word’s meaning and use with its spelling. phonemes in the middle of words containing intervocalic
Evidence in support of Ehri’s assertion that words are alveolar flaps (e.g., madder, metter) when they have been
read from memory comes from word recognition research exposed to their spelling (Ehri & Wilce, 1986). Other
involving Stroop tasks. In a Stroop presentation, individu- researchers have demonstrated the influence of spellings
als are shown pictures of objects such as a plane or a desk, on oral phonological awareness tasks as well. Seidenberg
but on each picture is a printed word naming a different and Tanenhaus (1979), for example, were able to show that
object such as a car or a chair. Individuals are asked to students were faster at determining rhyming pairs when they
name the picture and to ignore the words, but results from shared the same spelling than when they did not. In other
Stroop experiments have shown this to be difficult. Read- words, they were faster in determining that clue and glue
ers apparently cannot ignore the words and, in fact, it takes rhymed than they were are determining whether clue and
them longer to name the object pictures with printed words shoe rhymed, since the latter pair does not share the same
than it does to name the object pictures without the printed spelling pattern. Finally, researchers have determined that
words (Guttentag & Haith, 1978). Ehri and Rosenthal’s exposure to spelling-meaning connections in derivationally
explanation (2007) is that the sight of the printed word related pairs (e.g., bomb-bombard) improves word recogni-
automatically activates their pronunciations and meanings tion, spelling, and vocabulary (Templeton, 1992; Ehri &
in memory, and this then slows the retrieval of the pictured Rosenthal, 2007).
object name. As soon as children learn to read, they are able In Ehri’s view, to secure words in memory, readers need
to read familiar words from memory, usually by the end of to learn progressively more sophisticated word identifica-
the end of first grade. tion strategies. First, phoneme-segmentation skill is needed
200 Marcia Invernizzi and Latisha Hayes

to analyze word pronunciations into the smallest units of Henderson argued that understanding how children learned
sound. Second, letter-sound correspondence is needed to to spell words could also provide insight as to how they
connect letters to sounds. Third, students need to be able recognize them. Tying connectionist and developmental
to put these two things together to decode. When readers models, Henderson asserted that children’s growing word
apply a decoding strategy to read a new word, grapho- knowledge encompasses phonological, orthographic,
phonemic mappings are activated. Some researchers claim syntactic, and semantic information that is increasingly
that learning to decode is a self-teaching strategy allowing intertwined as children learn to read and spell. His work,
students to learn new words (Share, 1995). However, written and the work of his colleagues and students, demonstrated
words are comprised of more than single or double-letter that children’s knowledge of written words is developmental
graphemes, so any theory of word recognition must also and advances progressively in relation to cognitive develop-
account for the full array of printed word characteristics ment, exposure to print, and instruction.
such as multiple-letter patterns within and across syllables, Henderson’s theories have since been supported by a
base words, and morphemes. Theories that portray the full number of correlational and longitudinal students that have
development of word-recognition processes are of interest consistently identified spelling as an independent contribu-
to teachers because of their instructional implications for tor to word reading (Caltaldo & Ellis, 1988; Ehir & Wilce,
students who have word-identification difficulties. 1987; Morris & Perney, 1984). Significant correlations
between spelling and various measures of word recogni-
Henderson’s Model of Word Recognition Evidence tion have also been reported. Ehri (2000) reviewed six such
suggests that the graphemic units involved in word rec- studies and reported correlations between word reading and
ognition are relative to the developmental skill of the spelling ranging from .68 and .86 among students of various
reader. However, most of the stage models developed in grades and ages (first grade through college). Zutell and
cognitive psychology emphasize shifts in strategy as op- Raskinski (1989) found that measures of spelling accounted
posed to knowledge (cf. Rayner, 1988), and only recently for 40% to 60% of the variance in oral reading accuracy,
have researchers adopted a more fine-grained approach to and in a longitudinal study following children from the
investigating reciprocal interactions between strategy use first to the third grade, Ellis and Cataldo (1992) also found
and developing orthographic knowledge (Sharp, Sinatra, & spelling to be the most consistent predictor of reading
Reynolds, 2008). Nevertheless, it is generally agreed that achievement. Adding spelling instruction to the lesson plan
children progress from a state of nonreading, wherein they of students in reading interventions has repeatedly resulted
look at words much as they look at pictures, to a stage of in greater gains in oral reading accuracy, silent reading com-
beginning reading, wherein they have achieved an aware- prehension, and word recognition (Berninger et al., 1998,
ness that the alphabetic letters represent sound, whether Goulandris, 1992; Graham, Harris, & Chorzempa, 2002;
literally via their letter names, or more abstractly through McCandlis, Beck, Sandeak, & Perfetti, 2003). Invernizzi,
phonetic cues from letter-sound correspondences. A second Landrum, Robey, and Moon (2003) have reported correla-
shift is also commonly reported, wherein the child moves tions between spelling scores and oral reading levels of
away from this deliberate, sequential alphabetic decoding .79 using state-wide data from 68,817 first graders on the
strategy to a more efficient strategy in which words are more Phonological Awareness Literacy Screening.
rapidly (and some would say directly) recognized though In a recent meta-analysis of the correlational literature on
chunking larger units such as rimes (e.g., ake in take, snake, measures of phonological awareness, rapid naming, word
and rake), syllables (e.g., in-ter-est-ing), and morphemes reading, and related abilities, the best predictors of word
(e.g., demo in democratic) (cf. Gough & Hillinger, 1980, recognition were spelling and pseudoword reading (Swan-
Marsh, Friedman, Welch, & Desberg, 1980; Chall, 1983; son, Trainin, Necoechea, & Hammill, 2003). Further, in an
Frith, 1988; Stuart & Coltheart, 1988; Seymour & Duncan, exploratory factor analysis, spelling loaded meaningfully
2001; Ehri, 1998, 1999, 2002). Stuart and Coltheart (1988) onto factors of pseudoword reading, real-word reading, and
suggested that these theories might be reformulated in terms aspects of vocabulary and orthography (Swanson et al.,
of “graphemic parsing from an underlying base of phono- 2003, p. 428). These studies make concrete the theoretical
logical knowledge” (p. 147). Further, Stuart and Coltheart relationship between word recognition and knowledge of
suggested that phonological knowledge could be refined by the orthography.
successful experience with orthography, which, in turn, al- Henderson’s research on the development of children’s
lows for larger, more efficient graphemic units to be parsed orthographic knowledge suggests an interaction among
in word recognition. The work of Berninger, Chen, and cognitive representations of sound, pattern, and meaning
Abbott (1988) and Berninger, Yates, and Lester (1991) has during the process of recognizing and producing printed
also provided evidence for the use of multiple orthographic words. Similar to the lexical restructuring that is conjectured
codes that are probably acquired gradually and adaptively to occur in oral vocabulary learning (Metsala & Walley,
among beginning readers. 1998), Henderson suggested the cognitive representations
One lesser known developmental model is Henderson’s supporting the development of a reading vocabulary also
model of developmental word knowledge (1981, 1990), a become increasingly segmental across various “grain sizes”
model that emanated from developmental spelling research. corresponding to the orthographic knowledge base and the
 Developmental Patterns of Reading Proficiency and Reading Difficulties 201

language of the learner. Henderson’s theory suggests that the word. For example, in looking at the word McDonalds,
restructuring of the written lexicon is an extended process the golden arch that always accompanies this logo may be
that stretches out across the school years and influences sufficient to trigger “recognition” of the word McDonalds.
not only spelling but also the accuracy and automaticity of Other researchers have described similar phenomenon
word recognition. such as “recognizing” the word yellow by the “tall posts”
According to Henderson’s developmental word knowl- in the middle of the word, or the word look by the “pair of
edge model, students progress from a state of nonreading to eyes” in the middle (Masonheimer, Drum, & Ehri,1984;
a state of mature, skilled, fluent reading, through a series of Juel, 1991). Frith (1985) called this word reading strategy
phases or stages that are invariant for all learners of alpha- “logographic,” while Ehri (1998, 1999, 2002) coined the
betic languages. Though students may progress at different term “prealphabetic.” Chall (1983) and Henderson (1981)
rates, all students learn to read and spell words by mapping referred to this stage as “prereading” and “preliterate,” re-
the orthographic display to increasingly refined phonologi- spectively, because students are not able to recognize any
cal and morphological segments. This learning process is words without the use of selective visual cues that are totally
influenced by the number and nature of the written words arbitrary (Juel, 1991). The lack of any correspondence be-
that are known at any given point in time (Henderson, 1990; tween letters and sounds suggests that preliterate individuals
Templeton & Bear, 1992). Thus, according to Henderson’s form connections between salient visual cues and meaning,
model, word recognition is constrained by an individual’s and this constrains the odds of their guessing the correct
orthographic knowledge which in turn, is influenced by the word to single instances (Ehri & McCormick, 2004).
written words they are able to successfully recognize. The subtle changes that occur throughout the period prior
to learning the alphabet and letter sounds is why Bear, In-
Henderson Stages and Ehri’s Phases Although a thor- vernizzi, Templeton, and Johnston (2008) refer to this stage
ough comparison of all the developmental models is beyond as “emergent.” When asked to read text, emergent learners
the scope of this chapter, Henderson and Ehri’s models are are unable to match their speech to printed words in text
important to consider because they offer up yet another as- and may not even have a sense of directionality (left to right
pect of word knowledge development: student knowledge. progression of text). They are reliant on prior knowledge
The specifics of student knowledge at each phase or level of and memory of short familiar texts such as nursery rhymes
word knowledge and how that knowledge interacts with the and simple repetitive texts (“I see a ___ ____ looking at
demands of the orthography have intrinsic appeal to teach- me”). Throughout the emergent stage, children begin to
ers because of their applicability to instructional matters learn letters, particularly the letters in their own names, and,
in teaching struggling readers. Developmental models are eventually, connect these letters to speech sounds. Toward
based on behavioral descriptions of students as they learn to the end of this stage, emergent writing starts to include the
read and how their behaviors change over time in response most prominent sounds in a word, usually corresponding to
to instruction and experience. Whether described as phases syllable boundaries, as in ICDD for “I see Daddy” (Bissex,
or stages, or overlapping waves, these models share the idea 1980). The movement from this phase into the next hinges
of a zone of proximal development that can be determined by on acquiring the alphabetic principle: Letters represent
an informed analysis of the errors students make when they speech sounds in a systematic way. Until the alphabetic
read or write a word. The zone of proximal development is principle is acquired, word recognition is not possible
beyond the level at which individuals function effortlessly beyond random associations.
and independently but rather, the point at which they can
perform well with instructional support (Vygotsky, 1978). Letter name—partial to full alphabetic. Students move
Targeting instruction to students’ zone of proximal devel- into the beginning reading phase when they use letter names
opment prevents students from reverting to more primitive to read words and spell, hence the term letter name-alpha-
strategies in their frustrated efforts to read or write words betic to refer to this period of development (Henderson,
at a level that is too challenging. Knowing where students 1990; Bear et al., 2008). The name of the stage reflects
are on a developmental continuum helps teachers plan in- student knowledge of how the written system works; they
struction that will help them to get to the next level. In the use the names of the letters to represent the corresponding
next section, we describe the developmental continuum in speech sounds, much like William Steig did in his New
Henderson and Ehri’s terms. Yorker cartoon, I N-V U (I envy you) (Steig, 1968). Notice
I N-V U can be read using just partial letter-name cues that
Preliterate—prealphabetic. Prior to exposure to print, are suggestive of the entire word. For this reason, Ehri re-
learners are typically preliterate because they have not yet ferred to the early part of this phase of word recognition as
acquired any alphabetic knowledge and they do not use partial alphabetic. As students progress through this stage
any letter-sound correspondence when attempting to write. knowledge of letter-sound correspondences enables them
Similarly, when asked to read a word, preliterate learners to tackle words in the following manner: hear a sound/see a
may or may not luck out with an appropriate response, letter, write a letter/say a sound (Flanigan et al., 2010). The
depending on the association they may have made between problem arises in their limited knowledge of individual pho-
logographic cues in the graphemic display and the actual nemes within words and of letter sounds. These readers, also
202 Marcia Invernizzi and Latisha Hayes

known as beginning readers, have a developing awareness of to Ehri’s (1998) full alphabetic phase of word recognition.
individual phonemes within words but they may sometimes Thus throughout the beginning-to-read phase students move
exclude sounds due to co-articulation. For example, the from only partial alphabetic recognition in the early letter
preconsonantal nasal in words like went or camp, is folded name stage to full alphabetic recognition in the late letter
into the medial vowel as opposed to being fully articulated, name stage.
and thus these speech sounds are often omitted in spelling.
Tensions arise as they learn to recognize printed words like Within word pattern—consolidated. As students be-
wet and cap, and they see that they have not produced the come facile in recognizing the basic one- and two-letter
intended word when they write wet for went. How could wet graphemes and their phonemic counterparts that constitute
be both wet and went? Similar to the lexical restructuring most single-syllable words in beginning reading material,
that is conjectured to occur in oral vocabulary acquisition, they become aware of certain graphemes that have no direct
Henderson (1990) believed that the unintentional homo- correspondence to a speech sounds. These “silent” letters,
graphic spellings for different words that result from the such as the e in the word snake or the i in the word drain,
use of letter names in beginning writing creates the catalyst serve as a kind of diacritical marker to indicate the phonemic
for closer analysis in word recognition and spurs children value of the other vowel (Vallins, 1965). To a letter name
into abandoning the letter-name for a more efficient unit or full-alphabetic learner accustomed to segmenting and
of analysis. This interplay between increased awareness of blending letters in a one-to-one (or two-to one in the case
segments of oral and written language is influenced by the of consonant digraphs such as sh, ch, and th) fashion, this
number of written words already known. The more written observation presents yet another tension that serves as a
words that are recognized, the greater the pressure to distin- catalyst to move learners forward to adapt a more efficient
guish one word from another: wet from went; hot from hit. parsing strategy involving larger orthographic units. The
As letter name-alphabetic students progress in learning to fact that spelling patterns distinguish word meanings also
read, refinements such as these strengthen the connections exerts pressure to apply a more fine-grained analysis in
between the orthography and speech sounds and they begin word recognition. Does sail or sale refer to the boat? As
to acquire a store of words that they recognize accurately more words are learned, more connections are formed and
and immediately. lexical restructuring continues.
Early in this phase however, students’ speech-to-printed Henderson referred to this insight as an awareness of
word match is tenuous, constrained by their incomplete within word patterns (1990), where students first begin to
knowledge of the alphabetic system. Using only partial let- recognize vowel and consonant patterns within syllables.
ter cues (usually beginning and ending consonant sounds), Within word pattern learners are no longer tied solely to an
very beginning readers are easily tripped up by the mis- alphabetic linear approach; now they can focus their atten-
match of units—phonological segments such as syllables tion on chunks of letter sequences in conjunction with their
are not marked by spaces; printed words can contain more position within the word. In spelling, students know they
than one syllabic unit. Due to this mismatch of units, few may need more than one letter per sound, and in reading,
written words are recognized or learned. More automatic they look for patterns that relate to categories of speech
knowledge of beginning consonant sounds anchors their sounds, such as the consonant-vowel-vowel-consonant
finger-point reading to printed word units on the page, (CVVC) pattern characteristic and many long vowels (e.g.,
and in due time, after many more accurate speech-to-print rain, teach, coat, fruit). Ehri refers to this phenomenon as
matches, beginning readers start remembering many of the one of consolidation (Ehri & McCormick, 2004) naming
printed words they have read and are able to retrieve the it the consolidated alphabetic phase. Henderson (1990)
pronunciation of some of them at first sight. The multiple and Gentry (1982) also refer to this within word pattern
connections among beginning consonant sounds, pronun- phase as transitional because students are transitioning to
ciations, word meanings, and spellings are forged together more fluent word reading and more flexible strategy use
to form the beginning of a reading vocabulary. Once they that includes not only the previous strategies of predicting
begin to accrue some known written words and can call or decoding, but now also include the use of chunking of
them up in their mind’s eye, they are able to march across recurring letter patterns and an increased use of analogy to
words from left to right matching letters to sounds more other known words. While the use of analogy may occur at
easily and they achieve a more complete orthographic earlier levels of word knowledge, extensive knowledge of
mapping between graphemes and phonemes Nevertheless, within word patterns allows for more generative application
since the total number of known written words is not very of orthographic knowledge, such that readers might decode
large, their ability to make analogies among them is limited; the word freight by chunking the eight and making the anal-
they may use any one of various strategies to decode words ogy to the number as well as to other words with the less-
they do not recognize immediately: segmenting grapheme- common ei pattern for long-a sounds as in the word vein.
phoneme correspondences, blending letter sounds to come Sharp, Sinatra, and Reynolds (2008) have demonstrated
up with a word, or using contextual clues along with partial an interaction between increased flexibility of strategy use
alphabetic information such as beginning sounds. This lat- and increased levels of orthographic knowledge. Neverthe-
ter portion of the letter name-alphabetic stage corresponds less, the accuracy of word recognition at this point is still
 Developmental Patterns of Reading Proficiency and Reading Difficulties 203

constrained by the total size and nature of the student’s roll, Davies, and Richman (1971) corpus. What is clear in
lexical network. Upon seeing the word great, a transitional all of these studies is that instruction combined with wide
reader might say greet, until the words like break and steak reading at the appropriate levels increases not only spelling
become known. but word recognition and reading vocabulary as well.
The last stage in Henderson’s developmental model
Syllables, affixes, and derivational relations—auto- is the derivational relations stage when students learn to
matic. The representations supporting word recognition recognize spelling-meaning connections in derivationally
become increasingly segmental in accord with a growing related pairs such as divine and divinity (1990). During this
awareness of the interplay between the orthography and period, students learn that words related in meaning often
phonological units such as syllables and morphemes. Hen- share similar spelling patterns. For example, the second
derson divided this period into two stages: the syllables and “reduced” vowel in the word composition is an o because
affixes stage and the derivational relations stage (Hender- the word is derived from the word compose where the o is
son, 1990). Henderson referred to the syllables and affixes clearly heard. The orthography preserves what is otherwise
stage as a period when learners readjust their orthographic obscured in spoken words; although the vowel sounds
understandings to extend and refine the pattern-to-sound alternate in derivationally related pairs from long to short
principles that occur in single syllable word to words of (mine-mineral), long to schwa (compete-competition), or
many syllables. For example, the CVCe pattern of single schwa to short (metal-metalic), the spelling of the vowel
syllable words must be refined to accommodate the open remains the same to signal their relationship in meaning.
syllable pattern in words like taking, where the VCV pattern The study of derivational “families” helps word recognition
governs the syllable juncture. Students in this stage of learn- as well as spelling and vocabulary, because knowledge of
ing might pronounce the word whining like winning if they one form of the word helps to read and understand other
have not yet solidified the understanding that a beginning forms of the word, even if the other form is unfamiliar. For
syllable with a short vowel must be closed by a consonant, example, knowledge of the familiar word recite or recital
the vowel-consonant-consonant-vowel (VCCV) spelling helps students read and ferret out the meanings of the un-
pattern. Syllables and affixes learners must also negotiate familiar word recitation.
syllable stress. The –ai- in contain is quite different from the Following Chall (1983), Ehri and McCormick (2004)
–ai- in fountain due to the stressed syllable. Thus, in word refer to this as the automatic phase because readers can now
recognition, students might pronounce curtain as kerTAIN. read most words accurately and effortlessly in and out of
Word meanings add to the press as students work through context. Most words encountered at this phase are “sight”
syllable stress in relation to pronunciation and meaning, words, and therefore, readers can move through text with
which often results in mispronouncing homographs such speed and understanding. When faced with an unknown
as cón tract (noun) for con traćt (verb) or re ćord (noun) word, automatic readers employ multiple strategies to
for re córd (verb). confirm the word’s identity and rely on the multiple connec-
Some researchers assert that students learn how to read tions inherent in the word’s orthographic and morphological
multisyllabic words by repeatedly seeing them in context structure representing sound, pattern, and meaning.
(Cunningham, 1998). The more students successfully
recognize multisyllabic words in print, the more they be-
How Developmental Models Inform the Teaching of
gin to pick up on letter combinations that signal a break
Word Recognition for Struggling Readers
between syllables. For example, a d and an n next to each
other is more likely signal a break between syllables (e.g., Ehri and McCormick (2004) discussed four ways that
sadness) than a d next to an r, which usually functions as mature readers read words: decoding, analogy, predic-
a consonant blend in the onset position of a syllable (e.g., tion, and by sight (pp. 366–367). When mature readers
dragon) (O’Conner, 2007). Other researchers emphasize decode a written word, they deconstruct the word either
the role of instruction in learning to decode multisyllable sound-by-sound (e.g., l-e-d; ch-o-p), larger chunks such
words. For example, Shefelbine (1990) demonstrated that as phonograms (e.g., ight in light, fight, might), syllables
5 hours of instruction in using vowels and affixes to spell (e.g., dis-cov-er), or morphemes (e.g., bio-sphere). No mat-
multisyllabic words (spaced out across 30 days) signifi- ter what the unit used in decoding, the reader breaks the
cantly improved word decoding among fourth- and sixth- word down and blends the parts back together to retrieve
grade poor readers. Nagy, Anderson, Schommer, Scott, and the word. Analogy is defined by “recognizing how the
Stallman (1989) argue that knowledge of how word forms spelling of an unfamiliar word is similar to a word already
combine enhances both decoding and vocabulary learning. known” (p. 367). To do this, the reader must already have
Carlisle (1988) emphasizes the usefulness of word analysis a known word stored in memory to connect with, compare
instruction that makes use of redundancies across words as to, and note similarities. Adjustments can then be made to
in the ain pattern in rain, drain, or detaining. White, Sowell, pronounce the new word. For example, upon seeing a new,
and Yanagihara (1989) improved both the word reading and unknown word such as creature, the reader might recognize
spelling of special education students by teaching them the the -ture ending in the known word nature to successfully
most frequently occurring prefixes and suffixes in the Car- read the new word. In predicting words, students guess an
204 Marcia Invernizzi and Latisha Hayes

unknown word by using any known word part along with is also the point in development where the use of analogy
context clues such as pictures, surrounding text, or previ- becomes possible, mainly because of the growing store of
ous exposure. Finally, when readers read words by sight, known words or sight words. Additionally, these readers
they immediately retrieve its pronunciation from the visual have, at this point, full phonemic segmentation, allowing
orthographic display. The interplay of a reader’s stage of more complete grapheme-phoneme mappings. Hender-
developmental word knowledge and the ways they use to son would add, however, that the analogies that students
read words is noteworthy for this discussion. make as late letter name-alphabetic learners relate to the
According to Ehri’s developmental phase model, pre- orthographic chunks they are learning in their spelling,
alphabetic (or emergent) readers rely primarily on pre- particularly within phonograms (e.g., the amp in ramp,
diction using pictures or other non-alphabetic cues. For lamp, clamp) and across vowel sounds (e.g., the short a
example, pre-alphabetic learners might see a picture of a in blast, that, flag, rash, sack). As with early letter name-
rabbit in a text that uses the word bunny. Because they are alphabetic spellers, the unit used for decoding is relative
pre-alphabetic, such students might say rabbit for bunny to their degree of orthographic understanding. Other ways
because they have not made the connection between the b of word reading are still available, such as predicting and
and bunny. However, since pre-alphabetic learners are being reading words by sight. As more orthographic knowledge
taught the alphabet and letter sounds throughout this phase, is acquired, pressure is exerted on their lexical network
late emergent or pre-alphabetic learners will begin to expe- causing a constant need to restructure. The reader faced
rience a dissonance between what they say and what they with the short a in camp must restructure their information
see, and in turn, will possibly use the b in bunny combined about short a to accommodate the sound that results from
with the picture of the rabbit to identify the word bunny the influence of the nasal, m. According to Ehri, decoding
accurately. This dissonance will propel them forward and skill is a prerequisite for accruing sight words, and sight
begin the process of structuring their lexical network for words are a prerequisite for using an analogy. This postulem
written words. As they learn new sounds, especially those is in agreement with Henderson’s theory of written word
that compete such as d and p or m and n, they restructure knowledge development. He would, however, argue that
their current letter sound knowledge to accommodate and readers in the early letter name-alphabetic stage begin on
interconnect new information. their trajectory of amassing a store of sight words. Consider
As learners make more and more connections with letters words like is, on, and we. These words are often recognized
and sounds, they move into the beginning stage of reading. “by sight” by readers early in this stage who demonstrate
Unlike Ehri and McCormick (2004) who contend that for only partial phoneme segmentation and incomplete letter
early beginning readers (i.e., early letter name-alphabetic or sound knowledge.
partial alphabetic stage) “decoding strategies are not avail- The consolidated phase is where students learn chunks of
able for reading unfamiliar words” (p. 374), Henderson’s letter patterns and notice their reoccurrence across different
model would argue that these readers do, in fact, employ words (Ehri & McCormick, 2004). Whereas in previous
primitive decoding strategies for word reading. Consider stages students have been preoccupied with learning specific
the very beginning reader faced with the sentence, “A fish words, the accumulated knowledge along with the growing
is hiding in the reef.” alongside a picture that represents store of sight words allows students to generalize to other
this statement. This reader may use the initial consonant words that contain the same pattern. Essentially, students in
r combined with the final f and the picture cue when en- the consolidated phase are making a cognitive leap from the
countering the word reef. Although such behavior is not specific to general, which is akin to the self-teaching, boot-
full-blown decoding as in full phonemic segmentation, it strapping mechanism described by connectionist theorists.
does require partial phonemic segmentation of the word. As students are learning about ai as a spelling pattern for
Just as the early letter name-alphabetic speller only partially the long a sound, they are simultaneously storing known
represents the sounds they are trying to write (e.g., HKN words containing the ai pattern, which in turn, allows them
for chicken), partial alphabetic readers use partial decoding to recognize unknown words containing the ai pattern. This
when other ways to read words, such as prediction or sight orthographic knowledge growth initiates a restructuring of
reading, are not successful. Likewise, an early beginning their knowledge of long a. As they learn new patterns, they
reader may draw upon an analogy to a known sound, word, restructure that knowledge to accommodate all patterns for
or grapheme. For example, seeing the initial consonant the long a sound: a-consonant-e, ai, ay, ei. According to
m in the word mouse, readers can make the analogy to a Ehri, such students use both analogy and decoding strategies
more familiar word that starts with the same sound, such as to read words, and these strategies are “expanded to include
Mom. Like the example above, the student is analogizing hierarchical decoding as well as sequential decoding” (p.
a beginning sound as opposed to an entire word or larger 382). Hierarchical decoding refers to the relational aspects
chunk within the word. of silent letters, for example, that relate to the sound value
A bona fide decoder does not occur until the full alpha- of a different grapheme. The chunk can include a variety of
betic phase of word reading according to Ehri’s (2002) structures (e.g., affixes, root words, syllables, phonograms),
theory of word recognition. This stage correlates to Hender- and these structures help reduce the number of units needed
son’s late letter name-alphabetic stage. In Ehri’s view, this to process the words. For example, a reader might use the
 Developmental Patterns of Reading Proficiency and Reading Difficulties 205

prefix un- to help read and understand the words undo, insight into students’ knowledge base and instructional
untie, and unwrap. Processing words in larger chunks helps needs. An understanding of how typical reading develop-
the reader maintain a level of fluency while reading. This ment unfolds will assist teachers in planning instruction at
is reflected in Henderson’s model where he describes the the right level.
consolidated transitional reader increasing in reading rate, Word recognition relies on the development of linguistic
accuracy, and prosody. awareness for different aspects of spoken word forms (pho-
Readers at the automatic phase have progressed in their nological awareness), written word forms (orthographic
reading to a level of proficiency allowing them to experi- awareness), and structural aspects of both word forms that
ence effortless reading. These readers read words mostly convey meaning (morphological awareness). Research
by sight. They have several strategies available to use when suggests that teaching children about the spelling of word
needed, but these are mostly at an unconscious level. They forms and their parts increases the probability that they will
take part in sophisticated levels of hierarchical decoding and form connections between them and that these connections
analogizing. For example, they may read the word solar by are most easily formed when instruction matches the devel-
either analogizing it to polar or decoding it using syllable opmental orthographic, phonological, and morphological
pattern information (the open vowel-consonant-vowel syl- understanding of the learner. Reading disabilities, mani-
lable pattern, so-lar). Restructuring and refinements of the fested primarily through difficulty with word recognition,
lexical network would continue to occur. As this same reader can be prolonged and/or exacerbated when a mismatch
encounters the word habit, rethinking the syllable pattern of instruction occurs. By knowing when to teach what to
would be necessary to accommodate the closed vowel- whom, multiple connections can be formed that result in
consonant-vowel syllable pattern as in robin and comet. richer, deeper representations, increasing refinements in
Teachers must consider all of the possible ways in which lexical organization, and ultimately, to more automatic
words can be read at any stage of word recognition develop- word recognition, fluent reading, and comprehension of
ment and work to guide students in their initial attempts. word meanings.
Considering the ways readers at various stages interact with
the orthographic representation of words permits teachers References
to take advantage of the refinement of Henderson’s model.
Baron, J., & Strawson, C. (1976). Use of orthographic and word-specific
This argument seems obvious. An argument that may not knowledge in reading words aloud. Journal of Experimental Psychol-
be so apparent is the particular benefit of this knowledge ogy: Human Perception and Performance, 4, 207–214.
while working with students with reading disabilities. As Bear, D. R., Invernizzi, M., Templeton, S., & Johnston, F. (2008).Words
argued by connectionist models of word recognition, readers their way: Word study for phonics, vocabulary, and spelling instruc-
tion. Columbus, OH: Merrill/Prentice Hall.
are in a constant state of refining, extending, and restructur-
Berninger, V., Chen, A., & Abbott, R. (1988). A test of the multiple
ing their knowledge of written words as they learn more connections model of reading acquisition. International Journal of
about letters, sounds, patterns, syllables, and morphemes Neuroscience, 42, 283–295.
in spelling. This restructuring may elude some students, Berninger, V. W., Vaughan, K., Abbott, R. D., Brooks, A., Abbott, S. P.,
especially those with reading disabilities. A teacher must Rogan, L., et al. (1998). Early intervention for spelling problems:
Teaching functional spelling units of varying size with a multiple-
guide them in organizing their knowledge and help them connections framework. Journal of Educational Psychology, 90(4),
make connections among the words they know. In order 587–605.
to do this, a teacher must be aware of where they are in Berninger, V., Yates, C., & Lester, K. (1991). Multiple orthographic codes
terms of orthographic development as well as the various in reading and writing acquisition. Reading and Writing: An Interdis-
ways of word reading that students may employ. Armed ciplinary Journal, 3, 115–149.
Bissex, G. L. (1980). Gyns at Wrk. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University
with this knowledge, a teacher can be more confident in Press.
the appropriateness of the instruction, instruction that em- Boder, E. (1973). Developmental dyslexia: a diagnostic approach based
phasizes two sides of the word recognition coin: spelling on three atypical reading-spelling patterns. Developmental Medicine
and decoding. and Child Neurology, 15(5), 663–687.
Caltaldo, S., & Ellis, N. (1988). Interactions in the development of spell-
ing, reading, and phonological skills. Journal of Reading Research,
Conclusion 11, 86–109.
Carlisle, J. F. (1988). Knowledge of derviational morphology and spell-
Knowing how typical reading develops in children over time ing in fourth, sixth, and eighth grades. Applied Psycholinguistics, 9,
247–266.
is important to understand the behavior of students with
Carroll, J. B., Davies, P., & Richman, B. (1971). Word frequency book.
reading difficulties because what may appear strange and Boston: Houghton Mifflin.
uninterpretable may be predictable from a developmental Chall, J. (1983). Learning to read: The great debate. New York: Wiley.
perspective. In the past, for example, struggling readers who Coltheart, M. (2007). Modeling reading: The dual-route approach. In M.
said was for saw or who spelled gril for girl were labeled J. Snowling & C. Hulme (Eds.), The science of reading: A handbook
(pp. 6–23). Malden, MA: Blackwell.
dysedic or dysphonetic (Boder, 1973), Chinese or Phoeni-
Cunningham, P. M. (1998). The multisyllabic word dilemma: Helping stu-
cian (Baron & Strawson, 1976), harkening back to dual dents build meaning, spell, and read “big” words. Reading and Writing
route theories of word recognition. From a developmental Quarterly: Overcoming Learning Disabilities, 14, 189–218.
perspective however, such errors can provide powerful Ehri, L. (1980). The development of orthographic images. In. U. Frith
206 Marcia Invernizzi and Latisha Hayes

(Ed.), Cognitive processes in spelling (pp. 311–338). London: Aca- International Dyslexia Association. (2002, November 12). Dyslexia basics.
demic. Retrieved from http://www.interdys.org/ewebeditpro5/upload/defini-
Ehri, L. (1998). Grapheme-phoneme knowledge is essential to learning tion_Fact_Sheet_3-10-08.pdf
to read words in English. In J. L. Metsala & L. C. Ehri (Eds.), Word Invernizzi, M., & Hayes, L. (2004). Developmental spelling research:
recognition in beginning literacy (pp. 3–40). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum. A systematic imperative. Reading Research Quarterly, 39, 216–228.
Ehri, L. (1999). Phases of development in learning to read words. In J. Juel, C. (1991). Beginning reading. In R. Barr, M .L. Kamil, P. B. Mo-
V. Oakhill & R. Beard (Eds.), Reading development and the teaching senthal, & P. D. Pearson (Eds.), Handbook of reading research (Vol.
of reading: A psychological perspective (pp. 79–108). Oxford, UK: 2, pp. 759–788). New York: Longman.
Blackwell. Just, M., & Carpenter, P. (1987). The psychology of reading and language
Ehri, L.C. (2002). Phases of acquisition in learning to read words and comprehension. Boston: Allyn & Bacon.
implications for teaching. In R. Stainthorp & P. Tomlinson (Eds.), Manis, F. R., Seidenberg, M. S., Doi, L.M., McBride-Chang, C., &
Learning and teaching reading (pp. 7–28). London: British Journal Peterson, A. (1996). On the basis of two subtypes of developmental
of Educational Psychology Monograph Series II. dyslexia. Cognition, 58, 157–195.
Ehri, L. C., & McCormick, S. (2004). Phases of word learning: Implica- Marsh, G., Friedman, M., Welch, V., & Desberg, P. (1980).The develop-
tions for instruction with delayed and disabled readers. In R. B. Ruddell ment of strategies in spelling. In U. Frith (Ed.), Cognitive processes
& N. J. Unrau (Eds.), Theoretical models and processes of reading (5th in spelling (pp. 339–355). London: Academic.
ed., pp. 365–389). Newark, DE: International Reading Association. Mason, J. (1980). When do children learn to read? An exploration of four-
Ehri, L. C., & Rosenthal, J. (2007). Spelling of words: A neglected fa- year old children’s letter and word reading competencies. Reading
cilitator or vocabulary learning. Journal of Literacy Research, 39(4), Research Quarterly, 15, 202–227.
389–409. Masonheimer, P. E., Drum, P. A., & Ehri, L. C. (1984). Does environmental
Ehri, L., & Wilce, L. (1979). The mnemonic value of orthography among print identification lead children into word reading? Journal of Reading
beginning readers. Journal of Educational Psychology, 71, 26–40. Behavior, 16, 257–271.
Ehri, L., & Wilce, L. (1980). The influence of orthography on readers’ McCandliss, B., Beck, I. L., Sandak, R., & Perfetti, C. (2003). Focusing
conceptualization of the phonemic structure of words. Applied Psy- attention on decoding for children with poor reading skills: Design and
cholinguistics, 1, 371–385. preliminary tests of the word building intervention. Scientific Studies
Ehri, L., & Wilce, L. (1986). The influence of spellings on speech: Are of Reading, 7, 75–104.
alveolar flaps /d/ or /t/? In D. Yaden & S. Templeton (Eds.), Metalin- Metsala, J. L., & Walley, A. C. (1998). Spoken vocabulary growth and
guistic awareness and beginning literacy (pp. 101–114). Portsmouth, the segmental restructuring of lexical representations: Precursors to
NH: Heinemann. phonemic awareness and early reading ability. In J. L. Metsala & L.
Ehri, L., & Wilce, L. (1987). Does learning to spell help beginners learn C. Ehri (Eds.), Word recognition in beginning literacy (pp. 89–120).
to read real words? Reading Research Quarterly, 18, 47–65. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
Ellis, N., & Cataldo, S. (1992). Spelling is integral to learning to read. In C. Morris, D., & Perney, J. (1984). Developmental spelling as a predictor
M. Sterling & C. Robson (Eds.), Psychology, spelling, and education of first-grade reading achievement. Elementary School Journal, 84,
(pp. 112–142). Clevedon, UK: Multilingual Matters. 441–457.
Flanigan, K., Hayes, L., Templeton, S., Bear, D. R., Invernizzi, M., & Nagy, W., Anderson, R. C., Schommer, M., Scott, J. A., & Stallman, A.
Johnston, F. (2010). Wordstheir way with Struggling Readers: Word C. (1989). Morphological families in the internal lexicon. Research
study for reading, vocabulary, and spelling instruction, grades 4-12. Quarterly, 24, 262–282.
Boston: Pearson. O’Connor, R. E. (2007). Teaching word recognition: Effective strategies
Fletcher, J. M., Lyon, G. R., Fuchs, L., & Barnes, M. A. (2007). Learn- for students with learning difficulties. New York: Guilford.
ing disabilities: From identification to intervention. New York: Perfetti, C. A. (1985). Reading ability. New York: Oxford University
Guilford. Press.
Foorman, B. R. (1994). The relevance of a connectionist model of reading Plaut, D. (2007). Connectionist approaches to reading. In M. J. Snowl-
for “the great debate.” Educational Psychology Review, 16, 25–47. ing & C. Hulme (Eds.), The science of reading (pp. 24–39). Malden,
Frith, U. (1985). Beneath the surface of developmental dyslexia. In K. E. MA: Blackwell.
Patterson, J. C. Marshall, & M. Coltheart (Eds.), Surface dyslexia: Rayner, K. (1988). Word recognition cues in children: The relative
Neuropsychological and cognitive studies of phonological reading use graphemic cures, orthographic cues, and grapheme-phoneme
(pp. 301–330). London: Erlbaum.. correspondence rules. Journal of Educational Psychology, 80,
Gentry, J. R. (1982). An analysis of developmental spelling in “GNYS AT 473–479.
WRK.” The Reading Teacher, 36, 192–200. Rayner K. & Pollatsek, A. (1998). The psychology of reading. Englewood
Glusko, R. J. (1979). The organization and activation of orthographic Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.
knowledge in reading aloud. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Retisma, P. (1983). Printed word learning in beginning readers. Journal
Human Perception and Performance, 5, 674–691. of Experimental Child Psychology, 75, 321–339.
Gough, P., & Hillinger, M. (1980). Learning to read: An unnatural act. Seidenberg, M. S. (2005). Connectionist models of word reading. American
Bulletin of the Orton Society, 30, 179–196. Psychological Society, 14(5), 238–242.
Goulandris, N. (1994). Teaching spelling: Bridging theory and practice. In Seidenberg, M. S., & McClelland, J. L. (1989). A distributed develop-
G. D. A. Brown & N. C. Ellis (Eds.), Handbook of spelling: Theory, mental model of visual word recognition and naming. Psychological
process, and intervention (pp. 407–423). Chichester, UK: Wiley. Review, 96, 523–568.
Graham, S., Harris, K. R., & Chorzempa, B. F. (2002). Contribution of Seidenberg, M., S., & Tanenhaus, M. (1979). Orthographic effects on
spelling instruction to the spelling, writing, and reading of poor spell- rhyme monitoring. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human
ers. Journal of Educational Psychology, 94, 669–686. Learning and Memory, 5, 546–554.
Griffiths, Y. M., & Snowling, M. J. (2002). Predictors of exception word Seymour. P. H. K., & Duncan, L. G., (2001). Learning to read in English.
and nonword reading in dyslexic children: The severity hypothesis. Psychology: The Journal of the Hellenic Psychological Society, 8,
Journal of Educational Psychology, 94, 34–43. 281–299.
Guttentag, R., & Haith, M. (1978). Automatic processing as a function of Share, D. L. (1995). Phonological recoding and self-teaching: Sine qua
age and reading ability. Child Development, 49, 707–716. non of reading acquisition. Cognition, 55, 151–218.
Henderson, E. H. (1981). Learning to read and spell: The child’s knowl- Share, D. (2004). Orthographic learning at a glance: On the time course
edge of words. DeKalb: Northern Illinois Press. and developmental onset of self-teaching. Journal of Experimental
Henderson, E.H. (1990). Teaching spelling (2nd ed). Boston: Houghton Child Psychology, 87, 267–298.
Mifflin. Sharp, A. C., Sinatra, G. M., & Reynolds, R. E. (2008). The development
 Developmental Patterns of Reading Proficiency and Reading Difficulties 207

of children’s orthographic knowledge: A microgenetic perspective. (Eds.), Development of orthographic knowledge and the foundations
Reading Research Quarterly, 43(3), 206–226. of literacy: A memorial festschrift for Edmund H. Henderson (pp.
Shefelbine, J. (1990). A syllable-unit approach to teaching decoding of 253–278), Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
polysyllable words to fourth- and sixth-grade disabled readers. In J. Templeton, S., & Bear, D. (1992). Development of orthographic knowledge
Zutell & S. McCormick (Eds.), Literacy theory and research: Analysis and the foundations of literacy: A memorial Festschrift for Edmund
from multiple paradigms (pp. 223–230). Chicago: National Reading H. Henderson. Hilldsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Conference. Vallins, G. (1965). Spelling. London: Andre Dentsch Limited.
Snowling, M. J., & Hulme, C. (2007). The science of reading: A handbook. Vellutino, F. R., Scanlon, D. M., & Chen, M. S. (1995). The increasingly in-
Malden, MA: Blackwell extricable relationship between orthographic and phonological coding
Stanovich, K. E. (1994). Romance and reality. Reading Teacher, 47, in learning to read: Some reservations about current methods of opera-
280–291. tionalizing orthographic coding. In V. W. Berninger (Ed.), The varieties
Stanovich, K. E., Seigel, L. S., & Gottardo, A. (1997). Converging evidence of orthographic knowledge II: Relationships to phonology, reading,
for phonological and surface subtypes of reading disability. Journal and writing (47–111). Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Kluwer.
of Educational Psychology, 89, 114–127. Venezky, R. L., & Massaro, D. W. (1979). The role of orthographic regular-
Steig, W. (1968). CDB. New York: Aladdin Paperbacks/Simon & Schus- ity in word recognition. In L. Resnick & P. Weaver (Eds.), Theory and
ter. practice of early reading (pp. 85–107). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Stuart, M., & Coltheart, M. (1988). Does reading develop in a sequence Vygotsky, L.S. (1978). Mind in society: The development of higher mental
of stages? Cognition, 30, 139–181. processes. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Swanson, L., H., Trainin, G., Necoechea, D. M., & Hammill, D. D. (2003). White, T. G., Sowell, J., & Yanagihara, A. (1989). Teaching elementary
Rapid naming, phonological awareness, and reading: A meta-analysis students to use word-part clues. The Reading Teacher, 42, 302–308.
of the correlational evidence. Review of Educational Research, 73(4), Zabell, C., & Everatt, J. (2002). Surface and phonological subtypes of
407–433. adult developmental dyslexia. Dyslexia, 8, 160–177.
Templeton, S. (1992). Theory, nature, and pedagogy of higher-order or- Zutell, J., & Raskinski, T. (1989). Reading and spelling connections in third
thographic development in older children. In S. Templeton & D. Bear and fifth grade students. Reading Psychology, 10, 137–155.
 19
Vocabulary Development and Implications
for Reading Problems
ANDREW BIEMILLER
Ontario Institute for Studies in Education

Overview It is particularly important to note that vocabulary assessed

in kindergarten or Grade 1 is strongly predictive of read-
Adequate vocabulary is a necessary (though not sufficient) ing comprehension in Grades 3 or 4 (Scarborough, 2001)
condition for comprehension of any written text. For most and even in Grade 11 (Cunningham & Stanovich, 1997).
of the first 8 years of life, vocabulary size is now largely Vocabulary plays less of a role in reading comprehension in
determined by language used at home and encouragement Grades 1 and 2 when texts used for comprehension assess-
for vocabulary at home. By the end of Grade 2, children ment generally use vocabulary restricted to high-frequency
vary markedly in vocabulary, differences which are very words (Becker, 1977).
predictive of later school achievement. Those in the lowest The crucial role of vocabulary is evident when one looks
quarter average about 2 years behind grade-level children at a text written in a second language. Comprehension be-
in root word vocabulary. Those whose reading comprehen- gins with an understanding of the words in each sentence.
sion is below grade level typically also have vocabularies There can be no comprehension when many words are not
below grade level (and vice versa). Because vocabulary is known.
acquired in a predictable order, it should be possible to do I acknowledge that vocabulary is not the only determi-
more than educators do presently to ensure that children nant of reading comprehension. Cain and Oakhill (2003)
build adequate vocabulary. During students’ preliterate reviewed sources of reading comprehension difficulties. In
years, when children’s reading levels are lower than their addition to vocabulary, they suggest that working memory,
oral comprehension, educators need to teach vocabulary in problems at the sentence and discourse level, and breadth of
oral contexts. During students’ literate years, when read- reading experience all contribute to reading comprehension.
ing becomes a major source of new vocabulary, educators For example, Cain, Oakhill, and Bryant (2004) showed that
must be prepared to help students with unknown meanings. individual differences in inference-making and working
In this chapter, selecting word meanings for instruction memory were related to reading comprehension even when
and methods for vocabulary instruction will be briefly vocabulary was controlled. Nonetheless, the correlation and
described. Disabilities in reading and language are also predictive relationship between breadth of vocabulary and
briefly described. reading comprehension has remained very strong (Wagner
et al., 2007).
Vocabulary is Important for Reading Comprehension
Vocabulary problems probably create as many serious Reading “Differences” and Reading “Disabilities” Ulti-
reading comprehension limitations as do the more widely mately, what matters is reading comprehension—the ability
recognized reading disabilities. As Chall, Jacobs, and to understand written language. As Gough and Tunmer
Baldwin (1990) observed, among children who decode (1986) suggested many years ago, this is mainly a matter
adequately or well, vocabulary is the main source of com- of word recognition and language comprehension. Much
prehension problems. has been written in this volume concerning the problems
Recent publications (Beck, McKeown, & Lucan, 2002; some children (around 15%) experience with word recogni-
Graves, 2006; Hazenberg & Hulstijn, 1996; Hiebert & tion. Of course, all children with serious word recognition
Kamil, 2005; National Reading Panel, 2000; Stahl & Nagy, problems will have difficulty comprehending the written
2006; Wagner, Muse, & Tannenbaum, 2007) have pointed language they read—just as a deaf person has problems
to the importance of vocabulary for reading comprehension. comprehending spoken language. Children with serious

208
 Vocabulary Development and Implications for Reading Problems 209

word recognition problems will also be likely to develop acquired. Many researchers have argued that many mean-
vocabulary problems, both in early childhood and later. ings must be acquired through inference when encountered
However, many other children and adults will also ex- in press because many more meanings are learned than
perience comprehension problems, even though they are could be acquired as a result of direct instruction. Actu-
competent at recognition of printed words. Jeanne Chall ally, at 1,000 root word meanings per year, or an average
described the “fourth grade slump”—children who become of 2.7 root meanings per day if taught every day, acquir-
discouraged when they start reading texts with many unfa- ing a substantial proportion of such word meanings from
miliar words—words without meanings (for them) (Chall, informal and formal instruction by teachers, parents, and
Jacobs, & Baldwin, 1990). In my own work, I have found peers seems very possible. In a brief, informal study of
that, in the upper elementary years, 95% of children can children’s reports of how newly learned word meanings
read more words than they understand (Biemiller, 2005). were acquired, Grade 5 and 6 students reported that about
Thus, vocabulary, not reading skills, is the major limiting 70% of word meanings were learned as a result of direct
factor in reading comprehension. The net result is that by explanations by others (Biemiller, 2005).
the end of elementary school, many children do not pos- On the other hand, if more meanings (e.g., 2,000 or
sess adequate vocabularies to understand common junior 3,000 meanings) have to be learned as distinct from deriv-
high and high school texts and novels (Chall & Conard, ing meanings using affixes, compounds, and later using
1991). While some of these young adolescents suffer from Latin and Greek stems (Stahl, 1999), I would have to agree
real disabilities, many more probably simply lack needed with those who hold that many meanings must be inferred.
vocabulary. Much of this vocabulary lack occurs early in Anglin (1993) and Stahl and Nagy (2006) estimate that at
life and continues through the primary grades. By this point, least 2,000 root and derived meanings have to be learned
they are both ill-equipped to comprehend grade level texts directly or inferred each year.
and ill-equipped to infer word meanings because they are
unfamiliar with too many words in classroom texts. (Note The sequence of root word meanings acquired1 Chil-
that the reading level of texts is primarily assessed by the dren with high, average, or low total vocabularies acquire
vocabulary load (Chall & Dale, 1995).) This set of affairs word meanings in roughly the same sequence. The best
may contribute too much of the estimated 30% of students evidence for this is the similar sequence of how well root
who do not complete high school. word meanings are known when we test word knowledge
from different groups of children. The sequence of how
Vocabulary Development and Individual Differences well root word meanings are known is about the same in
Grade 1 and Grade 2; Grade 3 and Grade 4; or Grade 5
Numbers of Word Meanings Acquired and Grade 6. (Of course, the average percent word mean-
Controversy over number of words acquired. There ing known is lower in lower grades.) Similarly, the order
has been much debate over the number of word meanings of how well word meanings are known by advantaged
acquired and over the definition of which word meanings students and normative students averaged across grades
should be counted. For example, computer counts of fre- one to five is also about the same (Biemiller & Slonim,
quencies of printed words appearing in texts count sepa- 2001). Finally, the sequence of word meanings known by
rately every inflected variation (plurals, tenses, etc.) as well English Language Learners in (a) Grades 5 and 6, (b) rep-
as every derived word meaning (e.g., sense, nonsense). On resentative Grade 5 and 6 English-speaking children, and
the other hand, multiple meanings of the same word are not (c) advantaged Grade 5 and 6 English-speaking children
counted separately by computers (e.g., lean—resting against is about the same (Biemiller, 2005). Across these three
a wall; lean—meat with little fat in it; lean—depending on groups, the correlation of word means was over r = .90.
another person for aid). To determine vocabulary size, my This does not mean that all of these groups had the same
own preference is to count different root word meanings scores, but rather that their word meaning scores were in
(often listing more than one meaning for a printed root word largely the same sequence. For example, English Language
form), but not to count derived word meanings, when clearly Learners in Grade 5 had about the same sized vocabulary
derived from the root plus affix or affixes, e.g. unreadable. as normative Grade 3 students, and knew mainly the same
(An affix can be either a prefix or a suffix.) This method of word meanings (Biemiller, 2005).
evaluating number of words acquired will be used as the Given that word meanings are being learned in a known
basis for discussion in this section. sequence, we can anticipate which meanings will be learned
in the near future by a specific child. We can’t be precise,
Estimates range from 1,000 to 2,000 root word mean- but we can estimate that the student will mainly be learn-
ings that must be acquired annually to reach average ing word meanings from among the next 2,000 or 3,000
gains. A number of researchers have concluded that meanings in a list of word meanings in the order they are
about an average 1,000 root word meanings are acquired typically acquired. This can be seen in Figure 19.1 which
each year (Anglin, 1993; Biemiller, 2005; Hazenberg and shows which word meanings have been learned by students
Hulstijn, 1996; Nagy & Scott, 2001). At present, we really with different sized vocabularies. Clearly, those meanings
don’t know much about how word meanings are actually known by most students are those acquired early, while
210 Andrew Biemiller

100

80

Percentage of Words Known

60

40
GRP65
GRP55
GRP45

20 GRP35
GRP25
Figure 19.1 Words from Different
GRP15
Difficulty Levels by Children of Different
Sizes of Vocabulary. From Biemiller and 0 GRP05
Slonim (2001). Used with permisson
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
from the American Psychological
Association. Word Decile Group

meanings less well known by elementary students are typi- add about 1,000 root meanings per year. Thus by Grade
cally learned later. 2, children in the lowest quartile are on average already 2
years behind their average classmates and 4 years behind
What Produces This Sequence?2 Possible hypotheses the 25% of children with the largest vocabularies (Biemiller,
affecting this sequence include: 2005). These differences have occurred before children’s
vocabulary can be much influenced by their own reading.
• Word meanings learned early may be prerequisite to After Grade 2, vocabulary gaps may not grow larger, but
understanding word meanings which are learned later neither are they narrowed in the upper elementary grades.
in the sequence; These findings refer to representative English-speaking
• It is very likely that the frequencies of encountering word children. For some English language learners or children
meanings affect word meaning acquisition. Certainly with disabilities, gaps are considerably larger. This gap is
words and meanings not encountered cannot be learned. maintained through Grade 6. (Test norms suggest that the
However, frequencies of specific word meanings (oral gaps continue or expand after Grade 6.)
and later printed) are often quite different than simple While some of this range of vocabulary at the end of
printed form frequency. Thus there is little correlation Grade 2 may reflect disabilities ranging from hearing
between printed word frequency and word meaning problems to unusual difficulty in word meaning inference,
knowledge among common words (Biemiller & Slonim, the largest source of vocabulary difference is probably the
2001) particularly for the earlier (first 10,000) word available language used around and with the child at home
meanings, which are frequently associated with word (Hart & Risley, 1995, 1999; Wells, 1985). There may be
forms that have more than one meaning. further differences in ease of inferring vocabulary, just as
• More cognitively complex meanings are usually learned there are differences in ease of inferring phonics—some
later (e.g., biology) (Case, 1985; Slonim, 2001). How- children can infer many meanings, others require more
ever cognitive complexity clearly does not account for direct explanation of word meanings.
sequence in many word meanings acquired later. Many
of these later-acquired words are non-abstract (i.e., Implications of vocabulary differences. Until now,
touchable, visible). Examples are shown in Table 19.1. educators have largely left early vocabulary development
to homes, thereby allowing disadvantaged children to
Individual Differences By the end of second grade, the fall very far behind in vocabulary. My belief is that with
25% of English-speaking children with the lowest vocabu- increased recognition of the importance of vocabulary, we
laries have an average of 4,000 root word meanings, while educators should now take a much greater responsibility
average children have about 6,000 root word meanings and to foster adequate vocabulary development, just as we
children with the vocabularies in the highest 25% have about take responsibility for word recognition skills and number
8,000 root word meanings. After Grade 2, average children knowledge and skills.
 Vocabulary Development and Implications for Reading Problems 211

TABLE 19.1
Sample Root Word Meanings from the Easy, Teach Primary, Teach Upper Elementary, and Difficult for Elementary (K-6)
Easy Words Junior Priority Words
May not need to teach Teach in Gr. 3 to Gr. 6 texts

Word Meaning Word Meaning

about tells of accommodate be suitable for
about around accommodate help out
accident unplanned happening base bottom
bottom the part underneath base of low quality
clever very smart base military installation
describe give word pictures of category a class of objects
early near the start of debate an argument
few a small number debate to think about all sides
gigantic very big debate to discuss
ground the earth's surface economic concerning use of resources
ground soil or earth economics science of wealth
heart body's blood pump fatigue tiredness
interfere get in the way give a movement under pressure
joke something to laugh at honor deserved fame
land soil imply to indicate witout actually saying
land a country know be skilled
land to go ashore labor workers, in general
machine power tool manual book of instruction
normal ordinary manual done by hand
oven used for baking negotiate arrange terms
pardon forgiveness opinion what one thinks
rock kind of music party political group
rock move back and forth
rock a stone
show to point out Difficult Elementary Words
show movie or TV program Teach in Gr. 3 to Gr. 6 only if needed for text comprehension or as
tame gentle, not wild part of the curriculum

Word Meaning
Primary Priority Words abhor be disgusted with, detest
Teach in K to Gr. 2 texts basis foundation
capacity position served in
Word Meaning
deceit dishonesty
agenda things to be done empower to give authority
brutal cruel ford to cross through water
convince make a person believe gastric of the stomach
dawn sunrise hydraulic works by liquid pressure
earth our planet income money taken in
feeling an opinion jest make fun
germ a cause of disease kleptomania the strong urge to steal
horror fright lance to cut open
jealous wanting what others have mandatory compulsory
kind sort notion an idea
lap part of body when seated obligation personal duty
lap once around track partition division
maximum the most qualify have needed ability
noun name of a thing regard think highly of
opportunity a good chance regard to look upon
paragraph unit of writing regard respect
reality actual fact sequence one thing after another
secure free from fear technical greatly detailed
though however
though even when 1. Meanings taken from the Living Word Vocabulary (Dale & O’Rourke, 1981).
universe everything there is Complete lists of these words are available in Words Worth Teaching (Biemiller,
vehicle means of transportation 2009).

Vocabulary Acquisition the amount acquired by direct word meaning explanation

from parents, teachers, peers, and text explanations (i.e.,
Controversy over Amount of Inferred Word Meanings Ver- appositions). The main argument for a lot of inference is
sus Meanings from Direct Explanations There is debate based on consideration of the number of words acquired.
over the amount of vocabulary acquired by inference versus As I’ve noted earlier, I think the number of root word mean-
212 Andrew Biemiller

ings acquired is not that great. If derived and compound a child with a large vocabulary may be trying to infer one
meanings can be acquired by inference (and possibly also word meaning while knowing all of the other words in a
figurative meanings such as leaning on me for support), text. A child with a small vocabulary may be trying to infer
learning of the majority of root meanings could be explained the same word meaning, but lacks the meanings of 10% of
more plausibly by direct instruction. the other words in the text. Successful inference will be less
Direct research on word inference suggests that relatively likely in the second case.
few word meanings are acquired during reading (Nagy, In addition, some of the difference in vocabulary size
Anderson, & Herman, 1987), and that lower-vocabulary may involve having less phonemic accuracy, memory, or
children fail to acquire word meanings from oral stories other cognitive processes. These are probably constitutional
(Robbins & Ehri, 1994) or reading texts (Cain, Oakhill, & differences. These person factors can amount to a disability
Lemmon, in press; Fraser, 1999). Stahl and Nagy (2006) affecting both word recognition skill (reading) inferring
have also reported that wide reading alone does not guaran- word meanings, and comprehending text (also involving
tee acquisition of new vocabulary. Shany and Biemiller (in inference).
press) found that increased reading practice led to large vo-
cabulary gains and reading comprehension gains for about How fifth- and sixth-grade children report acquiring new
one third of a sample of third and fourth grade poor readers, vocabulary. Part of my research on vocabulary develop-
but no vocabulary gains and smaller reading comprehension ment and promotion included an examination of self-reports
gains for two-thirds of this sample. Overall, it appears that of vocabulary acquisition (Biemiller, 1999). Quite simply,
children vary considerably in their vocabulary acquisition children listed words they have learned in the last two or
as a result of wide reading and that many children gain few three days and were then interviewed about these words. In
word meanings from wide reading. the interview, they were asked the meaning of the word, how
they happened to hear or read the word, and how they learned
Influences on Vocabulary Acquisition the meaning of each word (asked, were told without asking,
Home influences. We have seen that children’s vocabu- defined as part of lesson, dictionary, or figured it out). Results
lary differs markedly by the end of Grade 2. From where do came from an ESL Grade 5/6 class and an advantaged Grade
these differences come? Clearly, words that are not heard or 5/6 class. Some basic findings were as follows:
read cannot be learned. Hart and Risley (1995) have shown
that, by the age of 3, advantaged children hear three times • Both Grade 5 and 6 groups reported learning most of their
as many words spoken as disadvantaged children. Further- words at school (ESL, 80%, advantaged, 90%). (Unlike
more, in advantaged homes and some working class homes, findings from primary grades, upper elementary children
parents actively explain word meanings in the course of report learning many word meanings in school.)
conversation, story reading, etc. (Weizman & Snow, 2001; • Both groups reported that 70% of words (average 3.5)
Hart & Risley, 1999). Thus, it is not surprising that before were learned with assistance (child asked someone, some-
school starts, advantaged children already know many more one told child, word was directly explained in a lesson-
words than disadvantaged children. including on video), while 25% of words were acquired
by inference (1.2 words) or by dictionary (0.2 words).
School influences. We might hope that once children
enter school at age 4 or 5, there would be more opportunities While very preliminary, this little study is consistent with
for less advantaged children to build vocabulary—even to the hypothesis that the majority of root word meanings are
catch up with more advantaged children. Unfortunately, the acquired as a result of direct explanation. As late as Grade 6,
limited available data on the vocabulary effects of school at- students were reporting that 70% of newly acquired words
tendance in primary grades is discouraging—kindergarten, were learned as a result of explanation by someone else.
Grade 1, and Grade 2 children appear to gain no vocabulary
as a result of a year in a primary grade. The evidence is Acquisition of Derived Word Meanings (Root + Affix(es)
simple—on average, the youngest first graders have just or Root + Root) Anglin (1993) has determined that there
one month’s more vocabulary than the oldest kindergartners are many more inflected and derived word forms than root
(Christian, Morrison, Frazier, & Massetti, 2000; Morrison, forms. He estimates three times as many derived word
Smith, & Dow-Ehrensberger, 1995). Similarly, the youngest meanings as root word forms known in first grade and five
second graders average just one month’s vocabulary than times as many derived word meanings known by fifth grade.
the oldest first graders (Cantalini, 1987). This refers to average word knowledge. Individuals may
know more or less. In addition, children acquire idiomatic
Person influences. There is some evidence that those expressions that do not follow from the literal meanings
with small vocabularies are less likely to infer new word of words, (e.g., eleventh hour—essentially a resolution
meanings from context (Elshout-Mohr & van Daalen- at the last possible minute or hour). Anglin estimates that
Kaptjeins, 1987; Penno, Wilkinson, & Moore, 2002; Rob- roughly 2,500 idiomatic expressions are learned by fifth
bins & Ehri, 1994). Some of this difference may be the grade. These are in addition to figurative meanings of words
cumulative effect of having fewer word meanings. Thus which are counted among root word meanings learned by
 Vocabulary Development and Implications for Reading Problems 213

both Anglin and Dale and O’Rourke (1981; e.g., lean as in In the upper elementary grades, I also recommend direct
lean on me when you’re having problems). instruction of text-critical meanings in texts prior to student
Can we assume that derived word meanings (root plus af- reading of texts.
fix) can be understood when encountered in context and the
root and affix are known? There remains some debate about Vocabulary-related instruction. By this I mean
the degree to which derived word meanings can be assumed methods of determining word meanings by attending to
to be acquired more readily than root words. This may be affixes, compound words, and strategies for inferring word
an area in which learners differ markedly in inferring mean- meanings from context. There is substantial evidence that
ings when root words and affixes are known. In addition, teaching affixes increases functional vocabulary for derived
it must be recognized that many apparently derived words words (White, Sowell, & Yangihara, 1989; Baumann et
are not in fact derivable from the apparent root meanings al., 2003; Graves, 2006; Stahl & Nagy, 2006). Similarly,
and affixes and must be considered root words in their own interpreting compound words can be useful.
right (e.g., revise, preface). Having noted this, it remains There is more debate about teaching word inference
true that children can infer many derived word meanings methods. Kuhn and Stahl (1998) question the effectiveness
(Anglin, 1993, gives some examples of overt derivation). of methods used to date. Fukkink and de Glopper (1998)
There is evidence that children can be taught to derive word maintain that significant effect sizes have been established
meanings using a limited set of affixes (Baumann, Edwards, for teaching methods of determining word meanings from
Boland, Olejnik, & Kame’enui, 2003; Graves, 2006) when context, but do not provide results identifying numbers of
the relevant root word is known. words acquired as a result of inference training. More recent
research continues to show that especially lower-vocabulary
students appear not to gain much from word inference strat-
Implications for Educational Practice
egies (Cain et al., in press; Stahl & Nagy, 2006).
Growing Consensus that Some Vocabulary Instruction
and Vocabulary-related Instruction Is Needed There is Identifying Words Worth Teaching There has been con-
recognition that vocabulary gaps are related to poor reading siderable discussion of what words we should emphasize
comprehension and that environmental influences play a when teaching vocabulary.
significant role in the developing differences in vocabulary
(Beck, McKeown & Lucan, 2002; Biemiller, 2001; National What word meanings? Given that improved vocabulary
Reading Panel, 2000; Stahl, 1999; Stahl & Nagy, 2006). In has practical significance, a critical question is what word
2006, the California State Board of Education mandated meanings are important to teach? One answer has been
vocabulary instruction as a component of reading programs suggested by Beck, McKeown, and Lucan (2002). They
for use in California elementary reading programs. New propose categorizing word meanings occurring in text as
major reading programs to be published in 2007 or 2008 Tier One (likely to be known without any school instruc-
will include substantially more attention to vocabulary than tion), Tier Two (words … of high frequency for mature
before (e.g., Houghton-Mifflin, 2007; SRA, 2007). language users and are found across a variety of domains),
and Tier Three (rare, to be taught when needed as part of
Direct vocabulary instruction. By this I mean directly a specific discipline such as chemistry or biology). How-
explaining word meanings, as well as drawing student ever, Beck and colleagues do not provide a listing of such
attention to appositions (word meaning explanations pro- words and, in fact, object to generating such a list (Beck
vided directly in texts), and student use of glossaries and & McKeown, 2007).
dictionaries. Along with Beck, Mckeown, Kucan, Graves, I do believe that words worth teaching can be identified,
Stahl, and Nagy, I believe that some word meanings must and in fact have publishing such a list (Biemiller, 2009).
be taught directly. Briefly, given that word meanings are being learned in a rough
I particularly think direct vocabulary of word meanings sequence, and that words that are well known by the end of
should occur in the primary grades. Students are much Grade 2 have been identified, word meanings that are known
less able to extract word meanings from orally presented by 40% to 80% of children at the end of Grade 2 can be con-
texts than from written texts. Of course, oral texts are the sidered probably known by children with large vocabularies
primary mode of text presentation in the early elementary and unlikely to be known by children with small vocabular-
grades. It is difficult for a listener to attend to a text while ies. To find such words, I have identified most root word
contemplating an unknown word. A reader can pause to do meanings in Dale and O’Rourke’s Living Word Vocabulary
this or return to an unknown word after reading the text. (1981) reported to be first known by roughly half of children
A listener can rarely do these things. Consequently word at Grades 4, 6, 8, or 10. Using a process of direct testing and
meaning acquisition is more dependent on adult teaching. rating, as described in Words Worth Teaching (Biemiller,
In the primary grades, in addition to addressing text-critical 2009), I ultimately identified about 1,600 root word meanings
word meanings in texts being read to students, or with as being particularly relevant for children in primary grades,
students, teachers should take advantage of text contexts and another 2,700 root word meanings as being particularly
to explain high priority general vocabulary words. relevant for children in the upper elementary grades.
214 Andrew Biemiller

I believe the 1,600 high priority primary root word mean- vocabulary instruction in the upper elementary grades.
ings could be taught directly during the three primary years In the primary grades, most students are preliterate. By
(kindergarten, first and second grades). Similarly, the 2,700 “preliterate” I mean that, if they can read at all, they are
high priority upper elementary root words worth addressing likely to be reading texts that are less rich than those they
should be used in texts during Grades 3 to 6. Methods of can understand if they hear them. Preliterate students read
instruction are discussed briefly below. slowly and have at least some difficulty identifying writ-
What about “non-root” word meanings? My hypothesis ten words. They are unlikely to encounter unfamiliar word
is that most derived and compound word meanings will be meanings in the texts they can read. Furthermore, if they
acquired in context, if children have inferred or been taught do encounter unfamiliar meanings, they are unlikely to be
the relevant affixes and the relevant root meaning is known. able to distinguish these from words they have difficulty
A large proportion of derived word meanings appearing in identifying in print. The main implication of all this is that
Dale and O’Rourke’s (1981) Living Word Vocabulary ap- supporting vocabulary acquisition in the primary grades
pear either in the same as the root word, or not more than will mainly be an oral activity for children rather than a
2 years later. The same is probably also true of inflected print-based activity and will require much direct instruc-
words (syntactic suffixes). There has been considerable tion by teachers.
success with teaching middle elementary students to use
common prefixes (White et al., 1989; Baumann et al., 2003; Why so many meanings must be taught. Children don’t
Graves, 2006). However, instruction with affixes will not all learn the same meanings. Some children know differ-
help when the relevant root word is unknown. Of course, ent meanings than do other children. Some know more of
teachers must be alert to words which appear to be derived, the meanings to begin with, and so learn different words
but do not have the meaning implied by using a root + affix than do children who know few words to begin with. To
method (e.g., preface, revise). some extent, children simply pick up different meanings.
However, I suspect that there may be an upper limit to how
How Word Meanings Can Be Taught in the Primary many meanings can be acquired in one session by one child.
Grades We rarely see any one child learn more than 3 or 4 mean-
Teaching word meanings in context. The most en- ings from one session. (See review of studies of primary
couraging findings about primary vocabulary instruction vocabulary instruction in Biemiller & Boote, 2006.)
were Dina Feitelson’s 6-month long interventions using
repeated oral reading of various storybooks, with direct An effective primary vocabulary method. Catherine
explanations of some words on each reading. Although Boote and I undertook to increase the percentage of words
Feitelson and her colleagues did not describe her method learned and the total number of words learned in primary
in detail nor assess specific growth in vocabulary, she grades. We did this by following suggestions from teachers
demonstrated that first-grade students who received this who had been teaching vocabulary from storybooks in an
additional oral reading showed large gains in language and earlier study. Our revised method with students in kinder-
reading comprehension compared to similar students who garten, Grade 1, and Grade 2 resulted in learning 40% to
did not receive this repeated reading with word explanations 45% of word meanings taught (Biemiller & Boote, 2006).
(Feitelson, Kita, & Goldstein, 1986; Feitelson, Goldstein, A brief description of this method follows:
Iraqi, & Share, 1991).
A number of short-term studies using word meaning • Vocabulary instruction took about half an hour per day,
explanations while repeatedly reading storybooks have taught on a whole-class basis. The instruction was carried
demonstrated that students acquire some of the taught word out by the regular classroom teachers in kindergarten,
meanings. Typically, about 25% of word meanings taught Grade 1 and Grade 2. The teachers had seen one demon-
were acquired. These percentages of words learned held stration of reading with vocabulary instruction.
whether relatively few (2–4) and many (6–10) word mean- • Initially, a storybook or expository book is read to the
ings were taught on each reading. Ten to 15% of non-taught students with little interruption for vocabulary explana-
words that appeared in the stories were also acquired after tion. Prior to reading the book, we would explain 1–2
repeated reading. The limited available research suggests meanings that were critical for comprehension of the
that few, if any, word meanings are acquired from a single book. (We have adopted this practice as a result of pre-
reading without word explanations (reviewed in Biemiller tests with kindergarten and Grade 1 students. However, it
& Boote, 2006). It is possible that other, non-context may be possible to explain word meanings after reading
methods might work, however I have not found any studies the story, in which case more meanings could be taught
demonstrating this. on the first reading.)
• On subsequent readings, we would continue to introduce
Most new vocabulary in the primary grades will come 1–2 meanings before reading the book. Although we
from ORAL sources. Making a greater effort to support haven’t tested this, we strongly suspect that teaching a
building vocabulary is needed across the elementary grades. larger number of words prior to orally reading a book is
However, I consider vocabulary instruction in the primary ineffective. We doubt if students could keep in mind many
grades (kindergarten–second grade) quite different than just-explained meanings while attending to the story.
 Vocabulary Development and Implications for Reading Problems 215

• As in previous studies, we have found that explaining ings during each primary grade. This would be sufficient to
meanings while reading a book is effective. Our method prevent falling further behind and might help close the gap
was (a) read orally, (b) upon coming to a word to be ex- between low and average vocabulary students. Accelerating
plained, re-read the sentence with the word to be taught, low-vocabulary students’ progress through the vocabulary
(c) explain the word’s meaning as it applies in the context sequence is probably the best strategy for narrowing the
of the book, (d) continue reading the book. vocabulary gap.

Here is an example from a book used for vocabulary Teaching/Fostering Vocabulary in the Upper Elementary
instruction in kindergarten, Clifford at the Circus (Bridwell, Grades
1985). Note that we would teach circus before reading Acquiring new vocabulary is different in the upper
the story. Circus is an example of a text-critical meaning, elementary period. Around Grade 3, the majority of
necessary to understand the text. students become literate in the sense of being able to read
The story begins: most texts they would understand if they heard them. This
means reading fluently enough to permit focus on the
I’m Emily Elizabeth and I have a dog named Clifford. We
saw a sign that said the circus was in town. A smaller sign
content of text rather than identifying words—reaching
said the circus needed help. Jeanne Chall’s stage 3 (Chall, 1983/1996). Once children
become literate, the process of acquiring new vocabulary
On the second reading, we re-read “A smaller sign said the changes dramatically.
circus needed help.” Then we explain, “In this sentence, Previously, I noted how difficult it is to think about an
help means the circus show wants to hire some people to unfamiliar word while attending to a story being read orally.
work at the show—to help put on the show.” Then we go On the other hand, when encountering an unfamiliar word
on reading the story until we come to the next word to be while fluently reading a story, a child can stop reading and
explained that day. focus on the word, or continue reading and return to the
unknown word after reading the story. (The word could even
• Each day, after reading the book and discussing com- be written down or marked in the book to facilitate return-
prehension aspects of the book, words taught that day ing to it.) In fact, my finding that low- and high-vocabulary
are reviewed along with the explanations of each word. students apparently add new words at about the same rate
In first and second grade, it can be helpful to introduce after Grade 2 or 3 is consistent with the hypothesis that
the printed versions of these words at this time. I rec- words can be more easily learned while reading text than
ommend use of additional written activities with words while hearing text (Biemiller & Slonim, 2001).
taught that day. However, the effectiveness of additional
written work to facilitate word meaning acquisition has Direct instruction. Is there a continued need for direct
not been tested. instruction of words in the upper elementary grades? Direct
• Usually, we worked with a book for a week. On the last explanation of word meanings critical for comprehension
day of work with this book, rather than reading the book of texts (narrative or expository) will continue to require
again, each word taught during the week is presented in direct explanation. In some cases, these meanings can be
a new sentence, not taken from the book. The explanation pretaught (before reading). Unlike oral language presenta-
of the word’s meaning is reviewed again. tion, a list of critical meanings can be written on a classroom
board or handout and used as words to be addressed when
After instruction, we found that the students knew about encountered in text. Thus more word meanings can be pre-
40% more of the taught words than they knew before the taught with literate children. In other cases, it may be more
reading and explanations. Encouragingly, the students knew helpful to review meanings after the text has been read. I
more of these words 6 weeks after the instruction than just think this is especially true of general vocabulary, as distinct
after instruction (Biemiller & Boote, 2006). At that point, from text-critical vocabulary. At this point, meanings can
the children had gained an average of 8 to 12 meanings per be explained in terms of the text just read.
week. To get these gains, the teachers taught 21 to 28 word If the meaning involves a concept that goes beyond a
meanings each week. simple mapping to establishing a major new concept (e.g.,
erosion, chemical element), we need instruction that goes
Teaching primary vocabulary: Summary. During the beyond simple vocabulary extension. Sometimes technical
primary years, vocabulary is mainly acquired from oral terms (e.g., erosion) are explained directly in texts (apposi-
sources. At present, students with relatively small vocabu- tions). However, teachers need to be sure that such terms are
laries fall further behind during the primary years. This is actually understood. Students often fail to learn meanings
because no systematic effort is made to teach vocabulary solely from text explanations (Baumann et al., 2003).
during the primary years. This especially disadvantages
low-vocabulary students, who are less likely to acquire Directly Teaching Strategies for Prefixed, Suffixed, or
needed vocabulary at home and less likely to infer word Compound Word Meanings. In addition, strategies for in-
meanings without instruction at school. Existing methods terpreting derived word meanings (root words plus a prefix
could lead to the acquisition of 400–500 more word mean- or suffix, and compound words) can also be taught directly
216 Andrew Biemiller

(e.g., read, readable). Several studies have shown that upper for any meanings of which she was not sure. (Reading as-
elementary students can benefit substantially from instruc- sistance was given when needed, but was rarely needed.
tion in interpreting meanings of derived words (Baumann These were fluent readers.) The other students in the group
et al., 2003; Graves, 2006; White et al., 1989). Similarly, could then ask the first student about any other words on
words with Latin or Greek stems (e.g., demo- or psycho-) the pages they had just read. The assumption was that the
can be taught as derived words where the root never appears first student was competent with words not yet discussed.
by itself (Stahl, 1999). This should be part of the vocabulary After this, the instructor might ask about words identified
program for upper elementary children. However, acquiring as difficult which have not been mentioned by any of the
effective strategies for interpreting affixes is not a substitute students. (In this study, we identified as difficult words
for acquiring needed root words. which are not on the 3,000 word list used by Chall and Dale
(1995) to assess readability.)
Increased student responsibility. Much of the vo- Initially, students were often embarrassed by being
cabulary instruction for the upper elementary grades should unable to answer other children’s questions (i.e., they had
place more responsibility on students. Students can be failed to ask about all words they needed to know about).
asked to find root meanings for words in the passage that However, after about 3 weeks (6 sessions), the students
are worth learning for general vocabulary. A variety of asked if they didn’t know, and knew appropriate meanings
student-managed acquisition activities could then be used, for words they didn’t ask about.
including direct explanation by fellow students, group Overall, the effect of this approach was to make the
discussion of word meanings (Stahl, 1999), use of glos- students more responsible for both monitoring their word
saries and dictionaries, and possibly inference strategies. knowledge, and being prepared to explain word meanings
To date, teaching inference strategies has rarely proven to others. The students acquired meanings of about 80% of
effective (Baumann et al., 2003; Beck et al., 2002; Stahl & the words they asked about.
Nagy, 2006). A variety of student activities and classroom
assessment of designated word meanings should ensure Teaching upper elementary vocabulary: Summary. In
vocabulary progress. Grades 3 to 6, children need less direct instruction of spe-
In addition, student identification of needed word cific word meanings, more instruction about affixes and
meanings can be emphasized. In the long run, student compound words (now often provided), and increasing
identification of needed word meanings will be crucial for student responsibility to find unknown words along with
their post-elementary academic success. Therefore, school finding meanings for student-identified words and teacher-
activities should increasingly involve student identification identified words. Direct instruction of text-critical word
of needed meanings—not simply depending on others to meanings should probably still be provided. Learning of
determine what meanings should be learned. This could word meanings noted by the teacher should be assessed.
involve student identification of needed meanings in texts,
followed by group discussion of meanings, and/or student Vocabulary Implications for Educational Practice:
generation of activities using identified meanings. Teachers Summary
could add meanings to a list of student-identified meanings • Increasing vocabulary should probably emphasize accel-
when needed. However, there should ultimately be assess- erating the normal sequence of vocabulary, particularly
ment of many word meanings. for low vocabulary students.
• In the primary period, students need direct instruction
Procedure for increasing student recognition of needed of word meanings. Much of this should be done with
word meanings. In a preliminary study with 6 ESL sixth- repeated orally presented texts and explanations of word
grade students in 1 class for 16 weeks, my assistant Jody meanings in context.
Panto and I undertook to increase students’ vocabulary. • In the upper elementary period, students can take more
Most of the students in this class spoke English as a second responsibility for acquiring general vocabulary. How-
language and spoke their native language at home. Our ever, appropriate words encountered during a week’s
general goal was to encourage a higher level of asking reading should be noted, and new vocabulary tested.
about unfamiliar words. In addition, text-critical meanings should be taught
Panto’s basic routine for a reading session involved directly as well as interpretation of prefixed, suffixed,
having each student in a reading group take responsibility and compound words.
for the vocabulary on one or two pages of text. The texts
were somewhat more complex than these students would General Versus Remedial Vocabulary Instruction
be expected to read on their own. The program emphasized
seeking direct assistance for unfamiliar words, both from For many students, vocabulary is implicated in low reading
peers and from teachers when necessary. comprehension achievement. In my view, this is often the
As the students read, they were to mark words when they simple result of inadequate opportunities to build necessary
weren’t sure of the word’s meaning. After reading one or vocabulary during the school years, especially the primary
two pages, one student would be invited to ask the teacher years. Thus it appears to me that during the elementary years,
 Vocabulary Development and Implications for Reading Problems 217

schools should be including a specific focus on introducing conviction that many more students should be able to
students to vocabulary they will need, rather than treating comprehend grade level reading materials. Until vocabulary
low vocabulary as evidence of one or another disability. problems are addressed regularly in all primary and upper
For students who experience difficulty in adding vo- elementary grades, we will continue to see many students
cabulary given normal and otherwise effective instruction, whose comprehension limits their ability to learn in school.
a disability in building vocabulary may exist. This may We do not yet have evidence that a more comprehensive
reflect hearing difficulties (including lack of phonological approach to vocabulary will reduce school failure; however,
awareness which is related to low vocabulary, Gathercole, we do know that students with limited vocabularies can-
2007; Gathercole, Serive, Hitch, Adams, & Martin, 1999), not successfully learn from grade level texts in the upper
effects of limited verbal working memory (Cain et al., in elementary years and later.
press), or inference problems with both word meanings and At present, the best policy for increased educational
text implications (Cain & Oakhill, 2003). The difficulty may achievement appears to be committing more instructional
also be simply an unusually low vocabulary (due to home time to vocabulary development during the elementary
experience or English Language Learner status), which grades. For the primary grades, this means more direct
leaves the student in need of even basic words which most instruction of word meanings embedded in meaningful
students have. Attention to hearing status and attention to context. For the upper elementary grades, this means more
words known versus words not known are in order. direct instruction of text critical vocabulary and more work
Addressing vocabulary and language problems which are on using affixes to determine meanings. However, for flu-
not due simply to lack of vocabulary and hearing problems ent readers there should also be more emphasis on finding
will be more difficult. Cain, Oakhill, and others have identi- unknown words, and finding their meanings.
fied such difficulties (Cain & Oakhill, 2003; Cain, Oakhill,
& Elbro, 2003; Cain et al., in press; Gathercole, Hitch,
Service, & Martin, 1997). Two major problems have been Notes
emphasized: difficulty in inferring word and text meanings 1. The following section is taken from Words Worth Teaching (Biemiller,
using information across several sentences; and creating 1999).
2. This section is based largely on Biemiller (2009).
lexical entries for new words.
Cain et al. (in press) suggest that one group of low-com-
prehension students have adequate vocabulary and acquire References
new word meanings readily when taught. This group’s com-
Anglin, J. M. (1993). Vocabulary development: A morphological analysis.
prehension problems involve seeing implications, especially Monographs of the Society for Research in Child Development, Serial
when relevant text sentences are not adjacent. No. 238, 58.
A second group has the same comprehension difficulty, Baumann, J. F., Edwards, E. C., Boland, E. M., Olejnik, S., & Kame’enui,
but also greater difficulty in learning new word meanings. E. J. (2003). Vocabulary tricks: Effects of instruction on morphology
and context on fifth-grade students’ ability to derive and infer word
Cain and colleagues (in press) suggest that this group has
meanings. American Educational Research Journal, 40(2), 447–494.
greater difficulty in forming lexical entries. I predict that Beck, I. L., & McKeown, M. G. (2007). Different ways for different
such students will also often have more problems with word goals, but keep your eye on the higher verbal goals. In R. K. Wagner, A.
recognition, mainly mediated by phonological weakness E. Muse, & K. R. Tannenbaum (Eds.), Vocabulary acquisition: Implica-
(Stanovich & Siegel, 1994). Such students may especially tions for reading comprehension (pp 182–204). New York: Guilford.
Beck, I. L., McKeown, M. G., & Lucan, L. (2002). Bringing words to life:
need attention to vocabulary, possibly including even the first
Robust vocabulary instruction. New York: Guilford.
2000 words, which are normally easily acquired by disad- Becker, W. C. (1977). Teaching reading and language to the disadvan-
vantaged students (as reported in Biemiller & Boote, 2006). taged—What we have learned from field research. Harvard Educa-
It is possible, that with attention to vocabulary as well as tional Review, 47, 518–543.
phonemic awareness, that adding vocabulary will help with Biemiller, A. (1999). Language and reading success. Cambridge, MA:
Brookline Books.
phonemic awareness as well as vice versa (Metsala, 1999).
Biemiller, A. (2001). Teaching vocabulary: Early, direct, and sequential.
However, to date few practical interventions based on American Educator, 25, 24–29.
these problems have been demonstrated. For example, Biemiller, A. (2005). Addressing developmental patterns vocabulary: Im-
Tomesen and Aarnoutse (1998) reported significant gains plications for choosing words for primary grade vocabulary instruction.
in reading comprehension with Grade 4 poor readers (8 In E. H. Hiebert & M. Kamil (Eds.), Bringing scientific research to
practice: Vocabulary (pp. 223–242). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
intervention and 7 control subjects) after teaching word
Biemiller, A. (2009). Words worth teaching. Columbus, OH: SRA/
meaning inference skills. Others have had less success (e.g., McGraw-Hill.
Baumann et al., 2003). To date, I have not seen any evidence Biemiller, A., & Boote, C. (2006). An effective method for building mean-
of methods for improving lexical entries. ing vocabulary in primary grades. Journal of Educational Psychol-
ogy, 98, 44–62.
Biemiller, A., & Slonim, N. (2001). Estimating root word vocabulary
Conclusion growth in normative and advantaged populations: Evidence for a
common sequence of vocabulary acquisition. Journal of Educational
We are all very aware of the wide range of reading achieve- Psychology, 93, 498–520.
ment now seen in elementary students and aware of the Bridwell, N. (1985). Clifford at the circus. New York: Scholastic.
218 Andrew Biemiller

Cain, K., & Oakhill, J. (2003) Reading comprehension difficulties. In Hart, B., & Risley, T. (1999). The social world of children learning to talk.
T. Nunes & P. Bryant (Eds.), Handbook of children’s literacy (pp. Baltimore, MD: Brookes.
313–338). Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Kluwer. Hazenberg, S., & Hulstijn, J. H. (1996). Defining a minimal receptive
Cain, K., Oakhill, J. V., & Bryant, P. (2004). Children’s reading compre- second-language vocabulary for non-native university students: An
hension ability: Concurrent prediction by working memory, verbal empirical investigation. Applied Linguistics, 17, 145–163.
ability, and component skills. Journal of Educational Psychology, Houghton-Mifflin. (2007). Houghton-Mifflin reading, Boston, MA:
96(1), 31–42. Houghton-Mifflin.
Cain, K., Oakhill, J. V., & Elbro, C. (2003). The ability to learn new Hiebert, E. H., & Kamil, M. L. (Eds.). (2005). Teaching and learning
word meanings from context by school-age children with and without vocabulary: Bringing research to practice. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
language comprehension difficulties. Journal of Child Language, 30, Kuhn, M. R., & Stahl, S. A. (1998). Teaching children to learn word
681–694. meanings from context: a synthesis and some questions. Journal of
Cain, K., Oakhill, J., & Lemmon, K. (in press). Individual differences in Literacy Research, 30(1), 119–138.
the inference of word meanings from context: the influence of reading Metsala, J. L. (1999). Young children’s phonological awareness and non-
comprehension, vocabulary knowledge, and memory capacity. Journal word repetition as a function of vocabulary development. Journal of
of Educational Psychology. Educational Psychology, 91, 743–751.
Cantalini, M. (1987). The effects of age and gender on school readiness and Morrison, F. J., Smith, L., & Dow-Ehrensberger, M. (1995). Education
school success. (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). Ontario Institute and cognitive development: A natural experiment. Developmental
for Studies in Education. Toronto, Canada. Psychology, 31, 789–799.
Case, R. (1985). Intellectual development: Birth to adulthood. New York: Nagy, W. E., Anderson, R. C., & Herman, P. (1987). Learning word
Academic Press. meanings from context during normal reading. American Educational
Chall, J. S. (1983/1996). Stages of reading development (2nd ed.). New Research Journal, 24, 237–270.
York: Harcourt Brace College Publishers. Nagy, W. E., & Scott, J. A. (2001). Vocabulary processes In M. L. Kamil,
Chall, J. S., & Conard, S. S. (1991). Should textbooks challenge students? P. B. Mosenthal, P. D. Pearson, & R. Barr (Eds.), Handbook of reading
New York: Teachers College Press. research, Vol. 3 (pp. 269–284). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
Chall, J. S., & Dale, E. (1995). Readability revisited: The new Dale-chall National Reading Panel. (2000). Teaching children to read: An evidence-
readability formula. Cambridge, MA: Brookline Books. based assessment of the scientific research literature on reading and
Chall, J. S., Jacobs, V. A., & Baldwin, L. E. (1990). The reading crisis: its implications for reading instruction. Washington, DC: National
Why poor children fall behind. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Institute of Child Health and Human Development.
Press. Penno, J. F., Wilkinson, A. G., & Moore, D. W. (2002). Vocabulary acqui-
Christian, K., Morrison, F. J., Frazier, J. A., & Massetti, G. (2000). Speci- sition from teacher explanation and repeated listening to stories: Do
ficity in the nature and timing of cognitive growth in kindergarten and they overcome the Matthew effect? Journal of Educational Psychol-
first grade. Journal of Cognition and Development, 1(4), 429–448. ogy, 94, 23–33.
Cunningham, A. E., & Stanovich, K. E. (1997). Early reading acquisi- Robbins, C., & Ehri, L. C. (1994). Reading storybooks to kindergartners
tion and its relation to reading experience and ability 10 years later. helps them learn new vocabulary words. Journal of Educational
Developmental Psychology, 33, 934–945. Psychology, 86(1), 139–153.
Dale, E., & O’Rourke, J. (1981). Living word vocabulary. Chicago: World Scarborough, H. (2001). Connecting early language and literacy to later
Book/Childcraft. reading (dis)abilities): Evidence, theory, and practice. In S. B. Neu-
Elshout-Mohr, M., & van Daalen-Kaptijns, M. M. (1987). Cognitive man & D. Dickinson (Eds.), Handbook of early literacy research (pp.
processes in learning word meanings. In M. G. McKeown & M. 97–110). New York: Guildford.
E.Curtis (Eds.), The nature of vocabulary acquisition (pp. 53–72). Shany, M., & Biemiller, A. (in press). Individual differences in reading
Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum. comprehension gains from assisted reading practice: Pre existing
Feitelson, D., Goldstein, Z., Iraqi, J., & Share, D. I. (1991). Effects of conditions, vocabulary acquisition, and amounts of practice. Reading
listening to story reading on aspects of literacy acquisition in a diglossic and Writing.
situation. Reading Research Quarterly, 28, 70–79. Slonim, N. (2001). Children’s and adolescents’ understanding of society
Feitelson, D., Kita, B., & Goldstein, Z. (1986). Effects of listening to series and government (Unpublished M.A. thesis). Toronto, ON: University
stories on first graders’ comprehension and use of language. Research of Toronto, Dept. of Human Development and Applied Psychology.
in the Teaching of English, 20, 339–356. SRA. (2007). Imagine it! Columbus, OH: SRA/McGraw-Hill.
Fraser, C. A. (1999). Lexical processing strategy use and vocabulary Stahl, S. A. (1999). Vocabulary development. Cambridge, MA: Brookline
learning through reading. Studies on Second Language Acquisition, Books.
21, 225–241. Stahl, S. A., & Nagy, W. E. (2006). Teaching word meanings. Mahwah,
Fukkink, R. G., & de Glopper, K. (1998). Effects of instruction in deriving NJ: Erlbaum.
word meaning from context: A meta-analysis. Review of Educational Stanovich, K. E., & Siegel, L. S. (1994). The phenotypic performance
Research, 68(4), 450–469. profile of reading-disabled children: A regression-based test of the
Gathercole, S. E. (2007). Working memory: A system for learning. In R. phonological-core variable-difference model. Journal of Educational
K. Wagner, A. E. Muse, & K. R. Tannenbaum (Eds.), Vocabulary ac- Psychology, 86, 24–53.
quisition: Implications for reading comprehension (pp. 233–248). New Tomesen, M., & Aarnoutse, C. (1998). Effects of an instructional pro-
York: Guilford. gramme for deriving word meanings. Educational Studies, 24(1).
Gathercole, S. E., Hitch, G. J., Service, E., & Martin, A. J. (1997). Pho- 107–128.
nological short-term memory and new word learning in children. Wagner, R. K., Muse, A. E., & Tannenbaum K. R. (Eds.). (2007). Vo-
Developmental Psychology, 33, 966–979. cabulary acquisition: Implications for reading comprehension. New
Gathercole, S. E., Serive, E., Hitch, G. J., Adams, A. M., & Martin, A. J. York: Guilford.
(1999). Phonological short-term memory and vocabulary development: Weizman, Z. O., & Snow, C. E. (2001). Lexical input as related to children’s
Further evidence on the nature of the relationship. Applied Cognitive vocabulary acquisition: Effects of sophisticated exposure and support
Psychology, 13(1), 65–77. for meaning. Developmental Psychology, 37, 265–279.
Gough, P. B., & Tunmer, W. E. (1986). Decoding, reading and reading Wells, C. G. (1985). Language development in the preschool years. New
disability. Remedial and Special Education, 7, 6–10. York: Cambridge University Press.
Graves, M. F. (2006). The vocabulary book: learning and instruction. New White, T. G., Sowell, J., & Yangihara, A. (1989). Teaching elementary
York: Teachers’ College Press. students to use word-part cues. The Reading Teacher, 42, 302–308.
Hart, B., & Risley, T. (1995). Meaningful differences in the everyday
experience of young American children. Baltimore, MD: Brookes.
 20
Reading Comprehension and Reading Disability
KATHERINE K. FRANKEL, P. DAVID PEARSON, AND MARNIE NAIR
University of California, Berkeley

Virtually all reading researchers and theorists, regardless they contemplate decisions about how to assist students who
of their views of reading development, regard comprehen- struggle with reading comprehension. In this discussion,
sion as the gold standard in defining prima facie reading we focus on three points of view that are well represented
difficulties. Thus, even if a good comprehender exhibited in the literature. The first is based on the belief that the
some deficits in particular skill areas (e.g., phonics or “cure” for some students with poor reading comprehension
monitoring), we would say that those variations from the is to remediate underdeveloped basic reading skills that are
ideal were differences that did not make a difference, or serving as barriers to reading comprehension, and these
perhaps disabilities that did not make a difference. Con- would include skills such as phonemic awareness, phonics,
versely, if a student was skilled at decoding, oral language vocabulary, fluency, and oral language. Another point of
vocabulary, and monitoring but could not understand the view proposes that many students’ reading comprehen-
most basic material, we would conclude that he or she sion difficulties are best ameliorated by explicit instruction
had a reading difficulty and, depending on our view of the and frequent practice in the application of comprehension
neurology of reading, perhaps even a disability. Less than strategies. A third point of view proposes that successful
ideal comprehension, then, is the key criterion in defining reading comprehension results from a complex interweav-
disability. When it comes to addressing poor comprehen- ing of both basic reading skills and strategies and favors
sion performance, the key question is what is the basis of a highly individualized approach to remediating reading
the performance deficit? What is it about a student’s intel- comprehension difficulties.
lectual makeup, skill repertoire, knowledge, experience,
dispositions, or instructional history that might account for
Part 1: Modeling the Relationship between
the prima facie failing in comprehension? Other questions
Comprehension and Disability
readily follow: (a) Is the nature of disability the same for
all poor comprehenders or are there different patterns of The relationship between comprehension and disability
disability with different etiologies for different classes of has been investigated for many years, dating back to the
students? (b) Can more than one pattern of sub-skill per- early 1900s and the concepts of congenital word blindness
formance lead to the same comprehension achievement? popularized by Hinshelwood (1907) and strephosymbolia,
(c) How are comprehension difficulties best ameliorated or twisted symbols, put forward by Orton in the 1920s
for students with reading disabilities? (Orton, 1928). These early conceptualizations, both viewed
The goal of this chapter is to unpack and answer these by their popularizers as roughly synonymous with the then
and other questions that fall under the rubric of the relation- rare but now common term dyslexia, were based upon
ship between reading disability and reading comprehension. what scholars in the 1980s came to call the simple view
Some of the issues we address, constituting the first part of reading (see Hoover & Gough, 1990; Gough, Hoover,
of the chapter, have to do with the nature of reading dis- & Peterson, 1996; Gough & Tumner, 1986), the idea that
ability, including an analysis of the natural relationships reading comprehension is entirely specified by the prod-
between reading disability and other aspects of reading uct of an individual’s oral language comprehension and
development—language development, phonemic aware- decoding prowess: RC = LC × D. Orton and other early
ness, decoding, vocabulary, fluency, and the like. scholars of dyslexia speculated that there was a small core
The second part of the chapter focuses on issues of of readers for whom neurological problems, in the form of
pedagogy and the practical questions facing teachers as frankly insulted or underdeveloped parts of the brain, led

219
220 Katherine K. Frankel, P. David Pearson, and Marnie Nair

to processing problems that interfered with decoding and, tom of this disability is that readers have difficulty with a
as a consequence, reading comprehension. And over the specific type of cognitive process, such as with a range of
years, these scholars affiliated themselves with educators phonological processes—phonemic awareness (segment-
who developed highly structured approaches to remediat- ing the stream of speech into phonemes) and phonological
ing these core difficulties in recoding print into speech (see recoding. This deficit causes a bottleneck in the reading
Ritchey & Goeke, 2006, for a history and description of process that goes to the heart of the concept of dyslexia.
these approaches). Over the decades, the work explaining As stated by Stanovich (1988):
various forms of dyslexia expanded, leading to seminal
work by many scholars in the 1970s and 1980s designed to This assumption underlies all discussions of the concept
of dyslexia, even if it is not explicitly stated. It is the idea
fully understand the construct (see Ellis, 1985, or Stanovich,
that a child with this type of learning disability has a brain/
1988, for full expositions of this work). cognitive deficit that is reasonably specific to the reading
For reasons that are not readily apparent, the 1980s task. (p. 601)
proved a fruitful decade for the development of theoreti-
cal perspectives designed to explain the comprehension- An interesting distinction made by Stanovich (1988) and
disability relationship. At least four of these perspectives others (e.g., Ellis, 1985) is that dyslexic readers exhibit what
deserve our attention: the interactive-compensatory model he calls a vertical deficit in cognitive capacity: a specific
(Stanovich, 1980); the phonological-core variable-differ- module, in this case phonological, is underdeveloped. This
ence model (Stanovich, 1988); an implicit comprehension is to be contrasted with a horizontal deficit—a modest lag
lag hypothesis, which we label the comprehension strategy in several cognitive modules (e.g., phonological, visual,
deficit hypothesis, as manifested in Reciprocal Teaching lexical, and perhaps even language processing); the hori-
(Palincsar & Brown, 1984); and Lipson and Wixson’s zontal deficit, according to Stanovich, is the profile more
(1986) interactive model of reading disability. typical of what he calls the garden-variety poor reader.
Among scholars who hold to this distinction, a common
Interactive-Compensatory Model Stanovich’s interactive- assumption is that large numbers of students with reading
compensatory model caused quite a stir in the reading field comprehension problems will also reveal problems in the
when it first appeared in 1980 because it challenged a key phonological core.
premise of the prevailing psycholinguistic models (K. G.
Goodman, 1967; K. S. Goodman, 1968; Smith, 1971) that Comprehension Strategy Deficit Hypothesis The com-
good readers are more sensitive to, reliant on, and able to prehension strategy deficit perspective (our terminology)
use context to achieve both word identification and meaning is the logical complement to the phonological core deficit
construction. Stanovich reviewed a large body of research hypothesis. It assumes that there are at least some readers
demonstrating that it is poor readers, not good readers, who who fail to comprehend well in spite of adequate decoding
are more reliant on context to achieve word recognition (or phonological recoding) skills because they lack a set
during reading. Indeed, it is precisely and only when good of strategies and skills that allow (really dispose) them to
readers run into unusually difficult decoding tasks that they connect the words they decode to their existing stores of
revert to contextual analysis; most of the time, they rely on knowledge. It is precisely this sort of reader that Palincsar
their fine-tuned and highly efficient decoding processes to and Brown (1984) were trying to assist in their classic
gain access to their internal lexicon (the meanings of all the Reciprocal Teaching intervention. The bet was that if they
words in the text) and to understand text; they literally recode could help these students develop a set of comprehension-
orthographic into phonological representations on the route fostering and comprehension-monitoring strategies (such
to meaning construction. It is not surprising that advocates as summarizing, clarifying, questioning, and predicting),
of this perspective have relabeled what we commonly refer they would dramatically improve their comprehension of
to as decoding or phonics as phonological recoding (Wagner texts to which they applied these strategies and, equally
& Torgesen, 1987). LaBerge and Samuels (1974) speculated important, to texts that they would later encounter on their
that good readers use the extra cognitive capacity they ac- own. Their work, plus the work of many who have followed
quire because decoding is so effortless to focus their attention in their footsteps, suggests that for many poor readers,
clearly on the process of constructing meaning. this path to remediation is quite effective. Estimates of the
size of this pool of disabled readers vary widely. However,
Phonological-Core Variable-Difference Model The some recent data from the work of Catts and colleagues
interactive-compensatory model is intimately connected to suggests it might be larger than some have thought (Catts,
the phonological-core variable-difference model, which has Hogan, & Adlof, 2005). Among students with general
been proposed by many scholars (e.g., Castles & Coltheart, language impairments, they found that 31% of struggling
1993; Ellis, 1985) but most fully articulated by Stanovich second-grade readers were adequate in decoding but poor
(1988). The fundamental claim is that there are two basic in reading comprehension. The comparable percentages
types of poor readers—garden-variety poor readers and for fourth and eighth grade were even higher, roughly
learning disabled or dyslexic readers, most if not all of 45% and 54% respectively (as reported in chapter 14, this
whom exhibit a phonological core deficit. The basic symp- volume). These high percentages certainly challenge the
 Reading Comprehension and Reading Disability 221

prevailing view among dyslexia scholars that phonological that it is a critique of the very construct of disability, a term
core deficits are the prevailing etiology. Of course, it could that implies that the problem resides within the reader rather
be argued that what Catts and colleagues were locating is than in the instructional context in which reading occurs and
a high incidence of garden-variety poor comprehenders. is taught (McDermott, Goldman, & Varenne, 2006).
The design of the study does not permit us to determine
whether there is a comprehension strategy bottleneck that Recent Developments Clearly, the nature of reading dif-
is comparable to the bottleneck caused by the phonological ficulties for struggling readers—those with and without
core deficit. Even so, the data do suggest that the etiology diagnosed reading disabilities—is complex. Recent research
notwithstanding, a direct attack on comprehension issues suggests that this complexity stems from the wide range of
is implicated for a large percentage of students with low individual differences present among any group of readers
comprehension performance. with difficulties in making sense of print—the distinct pro-
files of skills, strategies, and dispositions that characterize
Interactive Model of Reading Disability Lipson and Wix- each individual’s reading struggle (see Siegel, 2003, for an
son (1986) offer a comprehensive framework that could, in account of the cognitive bases of disability and Mann, 2003,
principle, accommodate each of the previous perspectives for the language bases). Several recent studies, for example,
and more. Their model takes a cue from interactive models have shown that some struggling readers demonstrate a
of reading (e.g., Rumelhart, 1977), which stipulate that read- combination of both poor decoding and poor comprehension
ing involves the interactive juggling of multiple sources of skills, while others experience more pronounced difficul-
information made available from the text (the orthography, ties in one area over another, and some show difficulties in
the linguistic structure, and other visual cues), the reader other areas such as vocabulary or language skills (Buly &
(various sources of knowledge about the topic, the lexicon, Valencia, 2002; Rupp & Lesaux, 2006).
the genre, the conventions of print, and the like), and the For example, Buly and Valencia (2002) found several
context (the nature of the task, the setting in which it is different sub-skill profiles among individuals who shared
accomplished, the purpose for which it is completed, the the common attribute of having failed to reach proficiency
consequences of success or failure) to extract and construct on the Washington state test of reading achievement—in
meaning in response to text. In an interactive model of other words, students who failed to read for comprehen-
reading, the success of the reader in constructing meaning sion. For some, the major source of difficulty was poor
depends entirely on the juxtaposition of all of those fac- decoding, for others it was disfluency, for still others there
tors in a given situation for a given reader and a given text. appeared to be vocabulary issues, while for others there
The basic argument in Lipson and Wixson’s model is that seemed to be no explanation other than impaired compre-
reading disability is not beneath the skin and between the hension itself. Similarly, in a recent review of the research
ears (McDermott, 1993; Mehan, 1993), at least not exclu- on reading comprehension difficulties among children,
sively. Instead it is a temporary, situated condition brought Nation (2005) shows that not all reading comprehension
about by a particular constellation of factors. A student is difficulties arise from poor decoding skills. Instead, Nation
not disabled forever but for this particular text, task, topic, explores the evidence indicating that individuals with purely
level of support, and/or situation. It follows that for any comprehension-related reading difficulties have deficits in
given student, despite the high level of knowledge and skill other areas of reading, such as vocabulary knowledge and
that she brings to the task, there will be combinations of inference-making abilities, but that they do not necessarily
these factors that will render her disabled, at least for the demonstrate problems with phonological processing. And
moment. The opposite is also true: for any given student, Allington and McGill-Franzen (2008) reach a similar con-
despite the low level of knowledge and skill that she brings clusion from their review of the research behind comprehen-
to the task, there will be combinations of these factors that sion difficulties among struggling readers by proposing that
will construct her as competent. The task of the teacher in poor readers fall into one of three general categories: poor
such a model is not to provide assessments to determine at decoding, poor at comprehension, or poor at both.
how to “fix” kids but instead to find the differential means One critique of these recent studies is that they often
of support to help all students achieve a given task or suc- fail to distinguish between garden-variety poor readers and
cessfully understand a given text. When closely analyzed, dyslexic readers, two populations that might exhibit differ-
this perspective is nothing more or less than a form of radical ent symptoms and etiologies for their reading difficulties.
individualized instruction, wherein the teacher’s task is to However, there is evidence that even when this distinction
find the right instructional ingredients that form a unique is made, the same patterns emerge. In a comparison of the
pathway for each and every student. Note also that this is reading abilities of students with early- and late-emerging
the underlying assumption in the Individualized Educational reading disabilities, Leach, Scarborough, and Rescorda
Plan (IEP) so prevalent in Special Education in the wake (2003) identified three types of readers: (a) those with dif-
of IDEA regulations popularized in the 1980s and 1990s ficulties at the phonological level but not with comprehen-
and enduring into the latest iteration of the Individuals with sion, (b) those with difficulties in comprehension but not
Disabilities Education Act (USDE, 2004). Most important with phonological processing, and (c) those with difficulties
to recognize about the Lipson and Wixson perspective is in both phonological processing and comprehension. These
222 Katherine K. Frankel, P. David Pearson, and Marnie Nair

findings from Leach et al. are particularly germane to our Approach #1: Focus on the Phonological Deficit Several
discussion because they challenge two common assump- reading programs are specifically geared toward struggling
tions about reading disabled struggling readers. The first readers and readers with disabilities whose primary diffi-
is that reading problems among this population of readers culties are at the phonological level—readers who exhibit
always stem from a phonological deficit. The second chal- the phonological core deficit detailed by Stanovich (1988).
lenged assumption is that all dyslexic students struggle Thus, these programs focus on providing decoding support
with comprehension.1 as a first step to improving reading (Gaskins, this volume).
Finally, after taking all the research into consideration, It must be explicitly noted at the outset that few of these
it is our contention that an omnibus model like Lipson and programs focus exclusively on phonological processes;
Wixson’s interactive model of disability would provide focus and priority better characterize the role of the most
the broadest possible framework for conceptualizing recent array of phonologically focused programs. Perhaps
disability and pointing toward appropriate instructional this shift is due to the fact that recent reviews show that
interventions. More on that score after we have reviewed instruction in phonological skills alone is typically not
the available research on approaches to improving com- sufficient to improve the overall reading abilities for most
prehension. struggling readers, especially older readers whose difficul-
ties with phonological processing have been compounded
by being left behind in learning more advanced reading
Part 2: Approaches to Improving Comprehension for
skills (National Reading Panel, 2000; Deshler, Palincsar,
Students with Disabilities
Biancarosa, & Nair, 2007). Therefore, most of these pro-
Not surprisingly, the approaches to improving compre- grams do incorporate some activities designed to build vo-
hension for students identified as having comprehension cabulary, fluency, and comprehension although each keeps
problems mirror the various perspectives for conceptual- a strong focus on remediating phonological deficits, and it
izing the causes and nature of the assumed comprehension is fair to say that phonological issues are, at a minimum,
deficit.2 It is important to remember that the recent research “first among equals” and likely to assume the lion’s share
of scholars who have examined the skill infrastructure of of instructional time.
both garden-variety and reading disabled students with Lindamood-Bell offers two such programs within a
poor comprehension (Allington & McGill-Franzen, 2008; set of three instructional reading programs which, taken
Buly & Valencia, 2002; Leach et al., 2003; Nation, 2005; together, aim to comprehensively address the language-
Rupp & Lesaux, 2006) leads us away from all-or-nothing processing needs of reading disabled students of all ages.
perspectives to an understanding that the explanations for We focus our discussion here on the first two of these
impaired reading comprehension among struggling read- programs as examples of the wide variety of available
ers are as varied as the readers themselves. Furthermore, reading programs that target decoding issues. They are the
a fuller understanding of the varied profiles of individuals Lindamood Phoneme Sequencing Program for Reading,
who struggle to comprehend calls for a more nuanced un- Spelling, and Speech (LiPS) and Seeing Stars. 3 Both pro-
derstanding of how these difficulties are best resolved. In grams use explicit and systematic approaches to building
short, by suggesting multiple pathways to comprehension phonemic awareness with a great emphasis on repetition
difficulties for both reading disabled and garden-variety and reinforcement of practice until mastery is reached.
struggling readers, the research implies multiple pathways The aim of LiPS is to build phonemic awareness while
to resolving those difficulties. We now turn to a discussion Seeing Stars focuses on building orthographic recognition
of three different approaches to remediating comprehen- for letters and words.
sion difficulties, each designed to target specific underly- The LiPS approach to improving phonemic awareness
ing causes of impaired comprehension for students with is to draw explicit attention to how sounds are made by
reading disabilities. As a means of making the discussion the mouth so that students ultimately may become self-
manageable and useful, for each approach we explicate correctors (Lindamood-Bell, 2009a). LiPS is multisensory,
one particular curricular program—and mention several and students are encouraged to see, hear and feel speech
others—as a representation of what research would sug- sounds through a five-step instructional model, which in-
gest as an effective means of remediating a particular set cludes: (a) Setting the climate for learning, (b) Identifying
of issues for a particular type of struggling reader. Readers and classifying speech sounds, (c) Tracking speech sounds,
who want to learn more about approaches that focus on the (d) Associating sounds and symbols, and (e) Spelling
phonological processes should look carefully at the chapter (encoding) and reading (decoding). There are two ways to
on this subject by Gaskins (chapter 27 of this volume), navigate LiPS. One way is to follow the Horizontal Path,
while those who want to acquaint themselves with the where students learn all consonants and then all vowels
full array of approaches emphasizing direct comprehen- before applying this knowledge to the tracking, spelling
sion instruction, particularly as they relate to improving and reading of syllables and words. The second way to
narrative and informational text comprehension, should navigate LiPS is to follow the Vertical Path, where students
consult the chapters by Almasi and her colleagues (chapter learn just three consonant pairs and three vowel sounds
30 of this volume) and Martin and Duke (chapter 31 of this before beginning to track, spell, and read simple syllables
volume), respectively. and words (Lindamood & Lindamood, 1998).
 Reading Comprehension and Reading Disability 223

The Seeing Stars program is offered as a supplemental Approach #2: Focus on Reading Comprehension Strate-
program to be used when students continue to struggle gies While some reading programs specifically geared
with fluent decoding of basic or multi-syllabic words after toward struggling readers and readers with disabilities are
completing the LiPS curriculum. Seeing Stars is based on focused on readers that need support with phonological pro-
dual coding theory (Paivio, 1986) and teaches visualization cessing in order to improve reading comprehension, other
techniques while also emphasizing the importance of lan- programs focus on the strategic components of reading.
guage awareness. The program teaches symbol imagery, or While many of these programs are not necessarily targeted
“the ability to visualize the identity, number, and sequence exclusively towards students with reading disabilities, they
of sounds and letters within words” (Lindamood-Bell, operate on the principle that for many students, reading
2009b). Seeing Stars begins instruction by calling attention comprehension will improve through explicit instruction
to symbol imagery before progressing into multisyllabic and repeated practice in the use of comprehension strategies.
and contextualized reading and spelling to explicitly and As such, they build on the seminal work of Palincsar and
systematically improve reading. Brown (1984) in the Reciprocal Teaching approach.
Research on the effectiveness of the two programs Reading Apprenticeship, an intervention model devel-
when used together is limited, but numerous studies on oped by the Strategic Literacy Initiative (SLI) at WestEd to
the LiPS program have found that it improves word level improve reading comprehension among struggling readers
reading skills among children with reading disabilities. The and facilitate access to the general education curriculum,
evidence for the effects on reading comprehension is less is one example of a reading program that operates from
clear. In one study that looked at the effects of LiPS—in this perspective.
its original, pre-1998 form, when it was called the Audi- One way in which Reading Apprenticeship works to help
tory Discrimination in Depth Program (ADD)—among students become strategic readers is through a ninth-grade
kindergarteners with phonological processing disabilities, Academic Literacy course. This course is grounded in the
researchers found improvements in word level reading skills premise that, “for all students to attain high-level literacy,
but not in reading comprehension (Torgesen et al., 1999). apprenticeships that demystify the literacy practices and
But in a more recent study comparing ADD with an embed- discourses of the academic disciplines must be embedded
ded phonics program for children ages 8 to 10 with severe in subject-area instruction across the curriculum, rather
reading disabilities, researchers found similar positive ef- than becoming the sole purview of the English department”
fects over time on word attack, text reading accuracy, text (Greenleaf, Schoenbach, Cziko, & Mueller, 2001, p. 89).
reading fluency, and passage comprehension for children The Academic Literacy course orchestrates four interacting
in both groups, and specifically in terms of reading ability dimensions—social, personal, cognitive, and knowledge-
growth rate (Torgesen et al., 2001). building—with the overarching goal of demystifying
Additional programs that work to improve students’ reading by making strategies visible and explicit through
phonological processing difficulties include Benchmark ongoing, internal and external metacognitive conversa-
Word Detectives, My Reading Coach, Phono-graphix, tions and “collaborative inquiry” between the teacher as
Reading is FAME, Saxon Phonics Intervention, Spell Read “master reader” and the students. The course consists of
P.A.T., and the Wilson Reading System. In keeping with the three units—reading self and society, reading media, and
findings evaluating the effectiveness of the Lindamood-Bell reading history—all of which are geared toward increasing
decoding-focused programs, the broad sweep of research students’ engagement, fluency and competency in reading.
investigating the efficacy of programs that focus on explicit As a means of achieving these goals, students explore a
instruction at the phonological level have reported improve- series of essential questions, including: What is reading?
ments in rates of reading growth, particularly for children What do successful readers do when they read? What kind
with phonological processing deficits, among both younger of reader am I? What strategies do I use as I read? What
(Foorman, Fletcher, Francis, Schatschneider, & Mehta, role does reading serve in people’s personal and public
1998) and older (Torgesen, 2005) students. The evidence lives? What kinds of vocabulary can I expect from different
for their effect on improving comprehension is less clear texts? What kinds of sentences are found in different kinds
and less frequent. One is also reminded of similar findings of texts? What do I need to know to be able to understand
in the recent study evaluating the results of a randomized these different kinds of texts?
trial comparing Reading First programs, which exhibit a Explicit strategy instruction serves a central role in ad-
“balanced” curriculum tipped in the direction of phonologi- dressing these essential questions in the context of the three
cal level processes, against “business as usual” programs in course units. Through explicit instruction and modeling of
grades 1–3; again, clear effects on word reading outcomes the foundational Reciprocal Teaching strategies—which
but no appreciable effects on external measures of compre- include questioning, summarizing, clarifying, and predict-
hension were found (Gamse et al., 2008). Serious design ing—students learn to apply these strategies to a variety of
issues, a topic we address in our discussion, complicate a different texts. Students also learn an array of additional
straightforward interpretation of this body of work. Suffice strategies such as note taking, paraphrasing, and text map-
it to say that as the evidence currently stands, transfer to ping, in addition to learning how to identify word structure
comprehension from phonologically based instruction is (i.e., root words, prefixes, suffixes), develop semantic net-
the exception not the rule. works, and chunk complex sentences and words.
224 Katherine K. Frankel, P. David Pearson, and Marnie Nair

Even though explicit strategy instruction is an important Dole et al., 2008; Duke & Pearson, 2002; National Reading
component of the course, the course also focuses on put- Panel, 2000; Pressley, 2000; Mastropieri & Scruggs, 1997;
ting students in charge of instruction and decision making Dole, Duffy, Roehler, & Pearson, 1991; Palincsar & Brown,
in order to facilitate their ability to consider these types of 1984; Paris, Cross, & Lipson, 1984; Pearson & Fielding,
questions and strategies related to reading. Thus, through 1991). A question that remains, however, is the degree
essential questions and a reciprocal teaching and learn- to which strategy instruction can be easily implemented
ing environment, Academic Literacy teachers establish a and sustained in everyday reading instructional contexts
classroom atmosphere where confusion is acceptable and (see Hacker & Tenent, 2002; Benson-Griffo, Kohansal, &
even necessary as a means through which to gain a deeper Pearson, 2007).4
understanding of content-area material. That said, helping
students to comprehend the material, while a vital compo- Approach #3: Focus on Balanced, Individualized Instruc-
nent of the course, is not its only goal. Instead of limiting tion A third instructional approach to improving reading is
instruction to strategy identification and use, Adolescent represented by programs that combine decoding and com-
Literacy teachers challenge students to think about the prehension strategy instruction in order to meet the needs of
situated nature of their reading practices and how this a variety of different learners. The assumption underlying
context determines the ways that they approach and read this type of program is that since reading difficulties do not
texts. Given all of these other elements, it is probably inac- stem from one source for all students, a curricular program
curate to characterize Reading Apprenticeship as merely a that provides support for a range of student needs can reach
“strategy deficit” improvement approach. It is surely that, the broadest number of students. Some of the programs
but it is also so much more, with its additional emphases on that fit this profile include Boy’s Town, Reading is FAME,
motivation, social learning, endurance, and self-regulation. Passport Reading Journeys, Soar to Success, and our focal
Even so, strategies are its signature component. program, the Strategic Instruction Model (SIM). We focus
Research on Reading Apprenticeship as it is manifested our discussion on SIM because it is one of the most widely
in the Academic Literacy course reveals positive qualita- studied programs of this type.
tive and quantitative effects on student achievement and The Strategic Instruction Model (SIM), developed by
engagement. For example, through a variety of qualitative the University of Kansas Center for Research on Learning
measures including pre- and post-course reading surveys (KU-CRL), seeks to improve content literacy for students at
and case studies of eight focal students, Greenleaf et al. a variety of different reading levels by offering a multi-tiered
(2001) found profound improvements in reading attitude approach to instruction. The program’s overarching goal
and confidence among students who completed the Aca- is to create independent and strategic learners, but it also
demic Literacy course. Moreover, pre- and post-tests of includes a knowledge-building component for teachers. To
reading proficiency as measured by the Degrees of Reading this dual end, the program combines Content Enhancement
Power (DRP) test revealed significant gains in student per- Routines, which focus attention on building teacher capac-
formance from October to May. Finally, a recent report on ity for content area instruction, with a Learning Strategies
the second year of implementation of a randomized evalu- Curriculum, which focuses on building students’ literacy
ative study of the effect of Reading Apprenticeship on the abilities (Fisher, Schumaker, & Deshler, 2002). The es-
achievement of low-performing ninth-grade students found sential components of the Learning Strategies Curriculum
that the program had a positive and statistically significant are six research-based reading strategies, including: the
impact on participating students’ reading comprehension Word Identification Strategy, the Visual Imagery Strategy,
test scores (Corrin, Somers, Kemple, Nelson, & Sepanik, the Self-Questioning Strategy, the Inference Strategy, the
2008). Given the complex nature of the Reading Apprentice- Fundamentals of Paraphrasing and Summarizing, and the
ship model, with its four key components, it is difficult to Paraphrasing Strategy (University of Kansas Center for
attribute the success of the program to strategy instruction Research on Learning, 2008).
alone; however, because strategy instruction is at the core The routines and strategies that are at the core of SIM
of Reading Apprenticeship and knowing from a wide range as it is manifested in individual classrooms are delivered
of other research that strategy instruction matters (see Dole, through a more comprehensive, school-wide program called
Nokes, & Drits, 2008; Duke & Pearson, 2002) we can be the Content Literacy Continuum (CLC). The CLC has five
confident that this focus on strategies is an important factor levels of sequential support, all of which are geared toward
contributing to students’ reading improvements. improving the basic literacy skills of at-risk students while
Other highly regarded programs that focus on strategy simultaneously maintaining the presence of these students
instruction as a means to improving reading comprehen- in content-area classes so that they do not fall even further
sion are Reciprocal Teaching and Transactional Strategies behind their peers in terms of content knowledge (Deshler,
Instruction. In general, research supports the efficacy of Schumaker, & Woodruff, 2004). In Level 1: Enhanced
programs that promote comprehension strategy instruction Content Instruction, the goal is for students to learn the
for garden-variety struggling readers and, more importantly, required core curriculum content regardless of individual
for reading-disabled students on curriculum-embedded literacy levels. In Level 2: Embedded Strategy Instruction,
and/or standardized measures (Almasi et al., this volume; the goal is for students to learn and apply a set of learning
 Reading Comprehension and Reading Disability 225

strategies in order to master the required core curriculum learning-disabled students seemed to benefit the most from
content. In Level 3: Intensive Strategy Instruction, students the routine. While student performance improved in the
who require additional strategy instruction receive more studies of both routines, in both cases the authors note that
intensive and explicit support. In Level 4: Intensive Basic these improvements were not always large enough to move
Skill Instruction, students who require instruction in decod- the lowest-achieving students from a failing to a passing
ing, fluency, and basic comprehension skills are provided grade. Moreover, the authors note that more research on the
with specialized instruction. In Level 5: Therapeutic In- effects of a combination of different routines is necessary
tervention, “students with underlying language disorders in order to determine how routines used together influence
learn the linguistic, related cognitive, metalinguistic, and student achievement. Despite these concerns, however, SIM
metacognitive underpinnings they need to acquire content provides a comprehensive approach to instruction, particu-
literacy skills and strategies” (University of Kansas Center larly within content-area classrooms, by combining reading
for Research on Learning, 2007, p. 2). Thus, all students, strategy instruction with a multilevel framework geared
regardless of the underlying causes of their reading diffi- toward improving the achievement of all students.
culties, receive the specific support they require to improve
their reading comprehension and, ultimately, their overall Summary of the Intervention Research Reading pro-
content-area knowledge. grams operate under certain assumptions about the nature
While research supporting the effectiveness of SIM on of reading difficulties among struggling readers and readers
student achievement is extensive, most of the studies to date with disabilities. While some programs like LiPS locate
look at individual components of the program rather than reading problems at the phonological level, other pro-
the effects of the program as a whole. Specifically, research grams such as Reading Apprenticeship target motivational
has validated many of the strategies that comprise the Learn- and strategic solutions to reading difficulties. Still others
ing Strategies Curriculum, particularly as they pertain to such as SIM and its corresponding CLC approach reading
students with learning disabilities (see Schumaker, Deshler, difficulties more holistically in an effort to address both
Alley, Warner, & Denton, 1982; Clark, Deshler, Schumaker, phonological and strategic needs as they arise for individual
Alley, & Warner, 1984; Ellis, Deshler, & Schumaker, 1989; students and classes. It is also clear that proponents of all
Lenz & Hughes, 1990). More recently, Faggella-Luby, three approaches understand that combinations of foci are
Schumaker, and Deshler (2007) investigated the effects required to meet the needs of all students. In fact, at an im-
of the Embedded Story Structure (ESS) routine—which plicit if not an explicit level, all three approaches recognize
targets self-questioning, story-structure analysis, and sum- that certain key principles should guide all instruction for
mary writing strategies and employs a graphic device, the students who experience so little success as readers:
ESS Organizer—as compared to another research-based
approach to reading comprehension instruction, on the 1. Students come to us with different needs. Emphasis
achievement of incoming ninth-grade students. Not only must be on the individual student. To assume other-
did the authors find that students who were exposed to the wise masks the different instructional approaches that
ESS routine and accompanying strategies outperformed individual students require to become more proficient
the control group, but they also found equivalent gains for readers. The three focal programs reviewed here all
students regardless of whether or not they had learning offer different levels and types of support depending
disabilities. on assessed student needs.
Other recent studies also have provided evidence for the 2. Motivation and self-efficacy are critical to long-term
effectiveness of specific Content Enhancement Routines on growth. They are key issues in reading comprehen-
the achievement of both low- and high-performing students, sion—especially for older readers, and all three focal
as well as students with learning disabilities. For example, programs try to address these issues.
Bulgren, Deshler, Shumaker, & Lentz (2000) recently 3. All three programs emphasize long-term outcomes and
studied the effects of analogical instruction on students’ focus on student autonomy as the ultimate goal. More
knowledge of concepts by using the Concept Anchoring should do so.
Routine in combination with the Concept Anchoring Table.
They found that the routine improved the performance of The fact of different profiles of strength and need sug-
all students, including students with learning disabilities. gests that educators would do well to ensure instructional
In a later study, Bulgren, Lenz, Shumaker, Deshler, & breadth in the form of a full menu of interventions for
Marquis (2002) developed and tested the effectiveness of students with comprehension problems. That breadth will
the Concept Comparison Routine in combination with a have to be achieved in one of three ways: (a) in a single
graphic device called the Concept Comparison Table. In program, such as SIM; (b) by combining programs (e.g.,
this case, mean percentage scores were significantly higher having both LiPS and Reading Apprenticeship available);
for normal-achieving, low-achieving, and learning-disabled or (c) by building the capacity to shift the instructional
students who were exposed to the routine as compared focus as students reveal different profiles of reading skills,
to students who engaged in a lecture-discussion-style processes, and dispositions (a daunting task, but ultimately
instructional format. Significantly, the low-achieving and the most effective and enduring approach).
226 Katherine K. Frankel, P. David Pearson, and Marnie Nair

Part 3: Discussion: Research and Vexing Policy the efficacy of other important cognitive and instructional
Questions processes when it comes to readers with difficulties and/or
disabilities in comprehension. Vocabulary seems an obvious
Research We hope it is clear that the research on un- candidate for more intensive study with this population of
derstanding the nature, causes, and required instructional readers. For older readers with disabilities, morphological
interventions for students who exhibit serious comprehen- aspects of word knowledge seem particularly important
sion problems is better and more useful than it was 30 years in light of the salience of reading across the academic
ago. We understand the range of explanations for inadequate disciplines in middle and high schools. Also, as important
reading comprehension much better than we did before, and as language processes are in models of disability (Hoover
we know a great deal more about how to promote compre- & Gough, 1990; Mann, 2003), oral language has received
hension through a variety of different interventions. Even little attention in the instructional research for students
so, much remains to be learned. with difficulties/disabilities in comprehension. Given the
First, the research on SIM and CLC notwithstanding, it crucial role of oral language comprehension in the simple
is clear that we need to learn much more about the relation- view, this is a surprising omission. If RC = D x LC (read-
ships and interactions among the three sorts of instructional ing comprehension is the product of decoding prowess and
elements implicated in the research we reviewed: phono- oral language capacity), why do we not know more about
logical processes (decoding and phonemic awareness), the oral language pedagogy side of the equation? Finally,
reading comprehension strategies, and dispositions that are we have an increasing body of research implicating the
required for students to succeed in our nation’s classroom importance of discussion and conversation—talk about text
settings (elements such as stamina, self-efficacy, motivation, (Almasi & Garas-York, 2009; Malloy & Gambrell, chapter
and social interaction skills). In particular, small-scale de- 23 of this volume; Murphy, Wilkinson, Soter, Hennessey,
sign experiments are needed in which various components & Alexander, in press)—in improving comprehension;
of each element are iteratively investigated to achieve an some of it shows a differential advantage of discussion of
optimal combination of each. Then, and only then, will text-related ideas for lower-achieving students (Murphy
larger scale efficacy studies be appropriate. et al., 2009). However, little of that research is focused on
Second (and this follows from the first suggestion), students with disabilities or those with severe comprehen-
we need to better understand the role of phonological sion difficulties. This seems to be a serious shortcoming in
processes. In interpreting the data regarding the effective- need of our immediate attention as a field.
ness of phonics-focused programs on improving reading
comprehension, it is important to keep in mind that we still Vexing Policy Questions When it comes to policy for
have much to learn on this front. Phonological research, for students with reading disabilities, we have experienced a
better or worse, is much more characteristic of research for sea change in the last decade with the passage of the IDEA
younger readers than older (see Gaskins, this volume), so act of 2004 (see the chapters by Swerling and by Gaskins,
we clearly need to conduct more work with older readers. this volume, for more detail on the implications of that
We know that some readers can neither decode nor com- legislation). The central question related to our chapter is
prehend well, some can decode but not comprehend well, what this sea change in the policy context might spell for
and some can comprehend but not decode well. But we comprehension instruction and interventions.
need additional work on both of these basic processes as
evidenced in readers with different profiles, and we need Response to intervention and reading comprehen-
research on instructional strategies that try to balance the sion. Many scholars in Special Education and regular
two. Equally important, there are issues of research design education have worked collaboratively to replace the long-
to address. The failure to find outcomes of improved read- standing definition of a reading disability as a discrepancy
ing comprehension may in part be due to limitations of between a student’s actual reading performance (as deter-
research design. Much of the research on the effectiveness mined by a reliable, valid test of some sort) and her reading
on phonics-based interventions has focused on evidence potential (as determined by a prediction based on her IQ)
of improved decoding and failed to include measures of with a definition based on how the student responds to a
comprehension. In particular, we need to settle the key range of instructional interventions—hence the term RTI
question left open in the bottleneck metaphor implied by for Response to Intervention.5 The policy value of RTI, in
the phonological core deficit hypothesis: admitting for the comparison to the IQ-achievement discrepancy model, is
moment (and on the basis of substantial evidence) that that it allows for the allocation of resources now supporting
phonological competence is a necessary condition for suc- special education services to be set aside for compensatory
cessful comprehension, is it also a sufficient condition? The education very early in a child’s education. The IQ model
data suggest that the answer is no, but it would be useful usually required a child to be in school for at least 2 years
to have compelling instructional evidence for the answer. before a discrepancy of substantial magnitude could emerge.
Further, if phonological competence is not sufficient, what But in RTI, just as soon as evidence emerges that a child
else is necessary? is not responding well to normal classroom instruction,
Third, save for phonics, phonemic awareness, and com- compensatory resources can be applied. The details of the
prehension strategy instruction, we know very little about law and the role that both response and intervention play in
 Reading Comprehension and Reading Disability 227

this new definition of disability are beyond the scope of this small group in the classroom (but it could be a pull out)
chapter (again, see the chapters by Swerling and by Gaskins, to tutoring to full Special Education assignment. In the
this volume), but, for our purposes, several points need to Problem-Solving Protocol (Fuchs &Fuchs, 2006), the same
be reiterated before we can relate the current policies to “diagnostic-prescriptive” process is repeated at each tier:
pedagogical issues surrounding comprehension. determine the nature and magnitude of the problem and its
First, instruction is conceptualized as lying in tiers of causes, design an individually tailored intervention, conduct
successively more tailored and more “specific” emphases, it, evaluate progress, and begin the process over again by
ranging from the classroom (the least specific tier and the continuing with or modifying the intervention. Problem
default intervention for all students), to some sort of more solving is, in a very real sense, individualized instruction
tailored and more intensive classroom or pull-out small to the nth degree; it is what educators have come to expect
group intervention, to individual tutoring (e.g., along the of the IEP process.
lines of Reading Recovery or the like), to some variation Curiously, Fuchs and Fuchs (2006) point out that re-
or another of Special Education services driven by an In- searchers tend to prefer the Standard Treatment Protocol
dividualized Education Plan for each student who makes it (STP) while practitioners favor the Problem-Solving Pro-
to that final tier (not unlike the model of SIM and the CLC tocol (PSP), which perhaps reflects a difference in world-
reviewed earlier). view. Could it be that practitioners want to make sure that
Second, the instruction or the intervention becomes an each student receives precisely the combination of tasks,
assessment in this model. If a student does not respond well resources, and scaffolds that will ensure success quite
to an intervention in one tier, it is taken as prima evidence irrespective of what the research says about the specific
that he or she needs the more focused and intensive inter- elements or their combinatory effects? Conversely, could
vention of a deeper level. As suggested earlier, a negative it be that researchers want to make sure that the allegedly
response to instruction in Tier 1 can yield an early transfer scientifically proven interventions get the maximum op-
to a more focused and intensive tier. Even though the inter- portunity to do their work?
vention is the key assessment, regular progress monitoring Fourth, the relationship of the various tiers of interven-
and/or outcome assessments are used to gauge the success tion to research is crucial because the assumption, particu-
of the response for individual students. These two models larly in the Standard Treatment Protocol, is that the students
of assessment are supposed to be aligned in that the prog- are receiving the best treatments that educational science has
ress monitoring assessments allow educators to assess the to offer at each tier, including in the classroom. Otherwise,
impact of the intervention. there would be little justification for leaving students in a
Third, there is the question of the actual protocol used to treatment for its full course when the preliminary evidence
deliver the intervention. Two fundamental protocols have from progress monitoring assessments is that the treatment
been recommended for instructional delivery—the standard is not working well for particular students. Other things be-
treatment protocol and the problem-solving protocol. In ing equal, it is also desirable if there is curricular articulation
the Standard Treatment Protocol (Fuchs and Fuchs, 2006; between tiers, so that while the focus and intensity of the
Vellutino, Scanlon, Small, & Fanuele, 2006), the basic instruction may change between tiers, the goals and general
principle is to fully implement a treatment for a full term approach may remain constant (Dorn & Schubert, 2008).
on the grounds that it is impossible to gauge the success of Examined from the broadest of educational perspectives,
a student’s response on anything short of a full implemen- there is little to quarrel with in the RTI model. It privileges
tation of the intervention cycle. If that intervention does or at least entails many widely respected educational values
not work, the student moves down a tier to receive a new and research-based principles of pedagogy, as detailed in
standard treatment that most likely differs in its intensity Table 20.1. These are long-standing hallmarks of effective
and specificity. The move is usually from whole class to teaching, remarkably resonant with the very first principle

TABLE 20.1
Instructional Principles Underlying RTI
Label Principle
Individualized Instruction There is no one best method of teaching reading, just a best method for a particular child. It is the job of the teacher
to find that right combination for every student.
Responsive Assessment Each step a teacher takes in instruction must be responsive to the evidence provided by the child in the immediately
previous performance and/or assessment situation. Increasing instructional depth (down into the skill infrastructure),
specificity, and intensiveness are provided on an as-needed basis.
Dynamic Assessment Instead of giving all students the same task and observing the variability among them, a teacher should ask,
What are the differential supports I need to offer various students in order to help them all perform a given task
successfully?
“Goldilocks” Pedagogy Working in the zone of proximal development, a teacher provides just right materials (not too easy, not too hard)
and just in time scaffolding (the right clue or support at just the right moment).
Programs fail; students don’t When a student cannot perform successfully in a given tier or with a given set of supports, we should conclude that
the instruction has failed, not the student—and the approach should be changed.
228 Katherine K. Frankel, P. David Pearson, and Marnie Nair

outlined in the National Board for Professional Teaching advisable to add a focus on comprehension. Much of the
Standards: Teachers are committed to students and their small group intervention research conducted in the 1990s
learning (NBPTS, 2002). by researchers such as Hiebert (1994) and Taylor (1995)
In relation to the research reviewed in this chapter on exhibited a similar balance between word level and com-
reading disability and reading comprehension, these new prehension level processes, with lots of provision for active
policy developments have implications, some that might reading of text. There appears, on the basis of a broad sweep
propel comprehension research into a more prominent of research, a definite place for balanced interventions, even
position and others that might compromise its influ- beyond classroom and small group tiers in the RTI model.
ence. On the positive side, several of the interventions Perhaps balance, and most particularly provisions for em-
reviewed in part 2 of this chapter combine the logic of phasizing comprehension in all tiers within an RTI model,
a Standard Treatment Protocol (STP) with the logic of ought to be considered as a serious policy guideline.
a Problem-Solving Protocol (PSP) in that they represent
both a common core treatment with internal provision The role of assessment in RTI. Whether the assess-
for between-student differentiation. As such, they appear ment promise of RTI can and will be realized is an open
to be well-suited to allowing a compromise between the question. On the positive side, the two faces of assessment
two protocols: interventions such as SIM or Reading Ap- inherent in the model are most welcome additions to our
prenticeship can be implemented for a given period of conceptual frame for assessing program impact and student
time, as required by the STP, while they allow teachers progress. But here the devil will be in the details.6 The
the opportunity to tailor implementation for individuals, idea that the intervention is the assessment is intriguing
in the spirit of PSP. This is particularly true for the SIM because it should mean that programs fail, not students.
program with its emphasis on providing a balanced array However, a construct has arisen that has the potential to
of pedagogical elements within the intervention, but it is shift the blame back onto students: treatment resistors
also true of Reading Apprenticeship (although the balance (Torgesen, 2000). The notion is that no matter how hard
is across very different dimensions—comprehension strat- we try to find the right intervention (in the Standard Treat-
egies, motivation, and dispositions such as stamina) and ment Protocol) or the right combination of instructional
many of the other programs only alluded to. Second, both features (in the Problem-Solving Protocol), there may be
SIM and Reading Apprenticeship are heavy on providing some students who resist all of our attempts to bring them
all the scaffolding needed to make students successful; up to a minimal level of reading performance. A great deal
they are “poster child” programs for what we have referred of vigilance will be required as RTI rolls out to make sure
to as Goldilocks (just in time) pedagogy, emphasizing as that the construct of treatment resistor does not become an
they do the gradual release of responsibility (Pearson & all-too-convenient explanation for the failure of programs
Gallagher, 1983) from teacher to student for successful to meet the needs of students who challenge our attempts
task performance as students assume an increasingly inde- to work with them. As a matter of policy, the education
pendent role in the enactment of the routines taught in the profession faces an interesting dilemma: Is it better for
intervention. One would certainly expect to see programs teachers to believe that they can make a difference in
like SIM and Reading Apprenticeship implemented as remediating student performance when they cannot OR
Tier 2 or Tier 3 interventions in many middle and high to believe that they cannot make a difference when they
school settings. It is interesting to note, in examining the can? Which is the least worst error as we try to maximize
research on effective early interventions, that the most the benefit of our programs and practices? We side with
effective kindergarten interventions (e.g., Vellutino et the policy that it is better for teachers to believe that they
al., 1996) and first-grade interventions, such as Reading can make a difference and to teach with that goal as the
Recovery (What Works Clearinghouse, 2008) studied primary motive for their instruction.
thus far implicate balanced approaches to pedagogy; they It is not just intervention as assessment that matters for
could be regarded as early reading analogues of SIM and the roll out of RTI. Equally important is the implementa-
Reading Apprenticeship. tion of progress monitoring and outcome assessments.
One of the most welcome features of RTI is that it allows And when it comes to the policy implications of these
for much earlier intervention than was possible in the earlier assessments, the issue is whether they measure reading
IQ-achievement discrepancy models; one does not have to in its global (broad-based comprehension measures) or
wait for 2 years for a student to fall far enough behind her atomistic (highly specific tests of skills, perhaps even those
predicted level of performance to be eligible for special taught in the intervention). Surely for programs that claim
services. In RTI, intervention can occur as early as kinder- to improve comprehension, comprehension measures must
garten. Given the dominant curricular goals in kindergarten be included to fairly evaluate the impact of the interven-
and first grade, an early emphasis on decoding and word tion. We would argue, however, that broad-based measures
reading would be expected in interventions for young read- of comprehension ought to be included for all programs
ers. However, because of the efficacy of interventions such included in a particular RTI system (by system we mean
as Reading Recovery (What Works Clearinghouse, 2008) the set of programs operating at various tiers within a
and the work of Vellutino and colleagues (1996), it may be school setting). The rationale for this recommendation is
 Reading Comprehension and Reading Disability 229

that the worth of an intervention, even if the focus is on References

decoding (or vocabulary or fluency, for that matter), is best Allington, R. L., & McGill-Franzen, A. (2008). Comprehension difficul-
measured not by its capacity to improve what was directly ties among struggling readers. In S. E. Israel & G. G. Duffy (Eds.),
taught but rather to improve students’ general capacity to Handbook of research on reading comprehension (pp. 551–568). New
read and understand texts on their own. Hence compre- York: Routledge.
Almasi, J. F. & Garas-York, K. (2009). Comprehension and discussion
hension measures can evaluate the transfer value of any
of text. In S. E. Israel & G. G. Duffy (Eds.), Handbook of research on
particular intervention to what matters most in reading— reading comprehension (pp. 470–493). New York: Routledge.
understanding what one reads (see Pearson, 2007). And Benson-Griffo, V., Kohansal, R., & Pearson, P. D. (2007). Curriculum
the most compelling question for any intervention is, How reform in the context of a state mandate. In D. Rowe, R. T. Jiménez,
far beyond its particular instructional implementation can D. L. Compton, D. K. Dickinson, Y. Kim, K. M. Leander, et al. (Eds.),
56th Yearbook of the National Reading Conference (pp. 323–337).
and will it travel?
Milwaukee, WI: National Reading Conference.
Bulgren, J. A., Deshler, D. D., Schumaker, J. B., & Lentz, B. K. (2000).
Conclusion The use and effectiveness of analogical instruction in diverse second-
ary content classrooms. Journal of Educational Psychology, 92(3),
In this chapter, we have examined the relationship between 426–441.
reading disability and reading comprehension from three Bulgren, J. A., Lenz, B. K., Schumaker, J. B., Deshler, D. D., & Marquis,
J. G. (2002). The use and effectiveness of a comparison routine in
perspectives: how the two relate to one another in terms
diverse secondary content classrooms. Journal of Educational Psy-
of basic cognitive processes, how pedagogy can improve chology, 94(2), 356–371.
students’ comprehension performance, and how the current Buly, M. R., & Valencia, S. W. (2002). Below the bar: Profiles of students
policy context either enables or disables the relationship who fail state reading assessments. Educational Evaluation and Policy
between disability and comprehension. We have, along Analysis, 24(3), 219–239.
the way, raised important questions about the validity and Castles, A., & Coltheart, M. (1993). Varieties of developmental dyslexia.
Cognition, 47(2), 149–180.
utility of the research we have and the research we need. Catts, H. W., Hogan, T. P., & Adlof, S. M. (2005). Developmental changes
We have also tried to issue a collective warning to keep our in reading and reading disabilities. In H. W. Catts & A. Kamhi (Eds.),
wits about us as we move ahead with new policy initiatives The connections between language and reading disabilities (pp.
so that teachers, students, and parents are not undermined 25–40). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
by the conspiracies of good intentions lurking around every Clark, F. L., Deshler, D. D., Schumaker, J. B., Alley, G. R., & Warner, M.
M. (1984). Visual imagery and self-questioning: Strategies to improve
pedagogical corner. comprehension of written material. Journal of Learning Disabilities,
17(3), 145–149.
Corrin, W., Somers, M. A., Kemple, J., Nelson, E., & Sepanik, S. (2008).
Notes
The enhanced reading opportunities study: Findings from the second
1. Stanovich’s (1980) interactive-compensatory hypothesis predicts that year of implementation (NCEE 2009-4036). Washington, DC: National
students with limited decoding prowess often rely on rich stores of Center for Education Evaluation and Regional Assistance, Institute of
knowledge and vocabulary to compensate for that limited decoding Education Sciences, U.S. Department of Education.
capacity. There are many cases of famous dyslexics who have masked Deshler, D. D., Palincsar, A. S., Biancarosa, G., & Nair, M. (2007). In-
their poor reading ability by relying on highly developed bodies of formed choices for struggling adolescent readers: A research-based
knowledge accumulated through experience, listening, viewing, and guide to instructional programs and practices. Newark, DE: Interna-
just about any other non-textual resource. tional Reading Association.
2. In fact, the three models we discuss in this section parallel three of Deshler, D. D., Schumaker, J. B., & Woodruff, S. K. (2004). Improving
the four theoretical perspectives popularized in the eighties, and the literacy skills of at-risk adolescents: A schoolwide response. In D. S.
fourth, the interactive-compensatory model, is intimately connected Strickland & D. E. Alvermann (Eds.), Bridging the literacy achieve-
to the phonological core deficit hypotheses. ment gap, grades 4–12 (pp. 86–104). New York: Teachers College
3. Visualizing and Verbalizing for Language Comprehension and Press.
Thinking (V/V) is the third program in this series of Lindamood-Bell Dole, J. A., Duffy, G. G., Roehler, L. R., & Pearson, P. D. (1991). Moving
curricula. It is geared toward individuals with weak concept imagery from the old to the new: Research on reading comprehension instruc-
and aims to improve reading comprehension, critical thinking, and tion. Review of Educational Research, 61(2), 239–264.
expressive language through a series of visualization steps. These Dole, J. A., Nokes, J., & Drits, D. (2008). Cognitive strategy instruc-
steps move sequentially from word- to sentence- to paragraph-level tion: Past and future. In S. E. Israel & G. G. Duffy (Eds.), Handbook
imaging (Florida Center for Reading Research, 2006). of research on reading comprehension (pp. 347–372). New York:
4. Strategy instruction has the distinction, both dubious and exceptional, Routledge.
of having been examined closely in its implementation. This same Dorn, L., & Schubert, B. (2008). A comprehensive intervention model for
critique could be leveled at just about any intervention program preventing reading failure: A response to intervention process. Journal
reviewed in this chapter or any research-based instructional program of Reading Recovery, 7(2), 29–41.
if it were to be studied as carefully as strategy instruction. Duke, N. K., & Pearson, P. D. (2002). Effective practices for developing
5. Interestingly, the original term used in the discussions between the reading comprehension. In A. E. Farstrup & S. J. Samuels (Eds.), What
International Reading Association and the Council for Learning research has to say about reading instruction (3rd ed., pp. 205–242).
Disabilities was Response to Instruction rather than Response to Newark, DE: International Reading Association.
Intervention. The change is significant because of the implication Ellis, A. W. (1985). The cognitive neuropsychology of developmental
that interventions are more systematic and codified approaches to (and acquired) dyslexia: A critical survey. Cognitive Neuropsychol-
remedial instruction. ogy, 2, 169–205.
6. The devil is in the details is a modern adaptation of the original Ellis, E. S., Deshler, D. D., & Schumaker, J. B. (1989). Teaching ado-
quotation, God is in the details, variously attributed to the poet lescents with learning disabilities to generate and use task-specific
William Blake or the architect Ludwig Mies Van der Rohe. strategies. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 22(2), 108–119.
230 Katherine K. Frankel, P. David Pearson, and Marnie Nair

Faggella-Luby, M., Schumaker, J. S., & Deshler, D. D. (2007). Embedded Mastropieri, M. A., & Scruggs, T. E. (1997). Best practices in promot-
learning strategy instruction: Story-structure pedagogy in heteroge- ing reading comprehension in students with learning disabilities,
neous secondary literature classes. Learning Disability Quarterly, 1976–1996. Remedial and Special Education, 18(4), 197–213.
30(2), 131–147. McDermott, R. (1993). The acquisition of a child by a learning disability.
Fisher, J. B., Schumaker, J. B., & Deshler, D. D. (2002). Improving the In S. Chaiklin & J. Lave (Eds.), Understanding practice: Perspectives
reading comprehension of at-risk adolescents. In C. C. Block & M. on activity and context (pp. 269–305). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge
Pressley (Eds.), Comprehension instruction: Research-based best University Press.
practices (pp. 351–364). New York: Guilford. McDermott, R., Goldman, S., & Varenne, H. (2006). The cultural work of
Florida Center for Reading Research. (2006). Visualizing and verbalizing. learning disabilities. Educational Researcher, 35(6), 12–17.
Retrieved January 18, 2009, from http://www.fcrr.org/fcrrreports/PDF/ Mehan, H. (1993). Beneath the skin and between the ears. In S. Chaiklin
VisualizingVerbalizing.pdf & J. Lave (Eds.), Understanding practice (pp. 241–269). New York:
Foorman, B. R., Fletcher, J. M., Francis, D. J., Schatschneider, C., & Cambridge University Press.
Mehta, P. (1998). The role of instruction in learning to read: Preventing Murphy, P. K., Wilkinson, I. A. G., Soter, A. O., Hennessey, M. N., &
reading failure in at-risk children. Journal of Educational Psychology, Alexander, J. F. (2009). Examining the effects of classroom discus-
90(1), 37–55. sion on students’ comprehension of text: A meta-analysis. Journal of
Fuchs, D., & Fuchs, L. S. (2006). Introduction to response to interven- Educational Psychology.
tion: What, why, and how valid is it? Reading Research Quarterly, Nation, K. (2005). Children’s reading comprehension difficulties. In M.
41(1), 93–99. Snowling & C. Hulme (Eds.), The science of reading: A handbook
Gamse, B. C., Bloom, H. S., Kemple, J. J., Jacob, T. T., Boulay, B., Bozzi, (pp. 248–265). Oxford, UK: Blackwell.
L., et al. (2008). Reading First impact study: Interim report. Washing- National Board for Professional Teaching Standards. (2002). What teachers
ton, DC: Institute of Education Sciences. should know and be able to do. Arlington, VA: Author.
Goodman, K. G. (1967). Reading: A psycholinguistic guessing game. National Reading Panel. (2000). Teaching children to read: An evidence-
Journal of the Reading Specialist, 4, 126–135. based assessment of the scientific research literature on reading
Goodman, K. S. (1968). The psycholinguistic nature of the reading process. and its implications for reading instruction. Retrieved January 19,
Detroit, MI: Wayne State University Press. 2009, from http://www.nichd.nih.gov/publications/nrp/upload/
Gough, P. B., Hoover, W. A., & Peterson, C. L. (1996). Some observa- smallbook_pdf.pdf
tions on a simple view of reading. In C. Cornoldi & J. Oakhill (Eds.), Orton, S. T. (1928). Specific reading disability — strephosymbolia. The
Reading comprehension difficulties: Process and intervention (pp. Journal of the American Medical Association, 90, 1095–1099.
1–13). Mahwah: Erlbaum. Paivio, A. (1986). Mental representations: A dual coding approach. New
Gough, P. B., & Tumner, W. (1986). Decoding, reading, and reading dis- York: Oxford University Press.
ability. Remedial and Special Education, 7, 6–10. Palincsar, A. S., & Brown, A. L. (1984). Reciprocal teaching of compre-
Greenleaf, C. L., Schoenbach, R., Cziko, C., & Mueller, F. L. (2001). hension-fostering and comprehension-monitoring activities. Cognition
Apprenticing adolescent readers to academic literacy. Harvard Edu- and Instruction, 1(2), 117–175.
cational Review, 71(1), 79–129. Paris, S. G., Cross, D. R., & Lipson, M. Y. (1984). Informed strategies for
Hacker, D. J., & Tenent, A. (2002). Implementing reciprocal teaching learning: A program to improve children’s reading awareness and com-
in the classroom: Overcoming obstacles and making modifications. prehension. Journal of Educational Psychology, 76(6), 1239–1252.
Journal of Educational Psychology, 94(4), 699–718. Pearson, P. D. (2007). An endangered species act for literacy education.
Hiebert, E. H. (1994). A small group intervention with chapter 1 students. Journal of Literacy Research, 39(2), 145–162.
In E. H. Hiebert & B. M. Taylor (Eds.), Getting reading right from Pearson, P. D., & Fielding, L. (1991). Comprehension instruction. In R.
the start: Effective early literacy interventions (pp. 85–105). Boston: Barr, M. L. Kamil, P. Mosenthal, & P. D. Pearson (Eds.), Handbook of
Allyn & Bacon. reading research (Vol. 2, pp. 815–860). New York: Longman.
Hinshelwood, J. (1907). Four cases of congenital word-blindness occurring Pearson, P. D., & Gallagher, M. C. (1983). The instruction of reading com-
in the same family. British Medical Journal, 2, 1229–1232. prehension. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 8, 317–344.
Hoover, W. A., & Gough P. B. (1990). The simple view of reading. Reading Pressley, M. (2000). What should comprehension instruction be the
and Writing: An Interdisciplinary Journal, 2, 127–160. instruction of? In M. L. Kamil, P. B. Mosenthal, P. D. Pearson, &
LaBerge, D., & Samuels, S. J. (1974). Toward a theory of automatic infor- R. Barr (Eds.), Handbook of reading research (Vol. 3, pp. 545–561).
mation processing in reading. Cognitive Psychology, 6, 293–323. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
Leach, J. M., Scarborough, H. S., & Rescorda, L. (2003). Late-emerging Ritchey, K. D., & Goeke, J. L. (2006). Orton-Gillingham and Orton-
reading disabilities. Journal of Educational Psychology, 95(2), Gillingham-based reading instruction: A review of the literature. The
211–224. Journal of Special Education, 40(3), 171–183.
Lenz, B. K., & Hughes, C. A. (1990). A word identification strategy for Rumelhart, D. (1977). Toward an interactive model of reading. In S.
adolescents with learning disabilities. Journal of Learning Disabilities, Dornic (Ed.), Attention and performance VI (pp. 573–606). Hillsdale,
23(3), 149–158. NJ: Erlbaum.
Lindamood-Bell. (2009a). Lindamood Phoneme Sequencing Program for Rupp, A. A., & Lesaux, N. K. (2006). Meeting expectations? An empirical
reading, spelling and speech (LiPS). Retrieved January 18, 2009, from investigation of a standards-based assessment of reading comprehen-
http://www.lindamoodbell.com/programs/lips.html sion. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 28(4), 315–333.
Lindamood-Bell. (2009b). Seeing stars: Symbol imagery for phonemic Schumaker, J. B., Deshler, D. D., Alley, G. R., Warner, M. M., & Denton,
awareness, sight words and spelling. Retrieved January 18, 2009, from P. H. (1982). Multipass: A learning strategy for improving reading
http://www.lindamoodbell.com/programs/seeing-stars.html comprehension. Learning Disability Quarterly, 5(3), 295–304.
Lindamood, P., & Lindamood, P. (1998). The Lindamood Phoneme Se- Siegel, L. S. (2003). Basic cognitive processes and reading disabilities.
quencing Program for reading, spelling, and speech (3rd ed.). Austin, In H. L. Swanson, K. R. Harris, & S. Graham (Eds.), Handbook of
TX: Pro Ed. learning disabilities (pp. 158–181). New York: Guilford.
Lipson, M. Y., & Wixson, K. K. (1986). Reading disability research: An Smith, F. (1971). Understanding reading: A psycholinguistic analysis of
interactionist perspective. Review of Educational Research, 56(1), reading and learning to read. New York: Holt, Rinehart, & Winston.
111–136. Stanovich, K. E. (1980). Toward an interactive-compensatory model of
Mann, V. A. (2003). Language processes: Keys to reading disability. In H. individual differences in the development of reading fluency. Reading
L. Swanson, K. R. Harris, & S. Graham (Eds.), Handbook of learning Research Quarterly, 16, 32–71.
disabilities (pp. 213–228). New York: Guilford. Stanovich, K. E. (1988). Explaining the differences between the dyslexic
 Reading Comprehension and Reading Disability 231

and the garden-variety poor reader: The phonological-core variable-dif- 19, 2009, from http://www.kucrl.org/featured/brochures/clc_5levels.
ference model. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 21(10), 590–604. pdf
Taylor, B. M. (1995). The early intervention in reading program: Results University of Kansas Center for Research on Learning. (2008). Learning
and issues spanning six years. Paper presented at the annual meeting strategies. Retrieved January 19, 2009, from http://kucrl.org/sim/
of the American Educational Research Association, San Francisco. brochures/LSoverview.pdf
Torgesen, J. K. (2000). Individual differences in response to early interven- U.S. Department of Education. (2004). IDEA regulations: Individualized
tions in reading: The lingering problem of treatment resistors. Learning education programs (IEP). Retrieved February 22, 2009, from http://
Disabilities Research and Practice, 15, 55–64. idea.ed.gov/explore/view/p/,root,dynamic,TopicalBrief,10
Torgesen, J. K. (2005). Recent discoveries from research on remedial Vellutino, F. R., Scanlon, D. M., Sipay, E. R., Small, S. G., Pratt, A.,
interventions for children with dyslexia. In M. Snowling & C. Hulme Chen, R., et al. (1996). Cognitive profiles of difficult to remediate
(Eds.), The science of reading: A handbook (pp. 521–537). Oxford, and readily remediated poor readers: Early intervention as a vehicle
UK: Blackwell. for distinguishing between cognitive and experiential deficits as basic
Torgesen, J. K., Alexander, A. W., Wagner, R. K., Rashotte, C. A., Voeller, causes of specific reading disability. Journal of Educational Psychol-
K. K. S., & Conway, T. (2001). Intensive remedial instruction for ogy, 88(4), 601–638.
children with severe reading disabilities: Immediate and long-term Vellutino, F. R., Scanlon, D. M., Small, S., & Fanuele, D. P. (2006).
outcomes from two instructional approaches. Journal of Learning Response to intervention as a vehicle for distinguishing between
Disabilities, 34(1), 33–58, 78. children with and without reading disabilities: Evidence for the role
Torgesen, J. K., Wagner, R. K., Rashotte, C. A., Rose, E., Lindamood, P., of kindergarten and first grade intervention. Journal of Learning Dis-
& Conway, T. (1999). Preventing reading failure in young children abilities, 39(2), 157–169.
with phonological processing disabilities: Group and individual Wagner, R. K., & Torgesen, J. K. (1987). The nature of phonological
responses to instruction. Journal of Educational Psychology, 91(4), awareness and its causal role in the acquisition of reading skills.
579–593. Psychological Bulletin, 101, 192–212.
University of Kansas Center for Research on Learning. (2007). Content What Works Clearinghouse. (2008). Intervention: Reading recovery.
literacy continuum: A framework for guiding the development of Retrieved February 22, 2009, from http://ies.ed.gov/ncee/wwc/reports/
schoolwide literacy services in secondary schools. Retrieved January beginning_reading/reading_recovery
 21
Writing Difficulties
STEVE GRAHAM AND KAREN HARRIS
Vanderbilt University

Writing is a complex task. It is a goal-directed and self- one contextual factor, quality of classroom instruction, as
sustained activity, requiring the skillful management of the a contributor to struggling writers’ difficulties. Finally, we
writing environment; the constraints imposed by the writing present evidence-based practices for teaching writing to
topic; the intentions of the writer(s), and the processes, studens who experience difficulty mastering this skill.
knowledge, and skills involved in composing (Zimmer-
man & Reisemberg, 1997). It involves much more than
Why is Writing Important?
this, however, as writing is a social activity too (Schultz &
Fecho, 2000), that includes an implicit or explicit dialogue Writing is one of humankind’s most powerful tools, and
between writer(s) and reader(s). How and what is written one of the most influential inventions of all time (Graham,
is further shaped by the writer’s community as well as the 2006). It allows us to communicate with others who are
larger contexts in which writing operates (culture, institu- removed by distance or time, making it possible to initiate
tional, historical, and so forth). For instance, the shape and and maintain links with family, friends, and colleagues even
texture of writing can differ considerably amongst friends when we are unable to be with them. Writing can foster
communicating on the internet versus the same friends a sense of heritage and purpose among larger groups of
writing a school report. The cognitive/motivational demands people. The Chinese, for instance, promoted national unity
of writing and the social/cultural factors that shape it make by adopting a standard system of writing in the third century
writing a demanding task. b.c. Writing also provides a flexible tool for persuading
Children also recognize that writing is a difficult task. others. Thomas Paine’s pamphlet, Common Sense, inflamed
Their explanations for why it so difficult focus on what the revolutionary sentiment in colonial America. In fact, the
writer brings to the task as well as what the environment persuasive power of writing is so great that some govern-
brings to the writer. One youngster told us that children have ments ban certain documents and jail the authors.
difficulty writing because “They don’t know how to spell Writing’s power further resides in its utility as a means
words,” whereas another child indicated writing problems for conveying knowledge and ideas. It allows us to gather,
stem from thinking problems: “They can only think of a preserve and transmit information widely, with great detail
teeny-tiny story or just one sentence.” Other children, in and accuracy. The permanence of writing makes ideas more
contrast, point to the context in which they are situated, readily available for review and evaluation, providing a
as is illustrated in the following commentary: “Some kids useful tool for extending and refining thought (Bangert-
don’t know how to write because they have never been Drowns, Hurley, & Wilkinson, 2004). Writing also gives
taught how to write.” us a useful means for self-expression. We use writing to
In this chapter, we focus on students who experience explore who we are, to combat loneliness, and to chronicle
difficulties learning to write. We begin by briefly consid- our experiences. This can be beneficial psychologically
ering why it is important for struggling writers to become and physiologically, as writing about one’s experiences or
competent writers. Next, we examine if writing difficulties problems reduces depression, lowers blood pressure, and
are common. This is followed by an exploration of the cog- boosts the immune system (Swedlow, 1999).
nitive/motivational as well as social/contextual forces that Students who don’t learn to write well are at a consider-
shape students’ writing development. We then examine if able disadvantage in industrialized and technology oriented
struggling writers experience difficulty with these cogni- countries like the United States. At school, their grades are
tive/motivational factors, and further consider the role of likely to suffer, especially in classes where written tests

232
 Writing Difficulties 233

and papers are used to assess their academic competence number of children who are struggling writers depend on
(Graham, 2006). They are also less likely than their more how the definition for this construct is operationalized and
skilled classmates to use writing to support learning in the aspects of writing that are tested.
content classrooms. Recent meta-analyses have shown that
writing can enhance content learning (Bangert-Drowns et
Factors That Shape Writing Development
al., 2004; Graham & Perin, 2007a). For example, written
summaries can make content more memorable, whereas Given its complexity, it is not surprising that there is cur-
journal entries can be used to reformulate and extend ideas rently no model or theory of development that fully or
presented in class or text. These youngsters’ opportunities adequately captures how writing develops or why some
to attend college or the college of their choice are likely children experience difficulty mastering it. One approach
reduced, as writing is now used to evaluate applicants’ to understanding factors that promote or hinder writing
qualifications. At work, writing has increasingly become development is through the theoretical lens of models
a gateway for employment and promotion, especially in examining how learners move from initial acclimation
salaried positions (see reports by the National Commission (novice performance) to competence and even expertise
on Writing, 2004, 2005). Employees in many jobs must be within a specific domain. Another tactic is to apply a social
able to create clearly written documents, memorandum, contextual lens for understanding writing development. We
technical reports, and electronic messages. In addition, consider each of these approaches below.
participation in civic life and the community at large may
be restricted, as writing via email and text messaging have Development from the Perspective of a Model of Domain
become widespread. Learning Drawing on a vast body of empirical research,
Alexander (1997) devised a model to explain how expertise
develops. According to her model, domain specific expertise
How Wide Spread Are Writing Difficulties?
develops in three stages (i.e., acclimation, competence, and
There is no universally agreed upon method for determin- proficiency/expertise), and the road from novice to compe-
ing prevalence rates for writing difficulties. As a result, tent to expert is shaped by changes in a learner’s strategic
there is considerable variation in estimates of how many behavior, knowledge, and motivation. These factors have
youngsters are struggling writers. For example, if we used played a central role in developmental changes in a variety
data from the most recent assessment of writing conducted of academic domains (e.g., Alexander, Graham, & Harris,
by the National Assessment of Educational Progress (Per- 1998; Bjorklund, 1990; Pintrich & Schunk, 1996). Con-
sky, Daane, & Jin, 2003), we would draw vastly different versely, difficulty with one or more of these factors could
conclusions about prevalence rates, depending upon which presumably hinder writing development. For example, inter-
of their achievement levels we emphasized. One pertinent est (one facet of motivation) or lack thereof in a domain such
classification is at basic level, which describes youngsters as writing likely influences how much effort a youngster
who demonstrate only partial mastery of the knowledge invests in acquiring discourse knowledge about writing or
and skills needed to successfully meet grade-level writing applying strategic solutions to a writing problem, advancing
demands. Another relevant classification is below basic, or impeding their movement towards competence.
which describes students who do not meet even partial mas- Recently, Graham (2006) examined if the available
tery of the relevant skills. If the former achievement level research provided support for the contention that each of
is used to determine the percent of struggling writers (this these factors (strategies, knowledge, and will [akin to mo-
would include below basic and at basic), at least two out tivation]) contribute to writing development. He included
of every three students would be classified as poor writers. a fourth factor in the model, skills, reasoning that the skills
In contrast, if just below basic is used to classify students, involved in translating ideas into words and transcribing
only 14% to 26% of students would be viewed as struggling words into text are very taxing, even for mature writers (see
writers depending upon their grade level. Kellogg, 1993), and that mastery of these skills also shape
Other estimates of the prevalence of writing problems writing development (e.g., as skills become more automatic
are more consistent with the figures for below basic writers and less demanding, additional resources are available for
presented above. Using a standardized test of story writing carrying out other writing processes).
skills, Hooper (Hooper et al., 1993) indicated that about 6% To determine if strategies, skills, knowledge, or will
to 22% of middle school students experienced significant shape writing development, Graham (2006) examined if: (a)
writing problems (i.e., scored 2 or more standard devia- skilled writers possess more of the attribute (e.g., knowledge
tions below a standardized test means). Lower figures were about writing) than less skilled writers; (b) developing writ-
provided by Berninger and Hart (1992), using a sample ers increasingly possess the attribute with age and school-
of primary grade students who had not been referred to ing; (c) individual differences in the attribute predict writing
special education or other specialized services. They found performance; and (d) instruction designed to increase the
that 1% to 3% of children had problems with handwriting, attribute improves writing performance. He argued that a
3% to 4% had problems with spelling, and 1% to 3% had factor (e.g., knowledge) shapes writing development, if each
problems with written narratives. Thus, estimates of the of these tenets is supported by empirical evidence.
234 Steve Graham and Karen Harris

For strategies, the empirical literature was “thick” tion must be viewed as more general and tentative than the
enough to examine two separate processes, planning and ones drawn for strategies and skills.
revising, in relation to the four tenets above. For planning, In terms of knowledge, Graham (2006) found that the
the available evidence indicated that it was an important available evidence generally supported all four tenets.
ingredient in writing development, as skilled writers are Skilled writers’ posses more knowledge about writing
more planful than less skilled writers, planning becomes than less skilled ones (based on a small body of research,
increasingly sophisticated with age, individual differences where replication across specific aspects of knowledge has
in planning behavior predict writing performance (although not occurred). Developing writers become increasingly
most of the research does not control for time-on task, knowledgeable with age (much of this research involves
weakening this conclusion), and teaching novice and strug- genre knowledge). Individual differences in knowledge
gling writers how to plan improves how well they write. predict writing performance (especially in terms of topic
The findings were similar for revising, but the weakest knowledge). Procedures designed to enhance writing
link in the chain again involved the predictive validity of knowledge have a positive impact on writing performance
individual differences, as revising behavior was generally (this proposition is based on only a couple of studies).
unrelated to overall writing performance until high school. For motivation, Graham (2006) reported that skilled
This may be because young children do not revise much writers are more motivated than less skilled ones (based
and limit much of their revising efforts to proofreading and on a few studies mostly involving self-efficacy). However,
minor word changes (Fitzgerald, 1987). the tenet that motivation increases with age was not sup-
Using the framework above, Graham (2006) also ex- ported, as some aspects of motivation declined over time
amined the skills of: handwriting/spelling and sentence (i.e., attitude towards writing) and others like self-efficacy
construction. For handwriting/spelling, he proposed a fifth increased or declined depending upon the study. Neverthe-
tenet: elimination of handwriting/spelling via dictation less, individual differences in motivation (i.e., attitudes,
enhances writing performance. The available evidence sup- self-efficacy, interest, and writing apprehension) did predict
ported the importance of handwriting/spelling, as all five writing performance, and there was a small number of
tenets were supported (e.g., individual differences in both studies showing that efforts to enhance self-efficacy boost
handwriting and spelling predict writing performance and writing performance too.
dictation has a positive impact on writing performance). In summary, the available evidence generally supports
The tenet with the thinnest evidence concerned the positive the contention that strategies, skills, knowledge, and motiva-
effect of handwriting/spelling instruction on improving tion are important ingredients in writing development, and
overall writing performance. However, the available studies that each is amenable to instruction. As we shall see later
did show that such instruction enhanced one or more aspects in the chapter, struggling writers often have difficulty with
of students’ writing, including output, quality, or sentence one or more aspects of these factors.
constructions skills (e.g., Jones & Christensen, 1999).
For the skill of sentence construction, Graham (2006) in- Development from the Perspective of a Social Contextual
dicated that the analysis of available data provided guarded Model In Alexander’s (1997) Model of Domain Learning,
support for its importance as a catalyst in writing develop- little attention was devoted to the influence of social and
ment. There were caveats for all but one of the four tenets contextual factors on development. The influence of com-
described above. First, there was some evidence that the munity, culture, society, institution, politics, and history
sentences of better writers are more complex than those of are pretty much ignored (this does not mean that Alexander
less skilled writers (Hunt, 1965), but these findings do not is unaware of these factors, as her goal was to develop a
appear to hold for poor readers (e.g., Houck & Billingsley, mid-level model focusing on cognitive and motivational
1989). Second, the sentences that students craft become aspects of development).
increasingly complex with age, although this varies by task A theoretical model developed by Russell (1997) pro-
and genre (e.g., Hunt, 1965). Third, individual differences vides a useful lens for considering the role of social and
in sentence skills are associated with writing performance contextual factors in writing development. This model
in some studies, but this is not always the case and it may examines how macro-level social and political factors
vary by genre (e.g., Crowhurst, 1980). Fourth, sentence influence micro-level writing actions and vice versa, influ-
skills can be improved and such instruction has a positive encing writing development over time (see also Johnston,
impact on overall writing quality (Graham & Perin, 2007a, Woodside-Jiron, & Day, 2001). The primary units in this
2007b). model are activity systems, which examine how actors (an
For the factors of knowledge and motivation, Graham individual, dyad, or collective—perceived in social terms
(2006) was unable to specifically analyze separate aspects and taking into account the history of their involvement
of each (e.g., knowledge of writing genre versus knowledge in the activity system) use concrete tools (e.g., writing) to
of writing topics), as the data base was just too thin. As a accomplish some action with some outcome (this is ac-
result for each factor (i.e., knowledge), he aggregated all complished in a problem space where students use tools in
available data (regardless of aspect) to examine the four an ongoing interaction with others to shape an object over
tenets. Thus, his conclusions about knowledge and motiva- time in a shared direction).
 Writing Difficulties 235

Another key feature of Russell’s (1997) theory is the behaviors, mastery of basic writing skills, knowledge of
concept of genre, which are “typified ways of purposefully writing, and motivation to write. As a group, struggling
interacting in and among some activity system(s)” (p. 513). writers experience difficulties in each area. Drawing on a
Genres are stabilized through regularized use of tools (e.g., review by Graham and Harris (2002), we consider each of
writing) within and among students, creating a relatively these areas in turn, and provide examples of these difficul-
predictable way of interacting with others, but they are only ties from our own research.
stabilized-for-now structures, as they are subject to change
depending upon the context. Newcomers to an established Strategic Behavior Many struggling writers use an ap-
activity system appropriate some of the tools routinely proach to writing that functions much like an automated
used by others (e.g., a particular structure for writing), but and forward moving content generation program. They
interactions between and among individuals and activity compose by creating or drawing from memory a relevant
systems can change typical ways of acting (i.e., genres), as idea, writing it down, and using each preceding phrase or
they may be modified or abandoned in response to shifting sentence to stimulate the next idea (see Graham & Harris,
conditions. Russell’s (1997) theory emphasizes that writing 1997). This retrieve-and-write process simplifies the task
development is shaped not only by the social and contex- of writing by eliminating the development of rhetorical
tual interactions that occur within the classroom, between goals and minimizing the use of planning, monitoring,
students and with the teacher, but that macro-level activity evaluating, revising, and other strategic behaviors. Little
systems involving culture, institution, society, and so forth attempt is made to evaluate or rework ideas or to consider
also shape students’ development (or lack of progress). the constraints imposed by the topic, the needs of the audi-
This point is illustrated in Schultz and Fecho’s (2000) ence, or the organization of text. Such an approach is not
analysis of the role of social contextual factors in the teach- particularly effective for tasks, such as writing an essay, a
ing of writing. They indicated that writing instruction is report, or even a story. These tasks typically require more
molded by decisions made outside of the classroom. than just generating or retrieving ideas on-the-fly. A good
We illustrate how macro-level factors can influence story, for instance, includes a plot, is organized in a logi-
classroom activities with two examples. Each of these cal manner, and must capture the interest of the intended
examples has the potential to hinder or constrain students’ audience. This requires forethought and planning as well
writing development. First, teachers may devote more or as reflection.
less time to teaching writing, because of state and federal Although content generation typically dominates the
mandates involving high stakes tests (e.g., more attention composing process of struggling writers, it is a relatively
will likely be directed to domains that are tested). For unproductive approach. One of the most striking character-
example, the No Child Left Behind Act of 2001 (NCLB) istics of these students’ writing is that they produce so little
puts emphasis on assessing reading and mathematics, but of it. Their papers are inordinately short, containing little
not writing, and this may send a message to teachers that elaboration or detail, and once an idea is generated, they are
writing is not very important and they should devote little very reluctant to discard it (Graham, Harris, MacArthur, &
or no time to teaching it. In contrast, most state’s high Schwartz, 1991). It is not that these students lack ideas for
stakes testing programs in writing involve relatively low their writing. Instead, they appear to have difficulty gaining
level writing tasks (Hillocks, 2002), and such tests are access to them. When we repeatedly prompted fourth and
likely to drive what is taught during writing time. Second, sixth grade struggling writers to write more once they had
decisions made by schools districts and schools of educa- completed a writing assignment, they doubled and even
tion involving the preparation of teachers may positively tripled their output (Graham, 1990).
or negatively impact what happens in the classroom. For Struggling writers’ typical method of revising is equally
example, Graham and Perin (2007a, 2007b) reported that unproductive. They mainly employ a “thesaurus” approach
students of teachers trained to use the process approach to revision, focusing their efforts on making word substitu-
to writing made greater gains in writing than students of tions, correcting mechanical errors, and producing a neater
teachers who did not receive such training. Unfortunately, product. Less than 20% of their revisions change what was
Kiuhara, Graham, and Hawkins (2009) found that 71% of written, whereas two thirds of their changes have either a
the teachers they surveyed in a national random sample neutral or negative effect on text (Graham, 1997). The only
indicated that they received minimal to no preparation thing that typically improves across drafts is the legibility
to teach writing in their college programs, whereas 44% of their handwriting.
continued to report the same level of preparation when all
other forms of preparation (e.g., inservice and personal) Writing Skills Many struggling writers experience con-
were considered as well. siderable difficulty with the skills involved in transcribing
words into print. They routinely misspell words and ignore
or misplace capitalization and punctuation (Graham et al.,
Characteristics of Struggling Writers
1991). Many produce letters slowly, writing at almost half
In the previous section, we argued that writing develop- the rate of their more fluent peers (Weintraub & Graham,
ment is shaped by changes in students’ strategic writing 1998). These difficulties not only make papers more difficult
236 Steve Graham and Karen Harris

to read, but can undermine the process of composing in at by their difficulty in producing multiple statements about
least three ways (Scardamalia & Bereiter, 1986). One, hav- familiar subjects (Thomas, Englert, Gregg, 1987).
ing to switch attention to a transcription concern, such as Despite their lack of persistence, little is known about
how to spell a word correctly, may cause a struggling writer struggling writers’ attitudes toward writing. Anecdotal and
to forget ideas or plans being held in working memory. clinical reports, however, suggest that these students avoid
Two, possible writing content may be lost because writing writing whenever possible (Berninger et al., 1997). Para-
is not fast enough to keep up with the child’s thoughts. doxically, struggling writers appear to be more confident
Three, struggling writers may have fewer opportunities about their writing capabilities (i.e., self-efficacy) than is
for planning as they write or to make expressions more warranted given their competence with this skill. When we
precisely fit intentions, if their attention is occupied with assessed the self-efficacy of 10- to 14-year-old struggling
transcription concerns. writers, they were just as confident about their writing ca-
Although facility with sentence construction is con- pabilities as their better writing peers (Graham, Schwartz,
sidered an essential element in skilled writing (Hayes & & MacArthur, 1993). Both groups of students were positive
Flower, 1986), there is little information on the sentence about their capabilities to get and organize ideas for writ-
construction skills of struggling writers. Difficulties with ing, transcribe ideas into sentences, sustain their writing
sentence construction skills is probably not a universal at- effort, and correct mistakes in their paper. Each group also
tribute of poor writing, as such difficulties have been evident favorably rated their ability to write reports, stories, and
for some struggling writers (such as low language-ability book reports. Although unrealistically high estimates of
students in Gilliam & Johnson, 1992), but not others (such capabilities may promote persistence in spite of a history
as poor readers in Houck & Billingsley, 1989). of poor performance (Sawyer, Graham, & Harris, 1992),
there is a downside. Struggling writers who overestimate
Knowledge Struggling writers’ knowledge about writing their capabilities may fail to allocate the needed effort when
and its genres, devices, and conventions is often limited writing, believing that this is unnecessary.
(Graham & Harris, 2002). Even with a familiar genre like In summary, struggling writers experience difficulties
stories, struggling writers may be unable to identify basic with the cognitive and motivational factors that shape writ-
attributes. For example, when we asked a struggling writer ing development. This is not to say, however, that all strug-
to tell his friend what kinds of things are included in a story, gling writers offer the same profile, experiencing difficulties
he started off on the right track, indicating, “I would tell with each of the factors reviewed above. A longitudinal
him main character.” He quickly moved into questionable study by Juel (1988) highlights the complexity of this prob-
territory with, “A subject, predicate, and main idea.” Their lem. Concentrating just on strategic processes (i.e., fluency
incomplete knowledge is also noticeable in what they write, of idea generation) and basic writing skills (i.e., spelling),
as their stories often omit basic elements such as location, she found that some children had difficulty in only one of
problem, ending, or moral (Graham & Harris, 1989). these areas, whereas others had difficulty with both.
Struggling writers view of writing also appears to place
too much of an emphasis on form and not enough on sub-
Quality of Writing Instruction for Struggling Writers
stance and process (Graham, Schwartz, & MacArthur, 1993;
Wong, Wong, & Blenkinsop, 1989). When we asked a strug- Earlier we argued that a variety of social and contextual
gling writer to describe good writing, she indicated, “Spell factors shape writing development. It is beyond the scope
every word right.” A second youngster recommended, of this chapter to examine all of these factors, but we do
“Write as neat as you can.” A third student advised, “Put address one contextual factor that we think that is particu-
your date and name on there...be sure to hold your pencil larly important for struggling writers: quality of classroom
right.” This emphasis on form is evident in their revising writing instruction. If consistent quality instruction is not
behavior too, where they concentrate most of their efforts provided, the possibility that students will develop writing
on repairing mechanical miscues and making text neater difficulties increases. Already existing writing problems are
(MacArthur & Graham, 1987). also likely to become worse (Graham & Harris, 2002).
Many teachers have concerns about their preparation
Motivation One gauge of motivation is persistence. Strug- and ability to teach students who experience difficulty with
gling writers often show little persistence when asked to learning (Vaughn, Schumm, Jallad, Slusher, & Samuels,
write. This was illustrated in a study that we conducted with 1996). Moreover, it is especially unlikely that teachers
fourth and sixth grade students experiencing difficulty with will provide high quality writing instruction to struggling
writing (Graham, 1990). When we asked them to write an writers or students in general, if they have had little formal
essay expressing their opinion on a specific topic, they aver- preparation in this subject area. As the National Commis-
aged just 6 minutes of composing time. They only spent 1 sion on Writing (2003) noted “… teachers typically receive
minute when they were asked to dictate such an essay. Other little instruction in how to teach writing… Only a handful
researchers have experienced similar problems when work- of states require courses in writing certification, even for
ing with these students, indicating that these youngsters elementary teachers…No matter how hard they work, these
struggle to sustain their thinking about topics, as evidenced instructors … are often ill equipped to teach it” (p. 23).
 Writing Difficulties 237

The National Commission on Writing’s (2003) concern considerable wisdom about the teaching of writing (and
about teachers’ preparation is well founded. In a series of we will draw on the study of exceptional literacy teachers
national surveys that we have conducted (Cutler & Graham, in forming our recommendations), they possess a number
2008; Graham et al., 2008; Kiuhara et al., 2009), many of weaknesses (Graham, in press). One, it is difficult to
teachers at both the elementary and secondary level told separate the “wheat from the chaff” and determine what
us that their preparation to teach writing was inadequate to is really important. Two, there is often no direct evidence
nonexistent. It is not surprising, therefore, that the secondary that a recommended practice actually produces the desired
teachers surveyed by Kihura et al. (in press) indicated that effects. When evidence is provided, it often takes the form
they infrequently used evidence-based writing practices in of testimonials or the presentation of selected students’
their classroom (these practices were identified in meta- writing. Three, when such recommendations are based on
analyses of experimental, quasi-experimental, and single the experiences of a single teacher or professional writer (or
subject research by Graham & Perin, 2007a, 2007b, 2007c). even a few of each), there is no way to predict if it will be
Moreover, the writing assignments that their students an effective practice for others. Four, such recommendations
were asked to complete rarely involved much in the way rarely address the needs of struggling writers.
of analysis and interpretation (such writing is needed for Another, and more useful, source of information (in
advanced academic success in high school and college; see our opinion) can be obtained from scientific studies exam-
Applebee & Langer, 2006). The four most common writ- ining the effectiveness of specific writing interventions.
ing activities assigned by these teachers were writing short This source provides a more trustworthy mechanism for
answer responses to homework, responding to material read, offering recommendations, as such studies provide direct
completing worksheets, and summarizing material read. evidence on the effectiveness of a practice as well as how
Only responding to material read likely involved much in representative the observed effects are and how much
the way of analysis and interpretation. confidence can be placed in them (Graham, in press). This
An important ingredient in providing effective instruc- is the primary approach that we apply here, drawing on
tion to struggling writers is to deliver instruction that is recent meta-analyses of writing interventions tested with
responsive to their needs (Palinscar, Cutter, & Magnusson, experimental, quasi-experimental, and single-subject de-
2004). While many teachers adjust their writing program sign studies (Graham, in press; Graham & Perin, 2007a,
to meet the needs of struggling writers (e.g., see Kiuhara 2007b, 2007c; Rogers & Graham, 2008). Of course, more
et al., 2009), many do not. For instance, Graham, Harris, confidence can be placed on evidence-based recommenda-
Fink-Chorzempa, and MacArthur (2003) found that 2 out of tions that are tested repeatedly. As a result, we only offer
every 5 primary grade teachers made minimal to no adapta- recommendations for practices that have been tested in 4
tions for the struggling writers in their classes. or more experiments.
Our analysis raises a number of concerns about the Unfortunately, there is still too much that is unknown
quality of writing instruction that many students receive. to devise an instructional program for struggling writers
Too many teachers are (a) not adequately prepared to teach based solely on empirically tested writing practices. Many
writing, (b) provide writing instruction that is not based aspects of writing instruction have not been sufficiently
on evidence-based practices, and (c) fail to make needed tested (e.g., the role of vocabulary instruction in writing)
adjustments for struggling writers. If we are to maximize to develop a complete program. Consequently, we applied
the writing development of struggling writers and students a second method to identify potentially effective writing
in general, it is important that effective writing instruction practices. This involved drawing on a meta-synthesis of
is provided consistently from one year to the next. It cannot qualitative studies that examined the writing practices of
be the providence of a single teacher or several teachers, as teachers and schools that produced exceptional literacy
writing development takes place over a long period of time achievement (Graham & Perin, 2007c). The purpose of
(Graham, 2006). In the next section, we provide evidence- Graham and Perin’s analysis was to identify reoccurring
based recommendations for teaching struggling writers. patterns in the writing practices described in the studies
reviewed. It was assumed that practices that were used in a
majority of the qualitative studies reviewed were potentially
Evidence-Based Writing Instruction
more useful than ones that were idiosyncratic to a specific
There is no paucity of advice on how to best teach writing. teacher or school.
One source of advice comes from professional writers (e.g., We first draw recommendations for teaching writing
King, 2000), who draw on their own experiences and in- in general (#1–4), as struggling writers typically receive
sights to make recommendations. Another source of advice most or all of their writing instruction within the confines
comes from teachers, either directly or indirectly. This can of the regular classroom (Graham, Harris, & MacArthur,
include teachers recommending practices they judge to be 2004). As we noted earlier, it is important that all students
effective in their class (e.g., Atwell, 1987). It can also come consistently receive high quality writing instruction during
from those who observe teachers in action and promote the school years to minimize the number of students who
the use of specific practices they view as worthwhile (e.g., develop writing difficulties and to maximize the develop-
Graves, 1983). While each of these sources surely possesses ment of those who struggle to master this complex skill.
238 Steve Graham and Karen Harris

Next, we consider what else needs to be done to maximize ing, and substantial writing assignments (3 or more pages)
the writing development of struggling writers (recom- are infrequent, even for high school students. This prompted
mendation #5). the commission to recommend that the amount of time
devoted to writing should be doubled.
Recommendation 1: Develop a Supportive Environment Writing was a critical part of the programs of excep-
Where All Writers Can Achieve Social contextual theo- tional literacy teachers in Graham and Perin’s (2007c)
rists contend that context plays a critical role in writing meta-synthesis. They dedicated considerable time to
development (e.g., Shultz & Fecho, 2000). Exceptional writing and writing instruction. Writing occurred across
literacy teachers appear to agree with this contention. Many the curriculum (the empirical evidence also suggests that
of the practices identified by Graham and Perin (2007c) writing can enhance content learning; Bangert-Drowns et
in their meta-synthesis of qualitative studies examining al., 2004; Graham & Perin, 2007a). Finally, exceptional
the practices of such teachers focused on establishing a teachers involved their students in various forms of writ-
supportive writing context. The following practices were ing over time. It is important to caution, however, that just
evident in a majority of the studies reviewed: increasing the amount of time students spend writing is
unlikely to be enough to maximize students’ development
• Exceptional teachers are enthusiastic about writing (see Graham & Perin, 2007b). Without proper motivation
and create a positive environment, where students are (see previous section) and careful instruction (see below),
constantly encouraged to try hard, believe that the skills writing by itself may be of limited value (Braddock also
and strategies they are learning will permit them to write recognized this in his seminal review in 1969).
well, and attribute success to effort and the tactics they
are learning. Recommendation 3: Help All Students Develop Writing
• Exceptional teachers set high expectations for their Strategies, Skills, Knowledge, and Motivation The Model
students, encouraging them to surpass their previous of Domain Learning (Alexander, 1997) examined earlier (as
efforts or accomplishments. well as Graham’s 2006 review of its feasibility for writing
• Exceptional teachers keep students engaged and on- development) suggests that an important goal in writing
task by involving them in thoughtful activities (such as instruction is to help students become more strategic, master
planning their composition) versus activities that do not basic writing skills, increase their knowledgeable about
require thoughtfulness (such as completing a workbook writing, and enhance their motivation. These same goals are
page that can be finished quickly, leaving many students supported by both the study of exceptional literacy teachers
off-task). and schools (Graham & Perin, 2007c) and empirical studies
• Exceptional teachers mix teaching to the whole class that test the effectiveness of specific writing practices.
with teaching to small groups and with one-on-one First, exceptional teachers (Graham & Perin, 2007c) not
interactions with individual students. only encourage their students to treat writing as a process
• Exceptional teachers model, explain, and provide guided (involving planning, drafting, revising, editing, and shar-
assistance when teaching. ing), but they also teach students strategies for planning,
• Exceptional teachers provide just enough support so drafting, and revising. These practices were further sup-
that students can make progress or carry out writing ported in the experimental, quasi-experimental, and single
tasks and processes, but encourage students to act in subject design studies conducted with more typical teachers
a self-regulated fashion, doing as much as they can on and summarized by Graham and colleagues. The practices
their own. below improved the quality of students’ writing.

Basically, exceptional teachers establish a writing con- • The use of a process approach to writing, where students
text which is enjoyable and affirming, where students are are encouraged to plan, translate, review, and share their
expected and encouraged to do their best work. Students work was others (Graham & Perin, 2007a).
in these classrooms are also engaged in meaningful work, • Explicitly teaching students strategies for planning,
and their teachers support them by teaching them how to summarizing, revising, and editing (Graham & Perin,
write, providing individualized instruction as needed, while 2007a; Rogers & Graham, 2008). Teaching such strate-
carefully considering just how much assistance is needed. gies can facilitate writing across genres. For example,
We recommend that teachers apply these same practices we found that teaching a story planning strategy that
when teaching writing to all students. involved generating ideas for the basic parts of a story
(i.e., story grammar) improves not only story writing,
Recommendation 2: Require That All Students Write but writing personal narratives as well (Harris, Graham,
Writing is the foundation of an effective writing program. & Mason, 2006).
While this may seem like an obvious observation, it is im- • The development of arrangements where students co-
portant to reemphasize it here. According to the National operatively work together to plan, draft, revise, and edit
Commission on Writing (2003), students spend a relatively their compositions (Graham & Perin, 2007a).
small percentage of their time during a week actually writ- • Having students engage in pre-writing activities, includ-
 Writing Difficulties 239

ing inquiry and graphic organizers, that help them obtain One adaptation that may be useful with struggling writers
and organize ideas for writing (Graham & Perin, 2007a; is to set clear and specific goals for what they are to accom-
Rogers & Graham, 2008). plish in their writing. This can improve how much they write
(Rogers & Graham, 2008) as well as the quality of their
Second, the exceptional teachers in Graham and Perin’s writing (Graham & Perin, 2007a). Goals can specify how
(2007c) meta-synthesis not only taught their students writ- much students are expected to write (e.g., 3 pages) as well
ing strategies, they taught them basic writing skills, such as as the purpose of the assignment and its characteristics.
spelling and sentence construction. The practice of teach- Another adaptation that can enhance the quality of strug-
ing basic writing skills also found support in Graham and gling writers’ compositions is to provide extra handwriting,
Perin’s (2007a) meta-analyses, as teaching regular students spelling, or typing instruction to students who experience dif-
how to combine simpler sentences into more complex ones ficulty acquiring these skills (Graham, in press). This can be
(i.e., sentence combining) had a positive impact on the effective for both elementary and middle school students.
quality of their writing. Although traditional grammar instruction is not an
Third, some support for the importance of efforts to effective instructional practice for students in general
increase students’ knowledge about writing was obtained (Graham & Perin, 2007a), teaching grammar can have a
in the analysis of experimental and quasi-experimental positive impact on struggling writers under the following
literature conducted by Graham and Perin (2007a). They conditions (Rogers & Graham, 2008). This involves the
found that asking students to analyze and emulate critical teacher modeling how to use the skill correctly, coupled
elements embodied in good models of writing improved with student practice applying it. Taught skills should be
the quality of their writing. reviewed periodically.
As noted earlier, exceptional teachers in the meta-syn- It may also be useful to modify how struggling writers
thesis by Graham and Perin (2007c) enhance motivation by are taught strategies for planning, revising, and editing. The
creating a positive atmosphere, engaging students’ in mean- Self-Regulated Strategy model (Harris & Graham, 1996;
ingful activities, and promoting an “I can do attitude” (e.g., Harris, Graham, Mason, Friedlander, 2008) was especially
fostering the belief that what students are learning as well as powerful in improving the overall quality of struggling writ-
effort permits them to be successful). In a meta-analysis of ers’ compositions (see Graham & Perin, 2007a; Rogers &
single-subject design research, Rogers and Graham (2008) Graham, 2008). This approach to strategy instruction differs
further found that reinforcement can increase students’ from other methods in several important ways. In addition to
writing productivity. directly teaching specific strategies, students are taught the
knowledge needed to use the strategies effectively as well
Recommendation 4: Have All Students Use Word Process- as self-regulation procedures (goal setting, self-assessment,
ing to Write Although word processing and computers do self-instructions, and self-reinforcement) for managing the
not appear to play a major role in regular classroom writing use of the strategies, the writing process, and their writing
instruction (e.g., see Graham et al., 2003), the quality of behaviors. Moreover, instruction is criterion-based and
students’ writing can be boosted when they use this tool as adapted to individual students’ needs.
their primary mode of composing (see the meta-analysis Directly teaching struggling writers frameworks for
by Graham & Perin, 2007a). The effective use of word writing paragraphs can also be beneficial (Rogers & Gra-
processing involves a variety of different arrangements, ham, 2008). An example of such a framework is to show
ranging from students working collaboratively on assign- the type of paragraph in the first sentence; list the type of
ments using personal laptop computers to learning how to details you plan to write about; order the details; write the
use word-process compositions under teacher guidance. details in complete sentences; and cap off the paragraph
It further includes the use of word processing programs with a concluding, passing, or summary sentence (Moran,
that have other programs, such as spell checkers, bundled Schumaker, & Vetter, 1981)
together as part of the software package. Finally, it is especially important to use certain practices
with struggling writers. Word processing, for example,
Recommendation 5: Make Adaptations and Provide Ad- has an even greater effect on the quality of these students’
ditional Instruction for Struggling Writers Exceptional writing than it does for youngsters in general (Graham &
literacy teachers in Graham and Perin’s (2007c) meta- Perin, 2007a). Reinforcement for productivity, graphic
synthesis recognized the importance of attending directly organizers (such as a story web), and sentence instruction
to the varying needs of their students. They adapted both have also had a positive impact with these students (Rogers
writing assignments and instruction to better meet the needs & Graham, 2008).
of individual youngsters. Adaptations can take various
forms with struggling writers, including the use of different
Concluding Comment
procedures for specific students, providing extra instruction
for others, and modifying how something is taught. We Although we emphasize the use of evidence-based practices
identify a variety of evidence-based adaptations for strug- for teaching struggling writers in this chapter, it is important
gling writers below. to emphasize that this is a challenging task. Just because a
240 Steve Graham and Karen Harris

practice was effective in a research study or an exceptional Graham, S., Harris, K. R., Fink-Chorzempa, B., & MacArthur, C. (2003).
teacher used it does not guarantee that it will be effective in Primary grade teachers’ instructional adaptations for weaker writers: A
national survey. Journal of Educational Psychology, 95, 279–293.
all other situations. The safest course of action for a teacher Graham, S., Harris, K. R., & MacArthur, C. (2004). Writing instruction.
using one of the evidence-based practices reported here is In B. Wong (Ed.), Learning about learning disabilities (3rd ed., pp.
to monitor continually its effects to gauge directly whether 281–313). Amsterdam: Elsevier.
it is effective under the new conditions. Graham, S., Harris, K., MacArthur, C., Schwartz, S. (1991). Writing and
writing instruction with students with learning disabilities: A review of
a program of research. Learning Disability Quarterly, 14, 89–114.
References Graham, S., Harris, K. R., Mason, L., Fink-Chorzempa, B., Moran, S., &
Saddler, B. (2008). How do primary grade teachers teach handwriting:
Alexander, P. A. (1997). Mapping the multidimensional nature of domain A national survey. Reading & Writing: An Interdisciplinary Journal,
learning: The interplay of cognitive, motivational, and strategic forces. 21, 49–69.
In M. L. Maehr & P. R. Pintrich (Eds.), Advances in motivation and Graham, S., & Perin, D. (2007a). Writing new: Effective strategies to im-
achievement (Vol. 10, pp. 213–250). Greenwich, CT: JAI Press. prove writing of adolescents in middle and high school. Washington,
Alexander, P., Graham, S., & Harris, K. R. (1998). A perspective on DC: Alliance for Excellence in Education.
strategy research: Progress and prospects. Educational Psychology Graham, S., & Perrin, D. (2007b). A meta-analysis of writing instruc-
Review, 10, 129–154. tion for adolescent students. Journal of Educational Psychology, 99,
Applebee, A., & Langer, J. (2006). The state of writing instruction: What 445–476.
existing data tell us. Albany, NY: Center on English Learning and Graham, S., & Perin, D. (2007c). What we know, what we still need to
Achievement. know: Teaching adolescents to write. Scientific Studies in Reading,
Atwell, N. (1987). In the middle: Reading, writing, and learning from 11, 313–336.
adolescents. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann. Graham, S., Schwartz, S., & MacArthur, C. (1993). Knowledge of writ-
Bangert-Drowns, R., Hurley, M., & Wilkinson, B. (2004). The effects of ing and the composing process, attitude toward writing, and the self-
school-based writing-to-learn interventions on academic achievement: efficacy for students with and without learning disabilities. Journal
A meta-analysis. Review of Educational Research, 74, 29–58. of Learning Disabilities, 26, 237–249.
Berninger, V. W., & Hart, T. (1992). A developmental neuropsychological Graves, D. 1983. Writing: Teachers and children at work. Exeter, NH:
perspective for reading and writing acquisition. Educational Psycholo- Heinemann.
gist, 27, 415–434. Harris, K., & Graham, S. (1996). Making the writing process work:
Berninger, V., Vaughn, K., Abbott, R., Abbott, S., Rogan, L., Brooks, A., Strategies for composition and self-regulation (2nd ed.). Cambridge,
et al. (1997). Treatment of handwriting problems in beginning writers: MA: Brookline Books.
Transfer from handwriting to composition. Journal of Educational Harris, K. R., Graham, S., & Mason, L. (2006). Improving the writing,
Psychology, 89, 652–666. knowledge, and motivation of struggling young writers: Effects of
Bjorklund, D. (Ed.). (1990). Children’s strategies: Contemporary views self-regulated strategy development with and without peer support.
of cognitive development. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Erlbaum. American Educational Research Journal, 43, 295–340.
Braddock, R. (1969). English composition. Encyclopedia of educational Harris, K. R., Graham, S., Mason, L., & Friedlander, B. (2008). Powerful
research. New York: MacMillian. writing strategies for all students. Baltimore, MD: Brookes.
Crowhurst, M.. (1980). Syntactic complexity and teachers’ quality ratings Hayes, J., & Flower, L. (1986). Writing research and the writer. American
of narrations and arguments. Research and the Teaching of English, Psychologist, 41, 1106–1113.
14, 223–231. Hillocks, G. (2002). The testing trap: How state writing assessments
Cutler, L., & Graham, S. (2008). Primary grade writing instruction: A control learning. New York: Teachers College Press.
national survey. Journal of Educational Psychology, 100, 907–919. Hooper, S. R., Swartz, C., Montgomery, J., Reed, M. S., Brown, T.,
Fitzgerald, J. (1987). Research on revision in writing. Review of Educa- Wasileski, T., et al. (1993). Prevalence of writing problems across three
tional Research, 57, 481–506. middle school samples. School Psychology Review, 22, 608–620.
Gilliam, R., & Johnson, J. (1992). Spoken and written language relation- Houck, C., & Billingsley, B. (1989). Written expression of students with
ships in language/learning children. Journal of Speech and Hearing and without learning disabilities: Differences across grades. Journal
Research, 35, 1303–1315. of Learning Disabilities, 22, 561–565.
Graham, S. (1990). The role of production factors in learning disabled Hunt, K. (1965). Grammatical structures written at three grade levels.
students’ compositions. Journal of Educational Psychology, 82, Champaign, IL: National Council of Teachers of English.
781–791. Johnston, P. H., Woodside-Jiron, H., & Day, J. (2001). Teaching and
Graham, S. (1997). Executive control in the revising of students with learning literate epistemologies. Journal of Educational Psychology,
learning and writing difficulties. Journal of Educational Psychology, 93(1), 223–233.
89, 223–234. Jones, D., & Christensen, C. (1999). Relationship between automaticity
Graham, S. (2006). Writing. In P. Alexander & P. Winne (Eds.), Handbook in handwriting and students’ ability to generate written text. Journal
of educational psychology (pp. 457–478). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum. of Educational Psychology, 91, 1–6.
Graham, S. (in press). Teaching writing. In P. Hogan (Ed.), Cambridge Juel, C. (1988). Learning to read and write: A longitudinal study of 54
encyclopedia of language sciences. Cambride, UK: Cambride Uni- children from first through fourth grade. Journal of Educational
versity Press. Psychology, 80, 437–447.
Graham, S., & Harris, K. R. (1989). A components analysis of cognitive Kellogg, R. (1993). The psychology of writing. New York: Oxford Uni-
strategy instruction: Effects on learning disabled students’ compo- versity Press.
sitions and self-efficacy. Journal of Educational Psychology, 81, King, S. (2000). A memoir of the craft: On writing. New York: Pocket.
353–361. Kiuhara, S., Graham, S., & Hawkins, L. (2009). Teaching writing to high
Graham, S., & Harris, K. (1997). Self-regulation and writing: Where do we school students: A national survey. Journal of Educational Psychol-
go from here? Contemporary Educational Psychology, 22, 102–114. ogy, 101, 136–160.
Graham, S., & Harris, K. R. (2002). Prevention and intervention for strug- MacArthur, C., & Graham, S. (1987). Learning disabled students com-
gling writers. In M. Shinn, G. Stoner, & H. Walker. (Eds.), Interven- posing under three methods of text production: Handwriting, word
tions for academic and behavior problems II: Preventive and remedial processing, and dictation. Journal of Special Education, 21, 22–42.
approaches (pp. 589–610). Bethesda, MD: National Association of Moran, M. R., Schumaker, J. B., & Vetter, A. F. (1981). Teaching a
School Psychologists. paragraph organization strategy to learning disabled adolescents
 Writing Difficulties 241

(Research Rep. No. 54). Lawrence, KS: Institute for Research in fects on learning disabled students composition skills and self-efficacy.
Learning Disabilities. Journal of Educational Psychology, 84, 340–352.
National Commission on Writing. (2003). The neglected “R.” New York: Scardamalia, M., & Bereiter, C. (1986). Written composition. In M.
College Entrance Examination Board. Wittrock (Ed.), Handbook of research on teaching (3rd ed., pp.
National Commission on Writing. (2004, September). Writing: A ticket to 778–803). New York: MacMillan.
work … or a ticket out: A survey of business leaders. Retrieved from Schultz, K., & Fecho, B. (2000). Society’s child: Social context and writing
http://collegeboard.com development. Educational Psychologist, 35, 51–62.
National Commission on Writing. (2005, July). Writing: A powerful Swedlow, J. (1999). The power of writing. National Geographic, 196,
message from State government. Retrieved from http://www.college 110–132.
board.com Thomas, C., Englert, C., & Gregg, S. (1987). An analysis of errors and
Palinscar, A., Cutter, J., & Magnusson, S. (2004). A community of practice: strategies in the expository writing of learning disabled students.
Implications for learning disabilities. In B. Wong (Ed.), Learning about Rememdial & Special Education, 8, 21–30.
learning disabilities (3rd ed., pp. 485–510). Amsterdam: Elvesier. Vaughn, S., Schumm, J., Jallad, B., Slusher, J., & Samuels, L. (1996).
Persky, H. R., Daane, M. C., & Jin, Y. (2003). The nation’s report card: Teachers’ views of inclusion. Learning Disabilities Research and
Writing 2002. (NCES 2003–529). U.S. Department of Education. In- Practice, 11, 96–106.
stitute of Education Sciences. National Center for Education Statistics. Weintraub, N., & Graham, S. (1998). Writing legibly and quickly: A
Washington, DC: Government Printing Office. study of children’s ability to adjust their handwriting to meet common
Pintrich, P., & Schunk, D. (1996). Motivation in education. Englewood classroom demands. Learning Disabilities Research and Practice,
Cliffs, NJ: Erlbaum. l3, 146–152.
Rogers, L., & Graham, S. (2008). A meta-analysis of single subject design Wong, B., Wong, R., & Blenkinsop, J. (1989). Cognitive and metacogni-
writing intervention research. Journal of Educational Psychology, tive aspects of learning disabled adolescents’ composing problems.
100, 879–906. Learning Disability Quarterly, 12, 300–322.
Russell, D. (1997). Rethinking genre in school and society: An activity Zimmerman, B., & Reisemberg, R. (1997). Becoming a self-regulated
theory analysis. Written Communication, 14, 504–554. writer: A social cognitive perspective. Contemporary Educational
Sawyer, R., Graham, S., & Harris, K. (1992). Direct teaching, strategy Psychology, 22, 73–101.
instruction, and strategy instruction with explicit self-regulation: Ef-
 22
Motivation and Reading Disabilities
MARK J. VAN RYZIN
Oregon Social Learning Center

Introduction goals can impact motivation. In each case, space limitations

permit only a high-level overview of key motivational theo-
Issues related to motivation have become more prominent
ry and a brief discussion of the implications for instruction.
in the field of reading research, especially with regards to
In addition, space limitations do not permit the inclusion
students experiencing reading difficulties (Bernard, 2006;
of factors outside of the school, such as the relationship
Guthrie & Alao, 1997; Guthrie & Davis, 2003; Thorkildsen,
between literacy motivation and the home environment
2002). Children who are more motivated to read, especially
(e.g., Baker & Scher, 2002). Readers interested in a more
those who are intrinsically motivated (i.e., those who read
in-depth treatment of general motivational research are
for the joy of reading), will read more, and more broadly,
referred to Wigfield and Eccles (2002) and/or Pintrich and
than children possessing lower levels of motivation (Guth-
Schunk (1996); those interested in specific applications of
rie, Wigfield, Metsala, & Cox, 1999; Wigfield & Guthrie,
motivational theory to literacy are referred to Pressley et
1997). In addition, children struggling to learn to read often
al. (2003) and/or Verhoeven and Snow (2001).
possess maladaptive beliefs and goals that can impact their
motivation, and the nature of the classroom and school
environment can exacerbate the situation. Addressing these Individual Beliefs
individual beliefs and goals and altering student perceptions
of the learning environment can play an important role in Individual beliefs can impact motivation in three keys ways:
overcoming reading difficulties. expectancies regarding success on a task (i.e., Expectancy-
Motivation is a particularly salient issue for middle Value Theory), causal attributions for success or failure on a
and high school. Research has found a general decrease task (i.e., Attribution Theory), and cognitions regarding the
in student motivation as students progress through their ability to exert control over success or failure (i.e., Control
secondary school years (Gottfried, Fleming, & Gottfried, Theory). Each of these will be discussed in turn.
2001; Otis, Grouzet, & Pelletier, 2005), with an especially
large drop occurring at the transition between elementary Expectancy-Value Theory Individual motivation on a task
and secondary school (Anderman, Maehr, & Midgley, 1999; can be understood as a function of the individual’s beliefs
Harter, 1981). For as many as half a million adolescents each about how well they will do on the activity (i.e., their ex-
year, this gradual process of disengagement culminates in pectancy of success) and the extent to which they feel that
dropping out of school before graduation (National Center the activity is important or worthwhile (i.e., the value they
for Educational Statistics, 2001). The theories reviewed place on the task). When students consider how well they
in this chapter can provide an explanation for this drop in will do on a task, expectancy-value theorists consider both
motivation and give teachers powerful tools to address the ability beliefs and expectancy beliefs. Ability beliefs refer
motivational challenges they encounter. to beliefs about current levels of competency on a given
The initial focus in this chapter will be on individual task, while expectancy beliefs refer to beliefs regarding
factors that can impact motivation, such as student beliefs future success on similar tasks. Ability beliefs interact with
and values. Following this will be a discussion of the link the perceived difficulty of the task to determine expectancy
between motivation and student perceptions of themselves beliefs regarding success on the task, which in turn impacts
and their learning environment. Finally, this chapter will motivation (Wigfield, 1994; Wigfield & Eccles, 1992). Both
address the ways in which students’ orientation toward their are domain- or task-specific.

242
 Motivation and Reading Disabilities 243

Students’ beliefs about their ability and expectancies for many students become more accurate or realistic in their
success can predict subsequent grades even when previous self-assessments and their beliefs become relatively more
performance is controlled; further, ability and expectancy negative (Stipek & MacIver, 1989). A second explanation
beliefs predict those outcomes more strongly than previ- is that the school environment makes student-vs.-student
ous grades (Meece, Wigfield, & Eccles, 1990). At the comparisons more salient (e.g., more whole-class instruc-
same time, students’ subjective task values can influence tion, more public evaluations, etc.) as children move from
their intentions to continue with a subject as well as their elementary to secondary school and thus lowers the achieve-
actual decisions to do so (Wigfield et al., 1997). There are ment beliefs of some students (Eccles, Midgley, & Adler,
several aspects of task value believed to be important to 1984; Eccles et al., 1993; Feldlaufer, Midgley, & Eccles,
motivation: 1988). In either case, teachers concerned with promoting
increased expectancies of success among students, espe-
• The attainment value of the task: the importance of the cially struggling readers, can reduce ability comparisons
task to the individual; by creating a less competitive, more broadly supportive
• The intrinsic value of the task: the enjoyment obtained learning environment. Less whole-class instruction and
by the individual in executing the task; fewer public evaluations reduce the opportunity for ability
• The utility value of the task: the usefulness of the task comparisons, and the goal structure of the classroom can
in terms of meeting current or future goals. be made more interdependent through techniques such as
cooperative learning (Johnson, Johnson, & Holubec, 1984;
Also considered is the cost of the task, which is the Sharan & Shaulov, 1990; Slavin, 1977) and peer tutoring
amount of resources (time, effort, and concentration or emo- (Maheady, Mallette, & Harper, 2006; McMaster, Fuchs, &
tion) that will be required to complete the task. This is often Fuchs, 2006). For example, literacy instruction that requires
seen in economic terms as an opportunity cost, in which the students to read aloud to the entire class could be seen as
decision to engage in the activity prohibits the expenditure encouraging ability comparisons and competitiveness and
of those personal resources on other activities. thus reducing motivation; in contrast, teams of 2 or 3 stu-
dents reading aloud to one another and actively coaching
Developmental changes. In general, younger children and supporting each another to attain group-based goals
have higher levels of ability-related beliefs, and these beliefs would likely promote greater motivation. In addition, giv-
begin to decline as early as elementary school, particularly ing students the opportunity to choose reading texts based
in domains related to academic achievement (Eccles et al., upon personal interest could increase the perceived value
1993; Wigfield et al., 1997). These declines often continue of reading as an important skill.
throughout secondary school, with the largest changes
occurring immediately after the elementary-to-secondary Attribution Theory Attribution theory points to the im-
school transition (Eccles et al., 1989; Wigfield, Eccles, Mac portance of individual causal ascriptions, or the perceived
Iver, Reuman, & Midgley, 1991). causes of success and failure (Weiner, 1979, 1985). The hu-
Children’s subjective values also decline, although these man instinct to understand and explain creates a desire to as-
declines vary across domain. Eccles et al. (1993) found that sign causality to outcomes, which can aid in understanding
older elementary school-aged children value math, reading, and long-term adaptation. According to Attribution Theory,
and instrumental music less than younger children did. In three causal dimensions are believed to exist: locus (e.g.,
a longitudinal follow-up to these cross-sectional analyses, internal vs. external), stability (e.g., stable vs. unstable),
Wigfield et al. (1997) found that students’ beliefs about the and controllability (e.g., controllable vs. uncontrollable).
usefulness and importance of math, reading, instrumental These dimensions guide future goal expectations as well as
music, and sports activities decreased over the 3 years of the affective reactions to goal attainment (or lack thereof).
study. Later research determined that decreases in compe-
tence beliefs accounts for much of the age-related decline Causal ascriptions. A wide range of causal ascriptions
in task values (Jacobs, Lanza, Osgood, Eccles, & Wigfield, have been documented in the literature (see Weiner, 1985,
2002). However, student interest in reading and instrumen- p. 550). Two of the most important are ability and effort.
tal music also decreased over time, while their interest in Success can be ascribed to high ability and/or hard work,
math and sports did not (Wigfield et al., 1997). This finding while failure can be ascribed to low ability and/or lack of
demonstrates that instruction in reading may imply specific effort. Ability can be seen as internal and stable, while effort
challenges that do not exist in other domains. is internal and unstable.
There are also causal ascriptions that are external to
Implications. There are two different explanations for the individual; two of the most common are task difficulty
the negative changes in students’ beliefs and values over and luck. Task difficulty can be seen as external and stable,
time. One explanation is that as students get older, they while luck can be seen as external and unstable. Thus, the
become much better at understanding and interpreting the two dimensions of locus (e.g., internal vs. external) and
evaluative feedback they receive and engage in more social stability (e.g., stable vs. unstable) can form a 2 × 2 matrix,
comparison with peers. As a result of these comparisons, which includes other common attributions, such as fatigue
244 Mark J. Van Ryzin

Locus lack of ability, he/she can fall victim to learned helplessness

(Abramson, Seligman, & Teasdale, 1978). If suffering from
Stability Internal External
learned helplessness, a student will exhibit negative emo-
tion, strategy deterioration, and disengagement in school
Stable Ability Task Difficulty as negative attributions and self-beliefs and low levels of
performance create a feedback loop, dragging down student
motivation (Fincham & Cain, 1986; Nolen-Hoeksema, Gir-
Unstable Effort Luck
gus, & Seligman, 1986; Peterson & Seligman, 1984).
Teachers faced with helpless students can undertake “at-
Figure 22.1 The 2 × 2 attributional matrix.
tributional retraining,” which has been shown to improve
(unstable and internal) and teacher behavior (stable and both student performance and persistence (Försterling,
external). This matrix is presented in Figure 22.1. 1985). This retraining can be as simple as coaching a
Following the identification of these two dimensions student to ascribe a failure to a lack of effort rather than
of causal attributions, researchers noted that the causal a lack of ability, which can aid even the most “helpless”
ascriptions in each portion of the matrix were not necessar- children (Dweck, 1975). As pointed out by Johnston and
ily equal. For example, effort and fatigue are both internal Winograd (1985), failure attributions of task difficulty and/
and unstable, but are not equally controllable (i.e., effort or inappropriate strategy selection are also constructive in
is controllable while fatigue may not be). Thus the dimen- that each replaces more damaging ability attributions and
sion of controllability was identified and incorporated into provides clues as to the path to success. When combined
attribution theory (Weiner, 1985). with instruction and modeling of specific reading strate-
Attribution theory emphasizes that the individual’s per- gies (e.g., thinking aloud; see Walker, 2005), attributional
ception of the cause of success and failure will determine retraining has proven to be particularly effective with un-
future goal expectancies on similar tasks, which then guide derachieving readers (Borkowski, Weyhing, & Carr, 1988;
on-going motivation (Dweck, 1975; Weiner, 1985). If the Fowler & Peterson, 1981).
cause of success is internal and controllable (e.g., effort), When working with helpless students, Weiner (1980)
then expectations of success are increased, as is motiva- emphasizes the role played by the teacher’s attributions
tion. If the cause of success is external (e.g., luck or task regarding student failure. If a teacher judges that a student
difficulty), then effort is seen as having no impact on future is incapable of succeeding (for reasons of low intelligence,
outcome and motivation is decreased. If stable, internal impoverished background, etc.), then the teacher may
causes are the basis for attributions of success (e.g., ability) express sympathy or pity, reduce expectations for student
or failure (e.g., lack of ability), then future goal expectancies performance, and provide even more help; however, these
and motivation can either rise (in response to a success) or actions can contribute to student ability attributions and
fall (in response to a failure). thus to helplessness and even more failure. In contrast, if a
teacher believes that a student is capable but has not exerted
Affective reactions. All three dimensions of causal the necessary effort, then he/she would express dissatisfac-
attributions play a role in the affective experiences related tion with student performance, continue to emphasize high
to success or failure (Weiner, 1985). In the attributional expectations, and may even reduce the help that is provided,
model, cognitions of increasing complexity will impact all of which communicate that low effort, rather than lack
the emotional experience. Initially, attribution-independent of ability, is the cause of failure. Thus, effectively dealing
emotions will be experienced, with an individual experienc- with helplessness requires teachers to be aware of how
ing happiness after success and sadness or frustration after their behavior contributes to student attributions. Above
failure. Following this, attribution-dependent emotions may all, when dealing with helpless students, Johnston and
come into play. For example, guilt can result from internal Winograd (1985) emphasize that helplessness should be
and controllable attributions of failure (e.g., low effort), viewed by teachers as a temporary learning problem, not
while shame can arise from internal, uncontrollable attribu- a permanent trait.
tions (e.g., lack of ability). Further, the locus of the causal
attribution can influence self-perceptions, with internal attri- Control Theory An early theory of control hypothesized
butions influencing self-esteem and self-worth and external that an individual’s attempts to effectively interact with
attributions having no impact on self-perceptions. the environment were an expression of an intrinsic human
need that was labeled effectance motivation (White, 1959).
Implications. In general, attributing success to hard The importance of successful displays of competence was
work and failure to lack of effort will result in greater levels also emphasized as part of Maslow’s (1954) hierarchy of
of on-going motivation (Dweck, 1975). Attributing success human needs. Maslow believed that a feeling of compe-
to ability can increase self-esteem but also carries some level tence was a fundamental building block in the process of
of risk. Ability attributions can drive increased perceptions self-actualization.
of competence when a student experiences success, but if a A significant advance in control theory was the dif-
student is not successful and believes that failure is due to ferentiation between different loci of control. External
 Motivation and Reading Disabilities 245

events can be seen as under the individual’s control (i.e., and relevant feedback is provided (Skinner, Wellborn, &
an internal locus of control) or, in contrast, controlled by Connell, 1990). Students who perceive themselves as being
luck or chance (i.e., an external locus of control; Rotter, able to operate within this classroom structure to exercise
1966). The focus in control theory at this stage was on the control over the outcomes of their learning experiences
individual’s expectations of how certain actions would (or are more highly motivated (Harter & Connell, 1984) and
would not) lead to various outcomes. more actively engaged in learning (Pintrich & DeGroot,
Connell (1985) extended Rotter’s theory of internal and 1990; Skinner et al., 1990; Skinner et al., 1998). Students
external loci of control to include the notion that the two high on perceived control beliefs seek out challenges and
supposed polar opposites were in fact two separate dimen- actively engage in learning in order to satisfy the need for
sions, with each dimension containing several independent competence and mastery, whereas students with low per-
factors (i.e., internal control beliefs such as ability and ef- ceptions of control avoid challenge and display pessimism
fort, and external control beliefs such as luck, powerful oth- and passivity (Boggiano, Main, & Katz, 1988; Harter &
ers, and unknown sources). This increasing differentiation Connell, 1984).
in the concept of control was considered to be a function of Students with low perceptions of control often suffer
an individual’s age and psychological development, with the from negative evaluations of their own ability (Skinner
ability to perceive subtle variations in control not emerging et al., 1998). Such children often require more dedicated
until middle or late adolescence (Skinner, 1991). support and attention from teachers, which can include
A new conceptualization of control was offered by Skin- detailed step-by-step instructions and modeling in the use
ner, Chapman, and Baltes (1988), who defined perceived of learning strategies, which promotes greater understand-
control as including overall control beliefs (beliefs regarding ing of how to succeed, as well as frequent feedback that
the ability to achieve a given outcome), as well as means- recognizes student effort and progress, which promotes a
end beliefs (beliefs about how certain actions can achieve stronger belief in the ability to take the actions necessary
certain outcomes) and agency beliefs (expectations as to to succeed (see Margolis & McCabe, 2006).
whether the individual is able to take the necessary actions).
Although control beliefs may appear to be a redundant
Perceptions
combination of means-end and agency beliefs, Skinner et
al. (1988) demonstrated that the three categories of beliefs Perceptions play a significant role in motivational theory.
are separate factors that contribute uniquely to the measure- In this chapter, we consider both perceptions of self and
ment of perceived control. perceptions of the learning environment.
Student perceptions of control influence academic
achievement across the entire age spectrum from grade Self-Perceptions Self-perceptions have been studied
school to college, considering both academic and intelli- under a number of guises, including self-worth (Coving-
gence-based outcome measures (Findley & Cooper, 1983; ton, 1992), self-esteem (Harter, 1996), and self-efficacy
Skinner, Zimmer-Gembeck, & Connell, 1998). This finding (Bandura, 1977, 1994). Rather than exploring the differ-
holds even when controlling for various combinations of ences among the theories, the focus in this section is on the
gender, socioeconomic status (SES), and race. similarities and their implications for instruction.
Students who perceive themselves as being academi-
Developmental changes. Longitudinal research dem- cally competent and thus able to manage and cope with
onstrates that, in general, control beliefs decline as students their learning experiences in school are more motivated to
get older (Skinner et al., 1998). In addition, the relationship succeed (Harter & Connell, 1984). This increased motiva-
between control and achievement is stronger for adolescents tion contributes to greater success in school, which leads to
than for children and adults, indicating that perceived con- higher self-evaluations of academic competence, positive
trol plays an especially important role for middle and high affect, and ultimately to higher intrinsic motivation. In
school students (Findley & Cooper, 1983). For example, contrast, students with low perceptions of ability tend to
older students’ beliefs about the role of effort in academic avoid challenging learning activities and do not experience
achievement are more closely linked to experiences with as much success in school; thus, once formed, negative
teachers when compared to younger children, and older self-perceptions can be self-perpetuating and difficult to
children also tend to believe more strongly in the ability overcome.
of “powerful others” (such as teachers) to impact their These self-perceptions begin forming early in life as
academic outcomes (Skinner et al., 1998). infants begin to evaluate their own ability to influence their
immediate environment (Bandura, 1994). These emerging
Implications. The developmental changes in students’ self-perceptions are carried forward to the preschool period,
control beliefs highlight the critical role of teachers in where a child’s own track record of success and failure
encouraging more adaptive student beliefs. Teachers can as well as the tone of parental and teacher feedback (i.e.,
enhance perceived control in the classroom through the pro- positive and encouraging versus negative and discourag-
vision of a consistent structure, or contingency, where clear ing) can have a direct influence on the child’s sense of self
requirements are presented, paths to success are outlined, (Bandura, 1994). As children develop cognitively, they are
246 Mark J. Van Ryzin

able to develop more specific self-perceptions in different choice in the classroom (autonomy); and the feeling of
domains (i.e., academic, social, athletic). warmth and support from teachers and peers (belonging-
After the transition from elementary to secondary school, ness or relatedness).
students perceive an increase in competition and greater
emphasis on grades, which leads many students to re- Autonomy. Erikson (1950) was among the first to argue
evaluate their self-perceptions of academic competence; this that the need for autonomy is innate and that a frustration
re-evaluation puts many students at risk for lowered self- of this need during childhood and adolescence would lead
perceptions of competence (Harter, 1996). To avoid threats to maladaptive behavior and neuroses. Subsequently, deC-
to self-esteem, many students choose instead to procrasti- harms (1968) argued that all humans strive for personal
nate, put forth minimal effort, make excuses, and denigrate causation, or to be the origin of their own behaviors. More
the importance of academics (Covington, 1992). recently, Steinberg (1990) has emphasized adolescence
as a time where the need for autonomy, particularly from
Implications Self-perceptions of ability, worth, and parents and teachers, is particularly strong.
competence can have a direct influence on students’ Teachers are able to support the need for autonomy
performance in school, which in turn can influence self- while maintaining a sense of control in the classroom by
perceptions in a reciprocal fashion (Guay, Marsh, & Boivin, involving students in the creation of rules and boundaries
2003). Students with more positive self-beliefs will exert and in setting the direction for learning (Koestner, Ryan,
more effort and, when encountering failure, will redouble Bernieri, & Holt, 1984). High-autonomy situations such
efforts to succeed (MacIver, Stipek, & Daniels, 1991). as these stimulate student motivation, engagement, and
Learning tasks that are moderately challenging and that persistence, which in turn results in higher levels of achieve-
correspond to proximal rather than distal goals are most ment (Deci, Nezlek, & Sheinman, 1981; Deci, Schwartz,
effective in fostering greater motivation and more positive Sheinman, & Ryan, 1981; Flink, Boggiano, & Barrett,
self-perceptions (Bandura, 1994). 1990; Ryan & Grolnick, 1986; Vansteenkiste, Simons,
As discussed in Pressley et al. (2003), teacher behavior Lens, Sheldon, & Deci, 2004). In contrast, a controlling
can undermine student motivation by unconsciously com- approach in the classroom, in which students have little
municating low expectations for students, which in turn can or no voice, creates a reduced perception of autonomy,
influence students’ self-perceptions. For example, Brophy which can interfere with student learning, especially with
and Good (1970) found that teachers pay less attention to regards to more complex tasks (Grolnick & Ryan, 1987). A
those students whom they consider to be lower in ability, controlling approach could include commanding language
interact with them in a less positive way (i.e., less feed- (i.e., must, have to, etc.), micro-management of student ac-
back and praise, more criticism), and hold them to lower tions, and little opportunity for student choice in meeting
standards (see also Brophy, 1983). As a result, Pressley et class requirements.
al. (2003) emphasize high yet realistic expectations for all An emphasis on autonomy is also seen in research on
students and a conscious effort to avoid ignoring or criticiz- literacy. For example, Guthrie and Alao (1997) present a set
ing even the most difficult student. of design principles that include self-direction, a synonym
For students already suffering from negative self- for autonomy. Guthrie and Davis (2003) also call attention
perceptions, several steps can be taken. First, students to autonomy in school; they suggest that teachers “negotiate
can be encouraged to focus on the learning process itself what seems a fair amount of work on assignments, allow
(such as the use of a particular learning strategy) rather students a bit of choice in the order in which they do their
than the product (the final grade). Second, students can work, and give students some say in how they write up
be encouraged to set specific, proximal, and challenging their work” (pp. 75–76). Turner (1995) also discusses the
yet attainable goals (such as reading and understanding importance of students having some control over the course
an article or chapter), rather than general or global goals of their learning; as a result, students can align learning tasks
(such as learning to read or catching up to grade level). with personal interests, making reading more personally
Third, feedback can be given regularly and constructed in a relevant and increasing motivation.
way that encourages students to link their progress to their
use of specific learning strategies. This approach has been Belongingness. Belongingness (sometimes referred to
shown to create more positive self-perceptions and increase as relatedness) is a measure of the depth and quality of the
motivation and performance in struggling readers (Schunk interpersonal relationships in an individual’s life. The need
& Rice, 1987, 1989, 1991). to belong, or the need to form strong, mutually supportive
relationships and to maintain these relationships through
Perceptions of the Learning Environment Perceptions of regular contact, is a fundamental human motivation that can
the learning environment can exert a powerful influence on affect emotional patterns and cognitive processes (Baumeis-
motivation, especially with regards to literacy (Gambrell, ter & Leary, 1995). Supportive relationships can serve to
1996; Guthrie & Alao, 1997; Guthrie & Davis, 2003; Turner, buffer the impact of stressful life events, leading to superior
1995). In this section, we focus on two environmental adjustment and well-being (Cohen & Wills, 1985).
factors: the opportunity for student self-management and Early models of belongingness emphasized the ability
 Motivation and Reading Disabilities 247

of interpersonal relationships to generate feelings of being tutoring (Maheady et al., 2006; McMaster et al., 2006)
understood, validated, and cared for, which in turn led to could also be used. With these techniques, students are
the development of an individual’s self-esteem and social working more directly with one another in pairs or small
skills (Sullivan, 1953). In his hierarchy of human needs, groups and are striving to achieve group goals as well as
Maslow (1954) believed that the need for belongingness and individual goals.
love had to be at least partially satisfied before the needs for In response to the notion that teacher-student rela-
achievement and self-actualization would emerge. tionships become less positive and supportive after the
The relevance of these models to the adolescent transition to secondary school, some secondary schools
educational environment has been well-documented. have implemented advisory programs, in which a teacher
Evidence exists for the importance of student friendships, meets periodically with a small group of students over an
positive peer relations, and teacher-student relationships extended period (Galassi, Gulledge, & Cox, 1997; Rap-
in supporting high levels of motivation and achievement paport, 2002). In these programs, the advisor becomes a
in school (Berndt & Keefe, 1995; Marks, 2000; Ryan & permanent part of a student’s school experience and the
Grolnick, 1986; Ryan, Stiller, & Lynch, 1994; Wentzel, relationship can last for several years. Advisor and advi-
1994, 1997; 1998; Wentzel, Barry, & Caldwell, 2004; see can meet either one-on-one or in a group setting and
Wentzel & Caldwell, 1997). Further, an emphasis on meetings generally take place at least once a day. Although
relationships and collaboration in school is also found in not extensive, some research exists demonstrating that
research on interventions for struggling readers (Guthrie these programs can promote more positive behavioral,
& Alao, 1997; Guthrie & Davis, 2003; Ostrosky, Gaffney, social, and academic outcomes for students (Galassi et
& Thomas, 2006). al., 1997).

Implications. Research has found that traditional

Goals
secondary school environments often provide very little
autonomy and belongingness, which could help to explain Motivation can be strongly impacted by the nature of a
why student motivation tends to decrease during the tran- student’s goals while in school. Goal theory documents
sition from elementary school. For example, secondary how different goals (e.g., to succeed vs. to avoid failure) can
school environments typically offer fewer opportunities influence student behavior in the classroom. Goal theory is
for students to exercise choice in the classroom (Eccles et also comprehensive in that it involves both individual and
al., 1993; Feldlaufer, Midgley, & Eccles, 1988; Midgley environmental factors.
& Feldlaufer, 1987) and more controlling behavior by
teachers (Midgley, Feldlaufer, & Eccles, 1989; Eccles et Individual Differences Students’ goals in the classroom
al., 1993), which reduce perceptions of autonomy. During arise out of their beliefs regarding the nature of ability and
the transition from elementary school, students also expe- effort. Younger students tend to assume that demonstrated
rience a decrease in perceptions of teacher support, fewer ability in the classroom is a result of the effort put forth;
opportunities for interaction and cooperation with peers, as children get older, however, some experience a shift in
and less positive student/teacher relationships (Feldlaufer which ability and effort are seen to be inversely related,
et al., 1988), which reduce belongingness. with great effort implying a lack of ability (Nichols, 1978).
Thus, teachers working with struggling students, espe- These beliefs influence the goals that are adopted in class-
cially at the secondary-school level, can promote higher room situations.
levels of motivation by finding ways to offer students more In general, goal theory identifies two different types of
choices, which in turn makes learning more relevant and goals: (a) mastery goals, also known as learning or task-
encourages personal responsibility. As discussed by Guthrie oriented goals; and (b) performance goals, also known
and Alao (1997), this implies that “teachers enable students as ego-oriented goals (Ames & Archer, 1988; Dweck &
to assume responsibility for learning by helping them select Leggett, 1988; Nichols, 1984). A mastery goal orientation
… topics, texts, tasks, and media” (p. 99). When combined indicates that a student is engaging in an academic activity
with an emphasis on self-expression in articulating their for the purpose of gaining a skill or understanding a topic,
understanding of texts, students can achieve a level of and such students are more invested in learning, put forth
personal relevance and ownership of the reading experi- more effort, implement more effective learning strategies,
ence that strongly promotes continuing motivation to read process information more deeply, and seek help when
(Guthrie & Alao, 1997). needed (Elliott & Dweck, 1988; Graham & Golan, 1991;
Literacy research also emphasizes collaboration as a Meece, Blumenfeld, & Hoyle, 1988; Midgley, Arunkumar,
technique to promote greater motivation (Guthrie & Alao, & Urdan, 1996; Midgley & Urdan, 2001; Miller, Behrens,
1997; Guthrie & Davis, 2003; Pressley et al., 2003; Turner, Greene & Newman, 1993; Nolen, 1988). In contrast, a per-
1995), which is in line with the research on belongingness. formance goal orientation implies that a student’s purpose
Among the techniques promoted by Guthrie and colleagues is to either demonstrate superiority over peers or to avoid
(1997, 2003) is cooperative learning (e.g., Johnson et al., the appearance of failure. A student with a performance
1984; Sharan & Shaulov, 1990; Slavin, 1977), but peer goal orientation is mainly concerned with appearances and
248 Mark J. Van Ryzin

the opinions of others, and such students tend to endorse Elliott & Dweck, 1988). For students with more negative
the belief that the expenditure of great effort implies a lack self-beliefs, this implies the possibility of a performance-
of ability. As a result, learning under a performance goal avoidance orientation, which has been found to be harmful
orientation tends to be shallower, less effort is exerted, and to motivation and academic performance (Elliot & Church,
less effective learning strategies are used. When failure does 1997). As a result, a mastery orientation at the classroom
occur, performance-oriented students either deny the im- or school level has been linked to higher levels of motiva-
portance of academic achievement or attribute their results tion and academic achievement, as well as greater student
to lack of ability and exhibit negative emotion, strategy well-being among the student body (Anderman et al., 1999;
deterioration and disengagement (i.e., learned helplessness; Roeser, Midgley, & Urdan, 1996).
Abramson et al., 1978).
In later research on goal theory, the performance goal Implications Research has found that elementary schools
orientation was divided into two distinct components based are more likely to be oriented toward mastery goals, while
upon the purposes underlying student behaviors. Students secondary schools are more likely to promote performance
whose purpose was to demonstrate superiority (or at least goals (Anderman et al., 1999; Anderman & Midgley, 1997;
normative competence) were considered to possess a Midgley, Anderman, & Hicks, 1995). For teachers look-
“performance-approach” orientation, and students whose ing to promote a mastery goal orientation and discourage
purpose was to avoid the appearance of failure were consid- a performance orientation, particularly at the secondary
ered to have a “performance-avoidance” orientation (Elliot school level, the research literature provides a wide vari-
& Harackiewicz, 1996, Elliot & Church, 1997). Whereas ety of strategies. For example, more complex, challenging
the mastery goal orientation arises from a need for achieve- tasks and more opportunity for student input into learning
ment and the performance-avoidance orientation arises from activities can promote a mastery goal orientation; in addi-
the fear of failure, the performance-approach orientation is tion, teachers can emphasize mistakes as an acceptable part
influenced by both (Elliot & Church, 1997). Students with of learning, encourage students to take risks academically,
more positive self-beliefs will be more likely to endorse a and express sincere beliefs in the capacity of all students
mastery or performance-approach orientation, while those to learn and succeed (Ames, 1990, 1992).
with more negative self-beliefs (i.e., a high expectancy of Of particular interest in reducing performance goal
failure) will tend to adopt performance-avoidance goals. orientation is any practice that encourages students to com-
Students with a performance-approach orientation tend to pare themselves with others, which can harm self-esteem
demonstrate superior academic performance when com- and dampen motivation. Practices that encourage student-
pared to students with a performance-avoidance orientation, to-student comparisons are often related to reward and
and performance avoidance is associated with lower levels recognition, both in the classroom and at the school level
of motivation and higher levels of learned helplessness. (Ames, 1990). For example, the use of an “Honor Roll”
However, a performance-approach orientation is not always that recognizes student performance without considering
conducive to greater achievement, and in fact may lead effort can be seen as harmful to motivation (Anderman &
to more negative outcomes, such as widespread cheating Maehr, 1994); in its place, schools can develop a mechanism
and a hyper-competitive school climate (Midgley, Kaplan, that rewards the greatest individual progress or the most
& Middleton, 2001). As a result, performance-approach significant personal improvement (e.g., the “On a Roll,”
goals may be most effective when they are accompanied rather than the “Honor Roll”). Whole-class instruction
by mastery goals. and ability grouping can also provide opportunities for
ability comparisons and should be minimized as much as
Environmental Factors Research demonstrates that the realistically possible; more collaborative techniques such
psychological environment of the classroom and the school as cooperative learning (Johnson et al., 1984; Sharan &
as a whole can have an impact on the goals adopted by Shaulov, 1990; Slavin, 1977) and peer tutoring (Maheady
students (Ames & Archer, 1988; Maehr & Midgley, 1991; et al., 2006; McMaster et al., 2006) are preferred. Even if
Meece et al., 1988). A classroom or a school with a mastery whole-class instruction cannot be entirely abandoned, the
goal orientation is perceived by students as valuing deep use of some collaborative techniques can still pay dividends
understanding over rote memorization, recognizing effort in terms of student motivation. Finally, students should
rather than just results, and providing opportunities for be encouraged to focus on their own individual improve-
students to succeed on their own terms instead of in com- ment rather than their standing with regards to their peers,
parison to others. In contrast, a school with a performance implying that some mechanism by which to periodically
goal orientation is perceived as emphasizing outcomes assess and track individual progress is necessary. Johnston
rather than effort, playing favorites among students, and and Winograd (1985) suggest that student self-assessment
giving up on students who struggle the most. can be constructive in that it not only provides a means by
Students who perceive a mastery goal orientation in a which to make students more aware of their own progress
classroom or school will tend to adopt mastery goals, while but also forces attention on the details related to learning
student who perceive a performance orientation will tend outcomes, such as the amount of effort exerted and the
to adopt performance-related goals (Ames & Archer, 1988; strategies used.
 Motivation and Reading Disabilities 249

Conclusion More Positive Relationships. Relationships are of para-

mount importance in learning to read. A sense of sup-
Several consistent themes run through this chapter, and port from peers and teachers encourages students to
these are encountered across many different theories of take risks and strive to achieve without fear of failure
motivation. The findings can be distilled to provide a se- or embarrassment, and trusting relationships make
ries of guideposts that can assist those who seek to inspire students more open to advice, coaching, modeling,
struggling readers. They include: and social influence. Techniques like cooperative
learning, peer tutoring, mentoring, or some type of
Instructional Approaches. The research endorses a vari- advisory system can encourage stronger, more posi-
ety of approaches, including attributional retraining, tive relationships. Beyond this, something as simple
explicit instruction and modeling of reading strate- as a caring, patient, and supportive demeanor in the
gies (e.g., thinking aloud), and consistent, targeted classroom can be a valuable tool for promoting more
feedback. Students should set specific, proximal, and positive relationships.
challenging yet attainable goals, and should focus on
the process (i.e., use of a particular reading strategy) Taken as a whole, the motivational literature can be
rather than the product (i.e., the final grade). Teachers seen as very complex and nuanced. However, the common
should maintain high yet realistic expectations for all themes identified in this chapter provide a comprehensive
students and should make a conscious effort to give approach that teachers and school leaders can use to help
appropriate attention and support to even the most students struggling to learn to read.
difficult student. Students can be taught to self-assess
their own progress, which can help to develop the
metacognitive skills needed for long-term success. References
When working with helpless children, teachers can Abramson, L. Y., Seligman, M. E. P., & Teasdale, J. D. (1978). Learned
encourage students to question their initial maladap- helplessness in humans: Critique and reformulation. Journal of Ab-
normal Psychology, 87, 49–74.
tive explanations for events and to consider more Ames, C. (1990). Motivation: What teachers need to know. Teachers Col-
unstable explanations for failures (e.g., lack of effort, lege Record, 91, 409–421.
task difficulty, poor strategy selection) and more in- Ames, C. (1992). Achievement goals, motivational climate, and moti-
ternal explanations for successes (e.g., effort, ability); vational processes. In G. C. Roberts (Ed.), Motivation in sports and
teachers must also maintain high expectations for exercise (pp.161–176). Champaign, IL: Human Kenetics Books.
Ames, C., & Archer, J. (1988). Achievement goals in the classroom:
student performance and avoid attributing persistent Student learning strategies and motivation processes. Journal of
failure to lack of ability. Educational Psychology, 80, 260–267.
More Choice. Teachers are advised to create more oppor- Anderman, E. M., & Maehr, M. L. (1994). Motivation and schooling in the
tunities for students to exercise some form of control middle grades. Review of Educational Research, 64, 287–309.
Anderman, E. M., Maehr, M. L., & Midgley, C. (1999). Declining
over their reading instruction; for example, this could
motivation after the transition to middle school: Schools can make
include allowing students to choose their own reading a difference. Journal of Research and Development in Education,
materials or topics, the methods of assessment, or the 32, 131–147.
reward structure. Such changes can make reading Anderman, E. M., & Midgley, C. (1997). Changes in achievement goal
more relevant and thus more interesting, and enhance orientations, perceived academic competence, and grades across the
transition to middle-level schools. Contemporary Educational Psy-
the perception of reading as a valuable skill.
chology, 22, 269–298.
Less Competition, More Collaboration. Teachers should Baker, L., & Scher, D. (2002). Beginning readers’ motivation for reading
strive to reduce ability comparisons among students in relation to parental beliefs and home reading experiences. Reading
by creating a less competitive, more broadly support- Psychology, 23, 239–269.
ive learning environment. Less whole-class literacy Bandura, A. (1977). Self-efficacy: Toward a unified theory of behavioral
change. Psychological Review, 84, 191–215.
instruction and fewer public evaluations reduce the
Bandura, A. (1994). Self-efficacy: The exercise of control. New York:
opportunity for ability comparisons. The emphasis Freeman.
in evaluations should be on self-improvement rather Baumeister, R. F., & Leary, M. R. (1995). The need to belong: Desire
than trying to out-shine other readers; implied in this for interpersonal attachments as a fundamental human motivation.
is that individual literacy skills are assessed regularly, Psychological Bulletin, 117, 497–529.
Bernard, M. E. (2006). It’s time we teach social-emotional competence
perhaps by the students themselves, so that students
as well as we teach academic competence. Reading and Writing
see their own progress and learn to link their efforts Quarterly, 22, 103–119.
and strategy selection to their outcomes. More in- Berndt, T. J., & Keefe, K. (1995). Friends’ influence on adolescents’
terdependence among students can be encouraged adjustment to school. Child Development, 66, 1312–1329.
through techniques such as cooperative learning and Boggiano, A. K., Main, D. S., & Katz, P. A. (1988). Children’s preference
for challenge: The role of perceived competence and control. Journal
peer tutoring, which imply more student-to-student
of Personality and Social Psychology, 54, 134–141.
interaction as well as more interdependent goal struc- Borkowski, J. G., Weyhing, R. S., & Carr, M. (1988). Effects of attribu-
tures (i.e., group or classroom goals and rewards in tional retraining on strategy-based reading comprehension in learning-
addition to individual goals/rewards). disabled students. Journal of Educational Psychology, 80, 46–53.
250 Mark J. Van Ryzin

Brophy, J. E. (1983). Research on the self-fulfilling prophesy and teacher Gottfried, A. E., Fleming, J. S., & Gottfried, A. W. (2001). Continuity
expectations. Journal of Educational Psychology, 75, 631–661. of academic intrinsic motivation from childhood through late ado-
Brophy, J., & Good, T. (1970). Teachers’ communication of differential lescence: A longitudinal study. Journal of Educational Psychology,
expectations for children’s classroom performance: Some behavioral 93, 3–13.
data. Journal of Educational Psychology, 61, 365–374. Graham, S., & Golan, S. (1991). Motivational influences on cognition: Task
Cohen, S., & Wills, T. A. (1985). Stress, social support, and the buffering involvement, ego involvement, and depth of information processing.
hypothesis. Psychological Bulletin, 98, 310–357. Journal of Educational Psychology, 83, 187–194.
Connell, J. P. (1985). A new multidimensional measure of children’s Grolnick, W. S. & Ryan, R. M. (1987). Autonomy in children’s learning:
perceptions of control. Child Development, 56, 1018–1041. An experimental and individual difference investigation. Journal of
Covington, M. (1992). Making the grade: A self-worth perspective on mo- Personality and Social Psychology, 52, 890–898.
tivation and school reform. New York: Cambridge University Press. Guay, F., Marsh, H. W., & Boivin, M. (2003). Academic self-concept and
deCharms, R. (1968). Personal causation. New York, NY: Academic academic achievement: Developmental perspectives on their causal
Press. ordering. Journal of Educational Psychology, 95, 124–136.
Deci, E. L., Nezlek, J., & Sheinman, L. (1981). Characteristics of the re- Guthrie, J. T., & Alao, S. (1997). Designing contexts to increase motiva-
warder and intrinsic motivation of the rewardee. Journal of Personality tions for reading. Educational Psychologist, 32, 95–105.
and Social Psychology, 40, 1–10. Guthrie, J. T., & Davis, S. (2003). Motivating struggling readers in middle
Deci, E. L., Schwartz, A. J., Sheinman, L., & Ryan, R. M. (1981). An in- school through an engagement model of classroom practice. Reading
strument to access adults’ orientations toward control versus autonomy and Writing Quarterly, 19, 59–85.
with children. Journal of Educational Psychology, 73, 642–650. Guthrie, J. T., Wigfield, A., Metsala, J. L., & Cox, K. E. (1999). Moti-
Dweck, C. S. (1975). The role of expectations and attributions in the al- vational and cognitive predictors of text comprehension and reading
leviation of learned helplessness. Journal of Personality and Social amount. Scientific Studies of Reading, 3, 231–256.
Psychology, 31, 674–685. Harter, S. (1981). A new self-report scale of intrinsic versus extrinsic ori-
Dweck, C. S., & Leggett, E. L. (1988). A social-cognitive approach to entation in the classroom: Motivational and informational components.
motivation and personality. Psychological Review, 95, 256–273. Developmental Psychology, 17, 300–312.
Eccles, J., Midgley, C., & Adler, T. (1984). Grade-related changes in the Harter, S. (1996). Teacher and classmate influences on scholastic motiva-
school environment: Effects of achievement motivation. In J. G. Nich- tion, self-esteem, and the level of voice in adolescents. In K. Wentzel &
ols (Ed.), The development of achievement motivation (pp. 283–331). J. Juvonen (Eds.), Social motivation: Understanding children’s school
Greenwich, CT: JAI Press. adjustment (pp. 11–42). New York: Cambridge University Press.
Eccles, J. S., Wigfield, A., Flanagan, C., Miller, C., Reuman, D., & Yee, D. Harter, S., & Connell, J. P. (1984). A model of children’s achievement
(1989). Selfconcepts, domain values, and self-esteem: Relations and and related self-perceptions of competence, control, and motivational
changes at early adolescence. Journal of Personality, 57, 283–310. orientation. In J. Nichols (Ed.), The development of achievement-
Eccles, J. S., Wigfield, A., Harold, R., & Blumenfeld, P. B. (1993). Age related cognitions and behaviors (Vol. 3, pp. 219–250). Greenwich,
and gender differences in children’s self- and task perceptions during CT: JAI Press.
elementary school. Child Development, 64, 830–847. Jacobs, J. E., Lanza, S., Osgood, D. W., Eccles, J. S., & Wigfield, A.
Eccles, J. S., Wigfield, A., Midgley, C., Reuman, D., MacIver, D., & (2002). Changes in children’s self-competence and values: Gender
Feldlaufer, H. (1993). Negative effects of traditional middle schools on and domain differences across grades one through twelve. Child
students’ motivation. The Elementary School Journal, 93, 553–574. Development, 73, 509–527.
Elliot, A. J., & Church, M. A. (1997). A hierarchical model of approach Johnson, D. W., Johnson, R. T., & Holubec, E. J. (1984). Cooperation in
and avoidance achievement motivation. Journal of Personality and the classroom. Edina, MN: Interaction Book Company.
Social Psychology, 72, 218–232. Johnston, P. H., & Winograd, P. N. (1985). Passive failure in reading.
Elliot, A. J., & Harackiewicz, J. M. (1996). Approach and avoidance Journal of Reading Behavior, 17, 279–301.
achievement goals and intrinsic motivation: A meditational analysis. Koestner, R., Ryan, R. M., Bernieri, F., & Holt, K. (1984). Setting limits
Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 70, 968–980. on children’s behavior: The differential effects of controlling vs.
Elliott, E. S., & Dweck, C. S. (1988). Goals: An approach to motivation informational styles on intrinsic motivation and creativity. Journal of
and achievement. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 54, Personality, 52, 233–248.
5–12. MacIver, D. J., Stipek, D. J., & Daniels, D. H. (1991). Explaining within-
Erikson, E. (1950). Childhood and society. New York: Norton. semester changes in student effort in junior high school and senior high
Feldlaufer, H., Midgley, C., & Eccles, J. S. (1988). Student, teacher, and school courses. Journal of Educational Psychology, 83, 201–211.
observer perceptions of the classroom environment before and after Maehr, M. L., & Midgley, C. (1991). Enhancing student motivation: A
the transition to junior high school. Journal of Early Adolescence, schoolwide approach. Educational Psychologist, 26, 399–427.
8, 133–156. Maheady, L., Mallette, B., & Harper, G. F. (2006). Four classwide peer
Fincham, F. D., & Cain, K. M. (1986). Learned helplessness in humans: A tutoring models: Similarities, differences, and implications for research
developmental analysis. Developmental Review, 6, 301–333. and practice. Reading & Writing Quarterly, 22, 65–89.
Findley, M. J., & Cooper, H. M. (1983). Locus of control and academic Margolis, H., & McCabe, P. P. (2006). Improving self-efficacy and mo-
achievement: A literature review. Journal of Personality and Social tivation: What to do, what to say. Intervention in School and Clinic,
Psychology, 44, 419–427. 41, 218–227.
Flink, C., Boggiano, A. K., & Barrett, M. (1990). Controlling teaching Marks, H. M. (2000). Student engagement in instructional activity: Patterns
strategies: Undermining children’s self-determination and perfor- in the elementary, middle and high school years. American Educational
mance. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 59, 916–924. Research Journal, 37, 153–184.
Försterling, F. (1985). Attributional retraining: A review. Psychological Maslow, A. H. (1954). Motivation and personality. New York: Harper-
Bulletin, 98, 495–512. Collins.
Fowler, J. W., & Peterson, P. L. (1981). Increasing reading persistence McMaster, K. L., Fuchs, D., & Fuchs, L. S. (2006). Research on peer-as-
and altering attributional style of learned helpless children. Journal sisted learning strategies: The promise and limitations of peer-mediated
of Educational Psychology, 73, 251–260. instruction. Reading & Writing Quarterly, 22, 5–25.
Galassi, J. P., Gulledge, S. A., & Cox, N. D. (1997). Middle school ad- Meece, J. L., Blumenfeld, P. C., & Hoyle, R. H. (1988). Students’ goal
visories: Retrospect and prospect. Review of Educational Research, orientations and cognitive engagement in classroom activities. Journal
67, 301–338. of Educational Psychology, 80, 514–523.
Gambrell, L. B. (1996). Creating classroom cultures that foster reading Meece, J. L., Wigfield, A., & Eccles, J. S. (1990). Predictors of math
motivation. Reading Teacher, 50, 14–25. anxiety and its influence on young adolescents’ course enrollment
 Motivation and Reading Disabilities 251

intentions and performance in mathematics. Journal of Educational control of reinforcement. Psychological Monographs, 80(1, Whole
Psychology, 82, 60–70. No. 609).
Midgley, C., Anderman, E., & Hicks, L. (1995). Differences between Ryan, R. M., & Grolnick, W. S. (1986). Origins and pawns in the class-
elementary and middle school teachers and students: A goal theory room: Self-report and projective assessments of individual differences
approach. Journal of Early Adolescence, 15, 90–113. in children’s perceptions. Journal of Personality and Social Psychol-
Midgley, C. Arunkumar, R., & Urdan, T. (1996). “If I don’t do well to- ogy, 50, 550–558.
morrow, there’s a reason”: Predictors of adolescents’ use of academic Ryan, R. M., Stiller, J. D., & Lynch, J. H. (1994). Representations of
self-handicapping behavior. Journal of Educational Psychology, 88, relationships to teachers, parents, and friends as predictors of aca-
423–434. demic motivation and self-esteem. Journal of Early Adolescence, 14,
Midgley, C., & Feldlaufer, H. (1987). Students’ and teachers’ decision- 226–249.
making fit before and after the transition to junior high school. Journal Schunk, D. H., & Rice, J. M. (1987). Enhancing comprehension skill
of Early Adolescence, 7, 225–241. and self-efficacy with strategy value information. Journal of Reading
Midgley, C., Feldlaufer, H., & Eccles, J. S. (1988). The transition to junior Behavior, 19, 285–302.
high school: Beliefs of pre- and posttransition teachers. Journal of Schunk, D. H., & Rice, J. M. (1989). Learning goals and children’s reading
Youth and Adolescence, 17, 543–562. comprehension. Journal of Reading Behavior, 21, 279–293.
Midgley, C., Feldlaufer, H., & Eccles, J. S. (1989). Student/teacher rela- Schunk, D. H., & Rice, J. M. (1991). Learning goals and progress feed-
tions and attitudes toward mathematics before and after the transition back during reading comprehension instruction. Journal of Reading
to junior high school. Child Development, 60, 981–992. Behavior, 23, 351–364.
Midgley, C., Kaplan, A., & Middleton, M. (2001). Performance-approach Sharan, S., & Shaulov, A. (1990). Cooperative learning, motivation to learn,
goals: Good for what, for whom, under what circumstances, and at and academic achievement. In S. Sharan (Ed.), Cooperative learning:
what cost? Journal of Educational Psychology, 93, 77–86. Theory and research (pp. 173–202). New York: Praeger.
Midgley, C., & Urdan, T. (2001). Academic self-handicapping and Skinner, E. S. (1991). Development and perceived control: A dynamic
achievement goals: A further examination. Contemporary Educational model of action in context. In M. Gunnar & L.A. Sroufe (Eds.),
Psychology, 26, 61–75. Minnesota symposium of child psychology (Vol. 23, pp. 167–216).
Miller, R. B., Behrens, J. T., Greene, B. A., & Newman, D. (1993). Goals Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
and perceived ability: Impact on student valuing, self-regulation, and Skinner, E. A., Chapman, M., & Baltes, P. B. (1988). Control, means-end,
persistence. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 18, 2–14. and agency beliefs: A new conceptualization and its measurement
National Center for Education Statistics. (2001). Dropout rates in the during childhood. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 54,
United States: 2000. (Rep. No. NCES 2002-114). Washington, DC: 117–133.
U.S. Department of Education. Skinner, E. A., Wellborn, J. G., & Connell, J. P. (1990). What it takes to do
Nichols, J. G. (1978). The development of the concepts of effort and ability, well in school and whether I’ve got it: A process model of perceived
perception of academic attainment, and the understanding that difficult control and children’s engagement and achievement in school. Journal
tasks require more ability. Child Development, 49, 800–814. of Educational Psychology, 82, 22–32.
Nichols, J. G. (1984). Achievement motivation: Conceptions of ability, Skinner, E. A., Zimmer-Gembeck, M. J., & Connell, J. P. (1998). Individual
subjective experience, task choice, and performance. Psychological differences and the development of perceived control. Monographs
Review, 91, 328–346. of the Society for Research in Child Development, 63(2–3, Serial
Nolen, S. B. (1988). Reasons for studying: Motivational orientations and No. 254).
study strategies. Cognition and Instruction, 5, 269–287. Slavin, R. E. (1977). Classroom rewards structure: An analytical and practi-
Nolen-Hoeksema, S., Girgus, J. S., & Seligman, M. E. P. (1986). Learned cal review. Review of Educational Research, 47, 633–650.
helplessness in children: A longitudinal study of depression, achieve- Steinberg, L. (1990). Autonomy, conflict, and harmony in the family re-
ment, and explanatory style. Journal of Personality and Social Psy- lationship. In S. S. Feldman & G. R. Elliott (Eds.), At the threshold:
chology, 51, 435–442. The developing adolescent (pp. 255–276). Cambridge, MA: Harvard
Ostrosky, M., Gaffney, J., & Thomas, D. (2006). The interplay between University Press.
literacy and relationships in early childhood settings. Reading and Stipek, D., & MacIver, D. (1989). Developmental change in children’s
Writing Quarterly, 22, 173–191. assessment of intellectual competence. Child Development, 60,
Otis, N., Grouzet, M. E., & Pelletier, L. G. (2005). Latent motivational 521–538.
change in an academic setting: A 3-year longitudinal study. Journal Sullivan, H. S. (1953). The interpersonal theory of psychiatry. New York:
of Educational Psychology, 97, 170–183. Norton.
Peterson, C., & Seligman, M. E. P. (1984). Causal explanations as a risk Thorkildsen, T. A. (2002). Literacy as a lifestyle: Negotiating the cur-
factor for depression: Theory and evidence. Psychological Review, riculum to facilitate motivation. Reading and Writing Quarterly, 18,
91, 347–374. 321–341.
Pintrich, P. R., & DeGroot, E. V. (1990). Motivation and self-regulated Turner, J. C. (1995). The influence of classroom contexts on young
learning components of classroom academic performance. Journal of children’s motivation for literacy. Reading Research Quarterly, 30,
Educational Psychology, 82, 33–40. 410–441.
Pintrich, P. R., & Schunk, D. H. (1996). Motivation in education: Theory, Vansteenkiste, M., Simons, J., Lens, W., Sheldon, K. M., & Deci, E. L.
research, and applications. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall. (2004). Motivating learning, performance and persistence: The syner-
Pressley, M., Dolezal, S. E., Raphael, L. M., Mohan, L., Roehrig, A. gistic effects of intrinsic goal contents and autonomy-supportive con-
D., & Bogner, K. (2003). Motivating primary grade students. New texts. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 87, 246–260.
York: Guilford. Verhoeven, L., & Snow, C. E. (2001). Literacy and motivation: Reading
Rappaport, N. (2002). Can advising lead to meaningful relationships? In engagement in individuals and groups. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
J. E. Rhodes (Ed.), A critical view of youth mentoring. New Direc- Walker, B. J. (2005). Thinking aloud: Struggling readers often require
tions for Youth Development (Vol. 93, pp. 109–125). San Francisco, more than a model. The Reading Teacher, 58, 688–692.
CA: Jossey-Bass. Weiner, B. (1979). A theory of motivation for some classroom experiences.
Roeser, R. W., Midgley, C., & Urdan, T. C. (1996). Perceptions of the Journal of Educational Psychology, 71, 3–25.
school psychological environment and early adolescents’ psycho- Weiner, B. (1980). The role of affect in rational (attributional) approaches
logical and behavioral functioning in school: The mediating role to human motivation. Educational Researcher, 9, 4–11.
of goals and belonging. Journal of Educational Psychology, 88, Weiner, B. (1985). An attributional theory of achievement motivation and
408–422. emotion. Psychological Review, 92, 548–573.
Rotter, J. B. (1966). Generalized expectancies for internal versus external Wentzel, K. R. (1994). Relations of social goal pursuit to social acceptance,
252 Mark J. Van Ryzin

classroom behavior, and perceived social support. Journal of Educa- tion: A developmental perspective. Educational Psychology Review,
tional Psychology, 86, 173–182. 6, 49–78.
Wentzel, K. R. (1997). Student motivation in middle school: The role of Wigfield, A., & Eccles, J. S. (1992). The development of achievement task
perceived pedagogical caring. Journal of Educational Psychology, values: A theoretical analysis. Developmental Review, 12, 265–310.
89(3), 411–419. Wigfield, A., & Eccles, J. S. (Eds.). (2002). Development of achievement
Wentzel, K. R. (1998). Social relationships and motivation in middle motivation. San Diego, CA: Academic Press.
school: The role of parents, teachers, and peers. Journal of Educational Wigfield, A., Eccles, J., Mac Iver, D., Reuman, D., & Midgley, C. (1991).
Psychology, 90, 202–209. Transitions at early adolescence: Changes in children’s domain-specific
Wentzel, K. R., Barry, C. M., & Caldwell, K. A. (2004). Friendships self-perceptions and general self-esteem across the transition to junior
in middle school: Influences on motivation and school adjustment. high school. Developmental Psychology, 27, 552–565.
Journal of Educational Psychology, 96, 195–203. Wigfield, A., Eccles, J. S., Yoon, K. S., Harold, R. D., Arbreton, A.,
Wentzel, K. R., & Caldwell, K. (1997). Friendships, peer acceptance, and Freedman-Doan, K., et al. 1997). Changes in children’s competence
group membership: Relations to academic achievement in middle beliefs and subjective task values across the elementary school years: A
school. Child Development, 68, 1198–1209. three-year study. Journal of Educational Psychology, 89, 451–469.
White, R. W. (1959). Motivation reconsidered: The concept of competence. Wigfield, A., & Guthrie, J. T. (1997). Relations of children’s motivation
Psychological Review, 66, 297–333. for reading to the amount and breadth of their reading. Journal of
Wigfield, A. (1994). Expectancy-value theory of achievement motiva- Educational Psychology, 89, 420–432.
 23
The Contribution of Discussion to Reading
Comprehension and Critical Thinking
JACQUELYNN A. MALLOY
George Mason University

LINDA B. GAMBRELL
Clemson University

Education is the kindling of a flame, not the filling of a and critical thinking skills of students with and without
vessel. identified language and learning disabilities.
— Socrates

This chapter will explore the role of discussion in develop- Relevant Cognitive Theories
ing the reading comprehension and critical thinking skills
of students with reading disabilities, whether used in the How Do We Learn? Learning can be succinctly described
pull-out resource or inclusion classroom. While the initial as the acquisition of information that is stored and can
theoretical discussion is designed to buttress our notion of later be used. If we accept that a basic goal of education
the level of cognitive engagement that classroom discus- is to teach so that students can learn, we would do well to
sions support, the following targeted review of the literature consider the theories that help us to understand how knowl-
highlights the tools that promote effective discussions in a edge is acquired so that we can organize our instruction
variety of classroom settings. In all, we hope to persuade in a reasonably directed manner. Cognitive psychologists
the reader of the power of whole class and small group dating back to the 1950s have been developing and refining
discussions of text to engage and empower readers of all an understanding of how learning occurs, and how it can be
ages and abilities and transform the nature of the classroom enhanced. With the topic of classroom discussion in mind,
learning environment. we present three relevant theories that may serve as bases
Discussion ideally involves a free exchange of ideas for understanding the contribution of discussion to reading
about a topic. Some of these ideas may be generated through proficiency and critical thinking skills. While these theories
interactions with text that occur when an individual’s ex- are distinct, they are not mutually exclusive—rather, they
isting body of knowledge is stimulated by something that seem to focus on different aspects of the thinking and learn-
is read (Rosenblatt, 1978). Just as reading for meaningful ing processes. When considering these theories together, a
comprehension requires an engagement with text that is rough sketch of what occurs when we learn emerges.
internal, discussion offers an opportunity to externalize
thought and to co-construct meanings with others in a man- Component Models As the following discussion on
ner that builds knowledge and enlarges perspectives for all cognitive processing as it relates to learning suggests, de-
who participate (Vygotsky, 1962, 1978). mands are placed on both short- and long-term memory in
In short, this is what discussion offers to a learning event; pursuit of making meaning, whether following the reading
a process that begins with thought and encourages thinking, of a text or the presentation of information through some
therefore enhancing the meaning that can be derived from other medium. In addition, there is support for the notion
text. Instructional methods that include discussion are sup- that having students discuss what they have read promotes
ported by theories of learning and knowledge acquisition, as recall (Sandora, Beck, & McKeown, 1999) and higher or-
well as by current thinking on cognitive architecture. This der thinking (Chinn, Anderson, & Waggoner, 2001). From
chapter will address these theoretical bases first, and then basic research on memory that described a short-term and
proceed to a presentation of recent research that implicates long-term repository for learning (Atkinson & Shiffrin,
the developmental course of discussion skills and delineates 1968), a component model was put forth by Baddeley and
the teacher supports that were found to be successful in Hitch (1974) that comprised three stages: sensory memory,
using discussions of text to improve the comprehension where input from the environment is received; working

253
254 Jacquelynn A. Malloy and Linda B. Gambrell

memory, comprising the only active processor in the model active processor, whether we term it the working memory,
and where conscious learning events occur; and long-term long-term working memory, or episodic buffer, must be
memory, where information is stored until needed. While engaged for thinking to occur and for learning to result. In
it is tempting to view these three registers as separate and a sense, this active processor becomes our personal cogni-
sequential, knowledge acquisition involves quite a bit of tive workspace. This is the active internal space where our
cross-interaction among the three processors. For instance, personal interactions with texts generate interpretations,
stored information from long-term memory, or prior knowl- and where verbal interactions with others can enhance or
edge, directs what we attend to in the sensory register, alter these developing understandings.
and working memory utilizes stored knowledge to make
sense of and organize new knowledge. While attention is Schema Theory Schema theory, as developed by Ander-
required for information to move from the sensory register son, Reynolds, Schallert, and Goetz (1977), offers a means
to working memory, only those bits of information that for understanding how knowledge is organized in long-term
are successfully encoded such that they can be integrated memory. In most models of memory acquisition, long-term
into stored memory will have the potential to be retrieved memory is thought to have an unlimited capacity and du-
and used again. ration, and to be primarily associative in its organization.
Ericsson and Kintsch (1995) assert that information ac- Anderson and his colleagues refer to these organizational
quired in the long-term store is so important to what skilled structures as schemata, or schemas.
learners do when they comprehend text or engage in other Schemas are comprised of associated bits of information
complex cognitive acts that a long-term working memory and can be enlarged, enhanced, or re-organized when new
(LT-WM) must be involved, as distinguished from, and in information is successfully integrated. Their research in
addition to, a short-term working memory (ST-WM). For 1977, where undergraduate physical education and music
example, a running account of characters in a story must be majors were both asked to read the same prose passage that
maintained and remain active in LT-WM for the reader to could have two meanings, indicated that the background
understand the referent of pronouns, or to follow a running knowledge and personal beliefs of readers were highly
dialogue in the text. Their conception of LT-WM is of a influential in their interpretation of the passages. In fact,
highly activated, at-the-ready portion of the long-term store they argue, the schema accessed while reading can be so
that is dynamically involved in working with and structuring primary as to prevent the reader from considering other pos-
the incoming information. Extending the skilled memory sible interpretations of the passage. Therefore, the personal,
theory put forth by Chase and Ericsson (1982), Ericsson internal interaction with text can be limited or enhanced
and Kintsch propose that expert learners have developed by the schemas that have been developed by the individual
particular skills in accessing acquired information to encode reader. It would also follow that in discussions about text
and integrate new information in retrievable ways, and that where several participants present their understanding of
these domain-specific skills can be taught. the material, both congruous and disparate interpretations
Focusing on the sensory connections to the working can be revealed. The interaction of these various view
memory register, Baddeley and Hitch (1974) theorized that points may then provide impetus for new thought, new
two slave systems, an articulatory loop for auditory input ideas, or new questions as interpretations are compared and
and a visuospatial sketchpad for visual input, are coordi- considered, thus perpetuating a cycle of internalizing and
nated by a central executive, where attention to these two externalizing what one is thinking.
types of input are controlled. In 2000, Baddeley updated the The process of thinking, verbalizing, listening and
model by positing the idea of an episodic buffer that serves observing, comparing, and re-thinking constitutes the
to integrate the incoming information from the various type of cognitive engagement can lead to critical thinking
sensory channels with associated traces accessed from the and deeper learning. Through the interactions available
long-term store. Baddeley proposes that this limited capac- in discussions, mental traces are added to the appropriate
ity processor may be the place where new constructions are existing schemas that are rich with the individual’s original
generated and then attached to the existing information, thus interpretations of the text, what others have revealed about
describing an episode of learning. their thinking, and how the consensus or discord in the
The salient feature of the component models is that discussion progressed. All of these are imbued with addi-
comprehension and other cognitive tasks are seen as re- tional contextual traces that refer to the social event (seeing
quiring some means for active processing that makes use the faces and body language of the group members), the
of accessible mental traces from the long-term memory physical context of the discussion (how the classroom looks
store to attend to incoming sensory data, whether auditory and sounds), the smells of cafeteria food wafting through
(speech) or visual (print/pictures), in order to recognize and the corridor, and the social and affective memories of the
make sense of the new information. During this process- discussion, such as feelings of embarrassment or excitement
ing of sensory input, the new information is compared to or the emotional charge of a speaker’s comment.
stored traces, and new thought may be generated as ideas,
inferences, questions, and predictions that arise from the Social Learning Perspectives While the cognitive theo-
juxtaposition of the presented and stored information. This ries just described shed light on processes that may occur
 The Contribution of Discussion to Reading Comprehension and Critical Thinking 255

while reading and discussing text, they also direct us to cultural tool can be used to support further learning. It is
consider the social contexts in which these interactions Vygotsky’s claim that these tools are at work to promote
take place and their direct and indirect influence on reading cognitive growth “… when one is required to explain,
abilities and knowledge acquisition. Of the various perspec- elaborate, or defend one’s position to others, as well as to
tives presenting a common thesis that learning is a socially oneself; striving for an explanation often makes a learner
mediated event, sociolinguistic theory, social constructiv- integrate and elaborate knowledge in new ways” (1978, p.
ism, and social cognitive theory all provide support for the 158). Discussions about a shared text provide just these
contributions of classroom discussions to literacy learning opportunities.
and general knowledge acquisition. Interestingly, they each The manner in which language is modeled and then
serve to shed light on various stages of the development of appropriated for use by others in discussions is essential
learning and may influence the appropriate instructional to Bandura’s (1986) position on social cognitive learn-
environment recommended for various ages and levels of ing. Bandura proposes that much of what we learn occurs
development. through interpreting what we see others do, or hear them
Sociolinguistic theory views literacy as a cultural event say. Especially in the early grades, the linguistic and behav-
(Bloome & Green, 1984) that can be used to form and ioral models provided by teachers and other students can be
maintain relationships between and among people. Literacy highly influential in determining the thinking and actions of
is founded on oral language skills, and success in school the students who are attending to and interpreting these lan-
literacy activities often reflects the nature of the linguistic guage forms and behaviors. Both social constructivists and
development a child encounters outside of school. social cognitive theorists would agree that social environ-
As Heath’s 1982 research on three linguistically diverse ments afford opportunities for students to internalize what
communities reveals, students whose home culture reflects others externalize, whether language forms or behaviors.
that of the school culture tend to access the school literacy Students learn by observing others and by interpreting and
tasks well, whereas children who are not as familiar with the selectively appropriating what they hear, see, and feel as a
literacy practices valued by schools do not experience the result (Rogoff, 1990).
same level of academic success. Corroborating research by
Hart and Risley (2003) suggests that the ties between oral Situating Shared Cognitive Processes in Classroom Envi-
language development and print exposure and experience ronments Using a constructivist stance, Bruning, Schraw,
are powerful factors in vocabulary acquisition and literacy and Royce (1995) describe the importance of social interac-
achievement, leading educators to realize the importance of tions in building knowledge as a dialectical constructivism
recognizing oral language development as a pre-requisite that can lead to the development of a reflective classroom.
to facility in print-based learning. Students whose recep- In the reflective classroom environment, “… well managed
tive and/or expressive language reveals limited lexical and classroom discourse—extended, thematic communication
syntactic knowledge may have greater difficulty when among classroom participants” has the potential to increase
they encounter the increasingly complex vocabulary and domain, general, and metacognitive knowledge (1995,
grammatical structures in the texts they read. Therefore, it pp. 211–215). Citing both Vygotsky’s aforementioned
would seem reasonable that exposure to, and opportunities proposition that internalization of social interactions leads
to engage in, authentically oriented exchanges about texts to cognitive change and Rogoff’s (1990) assertion that
would provide practice in understanding and negotiating students appropriate shared cognitive processes through
the increasingly complex language forms. collaboration with others, Bruning et al. support their con-
In delineating his ideas regarding social constructivism, tention that social interactions are foundational to meaning
Vygotsky (1962, 1978) suggests that cognitive abilities de- construction.
velop as a result of social interactions and the tools provided Nystrand (2006) adds that research on the role of dis-
to learners through their culture to negotiate these interac- cussion and its contribution to reading comprehension
tions. Of these tools, language is seen to be highly influential should focus on discussion as a method of instruction that
in learning, and the essential cultural tool of language is is organic to the environment for learning rather than on the
developed through interactions with others—a point that is specific model being implemented (e.g., literature circle,
in agreement with the sociolinguists. In his discussions re- questioning the author, reciprocal teaching). When effec-
garding the support required for students to move from one tive dialogical discussions occur in classrooms, it speaks
level of understanding to the next, Vygotsky describes the volumes about the pedagogical stance of the teacher and
importance of keeping instruction within a zone of proximal the roles assumed by students.
development, where the student can be expected to progress Educators who feel that their role is to transmit knowl-
with help from a more knowledgeable other. edge to their students and then to assess how well their
According to social constructivist theory, the interactions students received it are likely to be quite content with the
provided in literacy discussions can offer the supportive Initiation-Response-Evaluation, or recitation method of
elements that fill in gaps in understanding and assist in teaching (Mehan, 1979; Wells, 1993). This pedagogical
integrating the mental model being developed. As these stance lends itself to a monologic discourse where there
understandings develop, the mastery of language as a is an assumption of a known answer or a singular correct
256 Jacquelynn A. Malloy and Linda B. Gambrell

viewpoint (Bakhtin, 1984), which may have the effect of through the very social interactions that require them. This
reinforcing the teacher as a representative of the culture of is why the presence of knowledgeable others, who have
power (Delpit, 1988) and silencing therefore any opposing, experience with and can model the use of these tools to
questioning, or marginalized voices. However, when teach- the group, are essential to creating effective climates for
ers view their craft as one of guiding students toward inter- discussion. The use of interpretive tools to understand text
preting and integrating knowledge, they approach classroom can be modeled by teachers and then practiced, and hope-
discourse from a dialogic stance, posing questions that have fully appropriated, by students during discussions about
multifaceted answers and encourage multiple viewpoints, text. These tools are evidence of cognitive engagement in
and the power for distributing knowledge is shared among that personal interpretations become externalized to the
the classroom participants. Further, the dialogic nature of shared workspace for others to acknowledge and manipulate
effective discussions encourages the juxtaposition of these as the group works toward a consensus on an issue or an
various interpretations of text in a manner that creates cogni- understanding of the text. When students refer back to the
tive dissonance and then group resolution (Almasi, 1995). text to substantiate their point or to create a chronology of
This struggle for understanding by incorporating multiple events or list of character traits, valuable opportunities for
perspectives changes the very nature of the classroom en- skimming, searching, and re-reading text occur that can be
vironment by expanding understandings of how knowledge a boon to basic and comprehensive reading skills. What oc-
is constructed and whose knowledge is valued. curs in the shared workspace becomes a model of what can
As a means of tying together the previous discussion of occur internally in the student’s own personal workspace.
individual cognitive processes with the developing under- This cycle of moving internal thought to the shared
standing of situated learning as it occurs in the context of workspace, and then appropriating it for use in the personal
discussions about literature, we cite Almasi, McKeown, and workspace, provides cognitive support for learners of all
Beck’s description of a cognitive worktable (1996, p. 131), levels of ability as they move through the process of gaining
which we shall hereafter refer to as the shared workspace tools for thinking about texts. Two things are of importance
in order to distinguish it from the personal workspace that here: The first is that the participants become familiar with,
is the individual’s active cognitive processing register. In and have practice in using, interpretive tools for understand-
their research on the effects of literature discussions on ing text, and the second is that participants gain skill in the
reading engagement with fourth-grade students, Almasi et use of discussion tools for negotiating the shared workspace
al. offer the following observation: together. Observing how others approach the comprehen-
sion of various elements of a reading increases awareness
Thus, as students each brought information to the discus- of how others cognitively engage with text. Participating in
sion, a “cognitive worktable” emerged in which students the goal of coming to a consensus, or at least a synthesis,
and teachers observed each piece of information and of ideas given various dilemmas and conflicts, provides
attempted to link these “puzzle pieces” together to cre-
practice in using various discussion tools.
ate a coherent meaning. Each piece of information that
was placed on the cognitive worktable almost seemed to
become a manipulative item that could be moved about Discussion and Reading Disabilities As may be a
the worktable to see how it fit into the whole. These ma- consequence of certain language, reading, or learning
nipulations represented students and teachers organizing disabilities, some students may be lacking in the interpre-
the information that they had acquired toward the ultimate tive and discussion skills required for comprehending and
goal of meaning construction. (p. 131) then sharing their understandings with other students. For
example, students with disabilities that affect reading pro-
This observation provides excellent imagery for what can ficiency may be less likely to read strategically (Graham,
ideally occur in discussions about text. Picturing each Harris, MacArthur, & Schwartz, 1991) and may be strug-
individual’s interpretation of a portion of the text as an in- gling with decoding skills, following and connecting story
formational widget that can be offered from their personal lines in narrative text, or information flow in expository
cognitive workspace to the shared cognitive workspace, the texts. As such, they may present more limited and literal
group can then move, group, re-organize, or otherwise alter contributions to the discussions of these texts (McMahon
the widgets until they combine to form a collaboratively & Raphael, 1997).
agreed upon understanding. The co-constructed under- When students are identified with these reading and
standing may then be re-incorporated into the individual’s learning challenges, it is often deemed necessary to fo-
mental model in whole, or at least influence the structure cus on skill development at an isolated level, perhaps in
of the mental model that is being personally constructed brief guided sessions. While specific and individualized
and attached to the long-term store. or small group assistance in accelerating the decoding
and comprehension skills of these struggling readers is
Of Tools and Workspaces essential, it is also important to then situate the emerging
skills in contexts where they can be supported in authentic
The tools for placing and shaping interpretations of text on expressions. With reference to this focus on learning in ap-
the shared cognitive workspace are developed and honed plied settings, Trent, Artiles, and Englert (1998) assert that
 The Contribution of Discussion to Reading Comprehension and Critical Thinking 257

children with disabilities “…acquire complex skills through students to wonder and predict during read-alouds serves as
social interactions in situated contexts, which allows them a model of how we invite others into the shared workspace
to see how the various parts of the process fit together” (p. to consider what the story is about and how it relates to or
285). As reading and interpretive skills are developed, small is different from their lives. In this way, stories are not just
group discussions in the resource and mainstream classroom for entertainment but for thinking about. When reading
provide opportunities for learners to put the pieces to work, from expository texts, teachers can think aloud about the
not just work on the pieces. structure of the book and how it guides our understanding
Using a representative sample of recent research on of the topic. For instance, after looking through the book
literacy discussion across the K–12 continuum, the fol- as a pre-reading activity, she could say, “Let’s remember
lowing section of this chapter will serve to cull forth the these maps showing where they have found meteorites—we
various interpretive and discussion tools that have proved may want to look at that later when we’re reading about
to be successful in supporting thinking and discussion how they come to the earth.” By connecting supporting
skills in classrooms. While this is not intended to be an diagrams, maps, and pictures to the topic during reading,
exhaustive review of the research in the area of classroom students observe the connections between images and text
literacy discussion, as the body of research has become that can improve thinking and comprehension.
quite substantial, the selected research illuminates current
thinking on the use of discussion as a method of instruction Elementary Grades In reviewing the research conducted
that will serve as a basis for implementing particular models in the elementary grades, we begin with the end in mind. We
of providing discussion in classrooms. The interest here is first present work reported from the later elementary years,
in delineating tools and processes for guiding the student hoping to provide a portrait of what discussions can become,
toward actively processing the text using interpretive tools and then trace back through the earlier grades to describe
in the personal workspace and in negotiating the shared the progress that can be made toward developing the skills
workspace through the use of discussion tools. required to achieve skilled discussions. By framing discus-
sion as a method of instruction that could ideally begin in
the early grades and develop into a well-practiced means
Relevant Research on Literacy Discussion
of thinking and sharing knowledge by the later elementary
across the Grades
years, we set the stage for creating classroom environments
Commeyras and DeGroff (1998) conducted a national sur- that encourage the type of interpretive and critical thinking
vey of literacy educators and found that while 95% value required at the secondary and post-secondary levels.
the idea of peer discussions of text, only 33% actually use In an attempt to understand the nature of proficient
discussion as a method for encouraging comprehension of and less proficient literature discussions in fourth-grade
text. For some, the idea of sharing the control of learning classrooms, Almasi, O’Flahavan, and Arya (2001) found
with their students is a difficult leap of faith in a curricu- that at least two elements were distinguishing. In proficient
lar climate that requires so much accountability for class discussions, students demonstrated expertise in sustaining
achievement. An associated aspect of the paucity of peer topics and in revisiting those topics when new information
discussions in our classrooms is the knowledge, effort, and was presented. In order to encourage productive discus-
patience required to create an environment that will nurture sions, teachers became adept at presenting and modeling
the skills required for effective discussions. The following discussion skills, then releasing the responsibility to their
research reveals that the knowledge base is growing to students so that they could practice and hone these skills
support what teachers need to know, and that given suf- on their own.
ficient time to reap the benefits, the quality and quantity of Proficient groups developed an understanding of and
student responses to text increases, often with a satisfying respect for the roles of speaker and listener such that that
enhancement of the classroom environment. they could maintain the course of a discussion on a par-
ticular topic until it developed more fully. These groups
Beginning with Thinking: Engaging the Personal Work- were more likely to return to previous topics and shore up
space What type of instruction would best prepare our the connections in the chain of coherence as they moved
youngest students to participate meaningfully in group through topics. This pattern of topic maintenance and recur-
discussions about text? Certainly, ability to articulate per- sion harkens back to the constructivist notion of filling in the
sonal interpretations of a reading would be important, as gaps in understanding until a mental model is formed.
would skill in building mental models based on developing Initially, younger children and those with language de-
interpretations, or theories, about text and extending or re- lays or disabilities may not have the linguistic skill or the
vising these theories by integrating new knowledge or novel required awareness of conventions regarding collaborative
interpretations. Teachers of very young students, pre-school discussion to integrate their responses into the presented
through first grade, for instance, can do much in terms of topic or to the previous response offered. Citing previous
exposing reading as a cognitively engaged act by making research on the development of topic maintenance skills
predictions through picture walks or wondering aloud about by Sirois and Dorval (1988), Brinton and Fujiki (1984),
the story. The manner that is used by the teacher to invite and Almasi et al. (2001) suggest that children tend to be
258 Jacquelynn A. Malloy and Linda B. Gambrell

more “linear and shallow” in their interactions in the early describes some of the groups in her study as engaging in a
elementary years and do not recognize the import of rel- sort of “round robin share group” instead of a true discus-
evance to the topic until about the fifth grade (Almasi et sion (2002, p. 101). Students were also frequently noted to
al., 2001, p. 100). However, Berry and Englert (2005), as look to the teacher for guidance. In response, the teacher
will be discussed later in this section, demonstrated that encouraged the students to take charge of their groups by
first and second graders in an inclusion classroom could being prepared to discuss the text (using literature response
make progress in this regard over a six month period with logs) and to acknowledge and follow up on one another’s
adequate teacher direction and support. responses. In particular, the teacher successfully adapted
In part, direct modeling of the use of interpretive tools to the role of facilitator rather than leader by noting and
may nurture young learners toward realizing a purpose for exemplifying comments by students that were helpful to
literacy discussions in a manner that would help students to advancing the effectiveness of the discussion. Giving a
see the value in sustaining topics until some progress toward name and purpose to various actions by students, such as
understanding is achieved. When the goal of engaging in following-up or restating a topic to incorporate new knowl-
group discussions about literature in order to create a richer edge, supported her students in learning the conventions
understanding of the text is made explicit, the modeling of of productive discussions.
particular strategies, such as questioning the author, making What is particularly striking about this research is how
predictions, or chronicling a chain of events brings focus to the teacher moved in a reasonable progression through skills
the utility of these tools to the common venture of creating that were in her students’ zone of proximal development.
a richer understanding. For example, recognizing the linear reporting that students
According to Kucan and Beck (1997), these tools can be offered, the teacher encouraged students to share their rea-
introduced through teacher think-alouds, as was described soning (place something on the shared workspace) and then
previously, as a means of externalizing thinking about text to consider ways to draw others into the conversation. Her
during read-alouds. Wondering out loud what a character approach as teacher/facilitator was to cue by facial expres-
might be thinking or feeling, or making pointed reminders sion or brief remark, and if that did not result in a student
to oneself to try to figure out what a character might mean response that fit the discussion strategy she had in mind,
by a certain turn of phrase, exposes the teacher’s own per- she modeled explicitly what she was after. Interestingly,
sonal workspace to students and encourages them to follow students were observed to appropriate almost verbatim the
along, guiding them toward constructing mental models strategy modeled, such as asking “Why” or using linguistic
of the text and the concepts therein. In so doing, learners connectors such as “as Mark said” or “I agree with Shaun”.
observe what must go on in the personal workspace so However, following the teacher’s direct model of the strat-
that they have something to bring to the shared workspace egy, a flurry of similar responses by students were observed
when the opportunity is provided. The value of thinking and eventually enhanced as they continued the strategy but
aloud while reading from text does not diminish in the later incorporated their own wording. This is an example of how
grades; rather, the need to externalize strategies for thinking students, when ready, will recognize, practice, and inter-
about increasingly complex material continues throughout nalize tools for learning the art of discussion. The teacher
all grade levels. then could rely on cues alone to elicit a helpful strategy for
In other work in fourth-grade classrooms, Almasi and reenergizing a stalled discussion.
colleagues describe three areas of this shared work that Another interesting finding in Maloch’s detailed qualita-
emerged from their 1996 research that are specific to literacy tive report was the manner in which the teacher used the
discussions. These include (a) text-to-self and text-to-text end of the discussion to recap the skills that emerged from
connections; (b) referring to portions of text or to text struc- the group. While the strategies were taught through cueing
tures to support or reject predictions or interpretations; and (to determine if a skill already existed), then direct model-
(c) piecing together character traits, plot events, or other or- ing (for those skills that were not in evidence), then cueing
ganizational attempts to clarify understandings. The public again (once skills were practiced), they were not the topic of
use of these interpretive tools, as modeled by teachers and the discussion. With these third-grade students, providing a
then peers, had the concomitant effect of increasing student teacher’s-view recap of the approaches that were new and
engagement and participation in the discussions. As students helpful to the conversation allowed the actual discussion
became accustomed to the free exchange of thought that to center on the text of interest. This is similar in approach
developed, positive changes in the classroom environment to O’Flahavan’s (1989; see also Almasi, 1995) description
were observed by the end of the school year. of conversational discussion groups that follow a 5-20-5
Conducting research in third-grade classrooms, Mal- format. The initial and closing 5 minutes of the group talk is
och (2002) found that students evidenced initial difficulty reserved for the sort of metatalk that permits an examination
in moving away from the teacher-led mode of literacy of and suggestions for improving the quality of the discus-
discussion, noting that students did not often listen to sion and the interpersonal skills required. While the actual
and integrate the responses of others. As evidence of the literacy discussion comprises the middle 20 minutes, the
Almasi et al. (2001) description of younger learners’ dif- teacher guides the students in recapping the course of the
ficulty with topic maintenance and maneuvering, Maloch conversation and collaborating on rules to improve future
 The Contribution of Discussion to Reading Comprehension and Critical Thinking 259

discussions in the final 5 minutes. At the beginning of the intervention when necessary, and a constant nudging toward
next circle meeting, the teacher introduces or re-introduces high-level work” (p. 61).
the topic and reviews the rules or discussion reminders that The findings of a study conducted by Berry and Englert
were previously agreed upon by the group. As was indicated (2005) in a first- and second-grade inclusion classroom rein-
in the research of Almasi et al. (2001) that described the force the proposition that discussion skills can be effectively
behavior of more and less proficient literature discussion taught to students of varied ability levels. Videotaped analy-
groups, proficient groups do not spend a great deal of time ses of a literature discussion group that involved 17 first
on metatalk, or talk that centers on how the discussion is and second graders at the beginning and end of a 6-month
progressing, and less proficient groups become derailed cycle of participation in weekly discussions revealed that
by too much of it. students with and without identified learning and language
Findings from research in a multi-age primary classroom disabilities evidenced growth in thinking about and talk-
with 12 first- and 12 second-grade students, McIntyre, Kyle, ing about texts. In particular, the group improved in topic
and Moore (2006) describe how one classroom teacher coherence and maintenance, use of interpretive strategies,
provided effective scaffolds to her students as they devel- and the sociolinguistic abilities required to move in and
oped interpretive and dialogic skills. As the students ranged out of the conversation effectively. These findings are
widely in ability and were predominantly from poor and especially heartening because students with language and
working-class rural backgrounds, the teacher found ways to learning disabilities are more likely to have difficulty with
be explicitly instructional in teaching discourse conventions the communicative processes required to negotiate mean-
while supporting a democratic venture toward collaborative ing. However, the teacher was adept in nudging even the
meaning making using mysteries. The authors contend that most reticent student to offer an opinion—often by asking
“…teacher-fronted talk and true dialogue are not mutually about personal experiences that related to the story—and
exclusive; the former can be used to achieve the other” assisted the group in protecting the increased response time
(p. 37). Using a four lesson cycle, the teacher continually required by some to formulate their thoughts into words.
stated and restated the goals for each session, whether it This sensitivity to the needs of various students in her class
was selecting books, choosing groups, determining how the created an environment where everyone’s thoughts were
text would be read, discussing the book, or collaborating equally welcomed and interactions were both increased
on a product to demonstrate their consensus. While groups and improved.
met, she moved in and out of groups, providing instruction The resulting advances in cognitive, linguistic, and so-
and support as needed. Occasionally, the teacher wondered cial abilities are attributable to the skills of the classroom
aloud how best to interpret a passage of text or solve a con- and inclusion teachers, who were aware of the specific
flict between the text and the picture, making her internal needs of their students and provided timely and appropri-
dialogue available to students as a model of the interpretive ate models for learners to appropriate. For example, the
strategies she was using. Using the text as the authoritative teacher provided specific models for entering the dialogue
word, this teacher was skilled at moving the discussion back and for requesting elaboration, as some of her language
to the printed word, encouraging re-readings of passages impaired students were not practiced in these skills. Her
until meanings became clearer. direct models were soon adopted by students, who then
Particular actions and mannerisms were instrumental in incorporated the new skills into their discussion repertoire.
creating a transition from monologic to dialogic thinking. Noting that students came to show more recursion in their
For instance, when moving from instructor to facilitator, she text-talk, returning to earlier topics to fill in information
cued students to use the tools she’d previously modeled to and requesting elaboration or further information from the
solve problems in understanding or re-stated their progress text to come to a consensus, is strong evidence of the depth
thus far in order to encourage them to risk the next step. She and persistence of the cognitive engagement that occurred
was a careful listener who allowed plenty of wait time be- as a result of the weekly literature discussion.
fore responding so that students could process the ongoing Berry and Englert (2005) caution teachers to be patient
dialogue. Her focus was continually on guiding students to in implementing discussion-based methods of teaching
come to develop their own conclusions and to offer support in their classrooms. Based on the initial discussion, the
through cues, and then direct guidance, as needed. In addi- method did not look promising at all. It was only by pro-
tion, she did not offer the ubiquitous “well done” or “nice viding consistent support and reinforcement in the early
job,” which would have had the likely effect of remarking cycles that the students were able to accept increasing
on performance rather than self-regulation and process. responsibility for suggesting topics, inviting others into the
These pedagogical nuances were observed to be crucial to discussion, and pursuing and modifying topics. In fact, at
creating a classroom environment that privileged student the very beginning of the treatment period, the teacher used
voices in the pursuit of meaning rather than on achieving a chart to list reminders for how students should behave in
a “correct” interpretation of the text. As the authors state, a discussion and what they should talk about. Making the
“Thus, a democratic classroom culture is not one in which shared workspace visual using chart paper, a white board,
students make all the decisions and choose all their work or a computer and screen, may help students to remember
but, rather, is one that reflects guidance from the teacher, their group goals, and may even be helpful in listing and
260 Jacquelynn A. Malloy and Linda B. Gambrell

following topics. However, the teachers in this particular book discussions indicate that students are quite aware of
classroom soon found that the students did not require the what they need to engage in effective group discussions and
chart to engage in appropriate group behaviors, and it was what they learn from them.
soon discarded as a crutch that was no longer of use. Perhaps not surprisingly, students preferred to talk about
What this research on first- and second-grade classrooms books in smaller groups, citing several socially believable
reveals is that talking about text is a process that can be reasons considering the age group. Students noted that it was
successfully taught and learned in the early elementary easier to enter the conversation and be heard, and that they
classroom. While many first and second graders do not come felt less anxious about speaking out in the smaller group.
to us with the conversational skills required to suggest and Some students noted that they were more able to maintain
move coherently among topics, they can adopt these skills their focus in the smaller setting and that they were more
if the appropriate supports and models are supplied by a willing to take risks, particularly in small groups that were
teacher who is sufficiently patient to allow the process to peer-led. A consideration in forming small groups is at-
develop. Involvement in literature discussion creates habits tention to student composition. For the most part, students
of mind that are a benefit to all students, perhaps more so would prefer to choose their groups, based on friendships
to those who have little experience with or natural ability or on the perceived strengths of the participants relative to
for collaborative or language based activities. Beginning the task presented. While this usually means that students
in these earlier grades, we not only guide learners toward prefer talking with their friends, their reasons are justified.
using language to think, but in taking on responsibility for With friends, there is a preset level of comfort that affords
understanding texts. personal revelation and risk-taking in conversations—a
sense of security despite the nature of your opinion or the
Middle and High School While it would seem that the quality of the offered response. Friends may also share
advancing complexity of middle and high school literature important elements of their background in common, such
and content area texts would merit more time spent in dis- as language or ethnicity. Of course, the homogeneity may
cussion, Nystrand and Gamoran (1991) found that whole also preclude the sharing of disparate viewpoints or the
classroom discussions averaged only 50 seconds per lesson gaining of new perspectives. Fortunately, one student shared
in the eighth grade and an abysmal 15 seconds per lesson that once they have become used to discussing in groups,
in the ninth grade. From data they collected with their col- they tend to become more willing to accept others into their
leagues in 16 midwestern middle schools, they also found conversations or to enter other groups.
that when whole class discussions of shared readings do While students placed high importance on the respon-
occur, they develop differently in lower tracked than in sibility of group members to actively contribute to the
higher tracked classrooms (Nystrand, Wu, Gamoran, Zeiser, discussion and to help in maintaining the topic, the nature
& Long, 2003). of the task presented by the teacher proved to be fairly
Using event-history analysis to examine the nature of influential. For instance, if a study guide or resource sheet
the discourse processes that occurred in English language was provided, students were more likely to divide up the
arts and social studies classrooms, the researchers focused work of finding answers individually and then copying each
on the teacher and student questions that were posed in others answers. As was indicated in other sections of this
whole class discussions, the level of cognitive difficulty the chapter, presenting tasks with known answers is anathema
questions invoked, and the type of evaluation offered by the to encouraging dialogic discussions. If an answer is known,
teacher. The researchers found that discussions were more students will find it, write it down, and turn it in. If, however,
likely to be dialogic, as opposed to monologic, in smaller the task involves a topic that the students find engaging,
classrooms. Important elements in developing dialogic provocative, or relevant to their lives, students observed
spells were the teachers’ use of authentic questions, that is, that they had an easier time entering the conversation and
questions for which there is more than one possible answer, maintaining the topic until their viewpoints were shared and
and occurrences of following-up on a students’ response, or shaped by other perspectives. When discussions involved
uptake, whether by the teacher or another student. In lower authentic tasks and interesting texts, students revealed that
tracked classes, the cycles of authentic questions and uptake the sharing of personal interpretations and opinions often
were more sporadic than in higher tracked classrooms. In led them to an enlarged and enriched understanding of
particular, there are fewer student questions posed in lower the text. Some of the students indicated that their peers’
tracked classrooms, which may be an artifact of concomi- explanations of vocabulary and concepts were more readily
tant difficulties with language expression or difficulty in understood than those of the teacher, perhaps because of
breaking from the monologic mode of recitation between the linguistic similarities and nuances they share or because
students of lower abilities and their teachers. they are more willing to pursue an understanding with a
Research by Alvermann et al. (1996) provides insights peer than with an authority figure.
into the perspectives of middle and high school students Middle and high school students need direction from
from across the country and why they may prefer to conduct teachers in expressing opinions without arguing and in
discussions in smaller groups. In their multicase study, re- developing a culture of acceptance and respect for others
sponses of focal students to their observations of videotaped and their views. Group productivity is enhanced by permit-
 The Contribution of Discussion to Reading Comprehension and Critical Thinking 261

ting some measure of choice in terms of group composition environment. Although whole group discussions appear to
and text selection, as well as latitude in pursuing topics of be more productive in smaller classrooms, and may provide
interest. Secondary students still require support in estab- valuable instructional platforms for thinking aloud and the
lishing topic coherence and returning to topics until they explicit teaching of interpretive and discussion tools in the
are adequately developed, although their abilities to regulate earlier grades, students may develop more opportunities to
these tasks are often better than those of their elementary practice and appropriate these same tools in a smaller group
grade counterparts, at least when the topic and the text are setting, particularly with intermittent guidance and appropri-
sufficiently engaging. ate scaffolds of a well intentioned teacher.
Perhaps the most profound realization that may result
from reading this chapter is that the skills required of a
Conclusions
teacher to facilitate the type of dialogic enterprise described
It is the overarching premise of this chapter that the ex- herein depend upon a pedagogical stance that may require
change and exploration of ideas that occurs in discussions a leap of faith for some, and a willingness to suspend con-
about text involves cognitive engagements that promote a vention for others. While we become educators to promote
deeper comprehension and build background knowledge learning, we are too often caught in accountability traps that
and interpretive skills useful to future interactions with actually discourage thinking, particularly the interpretive,
text. In the discussion of cognitive, social cognitive, and critical thinking that affords deep and textured comprehen-
socio-constructive frameworks for understanding the cog- sion. But as the teachers described in the reviewed research
nitive activity involved in socially situated conversations might attest, moving between instructor and facilitator in a
about text, the dynamic interchange between the personal carefully orchestrated symphony of describing, modeling,
workspace and the shared workspace describes the place guided practice, and gradual release to independence brings
and the means for learning to occur. you as full and alive and in tune with your students as the
As the reviewed representative research serves to illus- discussions that result.
trate, two types of tools are required for developing facility
in the process of moving and shaping information across
Directions for Future Research
the personal and shared workspaces: (a) interpretive tools
for understanding texts, such as accessing background As students with disabilities are increasingly provided ser-
knowledge, making connections to personal experiences vices in an inclusion setting, the time is ripe for researchers
or other texts, or questioning the intent of the author; and to investigate the nature of discourse in these classrooms,
(b) discussion tools for negotiating the shared workspace, especially with regard to discussions that support the
which include topic coherence and recursion, inviting and reading of text. In the English language arts classroom, as
including others, elaborating and following up on responses, well as in the content areas, research should be directed at
and providing evidence by referring to the text. identifying specific tools and techniques for including all
Beyond the recommendations for supporting decoding, voices in connecting to and learning from print and online
fluency, comprehension, and metacognitive awareness for texts through whole class and small group discussions, as
reading as are described in other chapters of this volume, was done in the middle grades study by Morocco, Hinden,
this chapter serves to frame discussion as an instructional Mata-Aguilar, and Clark-Chiarelli (2001) and the Berry and
method for applying these skills in authentic, relevant Englert (2005) study previously reviewed. Using forma-
interchanges. With support from teachers, students can tive and other mixed methods approaches, similar inves-
become privy to the discourse practices required to use, tigations should focus on the teacher supports required to
refine, and collaborate as they share ideas about a topic. accommodate students with varying abilities in thinking
Using cues to direct students toward constructive discussion about and discussing the texts they read. Descriptions of
techniques, allowing additional time to process and respond, the developing contributions of students with learning and
and monitoring the range of topics to promote a coherent reading disabilities would enrich our understanding of how
thread for students to follow are accommodations that are dialogic contexts for learning effect language expression
relevant to all students in learning to engage in literature and pragmatic language use.
discussions, but may specifically support students with
reading disabilities. References
While none of the research studies reviewed claims that
Almasi, J. F. (1995). The nature of fourth graders’ sociocognitive conflicts
the teaching of requisite tools, skills, strategies, and dispo- in peer-led and teacher-led discussions of literature. Reading Research
sitions to encourage the development of dialogic discourse Quarterly, 30(3), 314–351.
is intuitively simple or fast-acting, there is evidence that Almasi, J. F., O’Flahavan, J. F., & Arya, P. (2001). A comparative analysis
explicit teaching and modeling followed by patience and a of student and teacher development in more and less proficient discus-
sions of literature. Reading Research Quarterly, 36(2), 96–120.
willingness to gradually release control to students assists
Almasi, J. F., McKeown, M.G. & Beck, I.L. (1996). The nature of engaged
learners in pursuing the meaning of a text as it relates to their reading in classroom discussions of literature. Journal of Literacy
lives. Often, the rewards include increases in student engage- Research, 28(1), 107–146.
ment and participation and improvements in the classroom Alvermann, D. A., Young, J. P., Weaver, D., Hinchman, K. A., Moore,
262 Jacquelynn A. Malloy and Linda B. Gambrell

D. W., Phelps, S. F., et al. (1996). Middle and high school students’ Kucan, L., & Beck, I. L. (1997). Thinking aloud and reading comprehen-
perceptions of how they experience text-based discussions: A multicase sion research: Inquiry, instruction, and social interaction. Review of
study. Reading Research Quarterly, 31(3), 244–267. Educational Research, 67(3), 271–299.
Anderson, R., Reynolds, R., Schallert, D., & Goetz, E. (1977). Frame- Maloch, B. (2002). Scaffolding student talk: One teacher’s role in literature
works for comprehending discourse. American Educational Research discussion groups. Reading Research Quarterly, 37(1), 94–112.
Journal, 14, 367–381. McIntyre, E., Kyle, D. W., & Moore, G. H. (2006). A primary-grade
Atkinson, R. C., & Shiffrin, R. M. (1968). Human memory: A proposed teacher’s guidance toward small-group dialogue. Reading Research
system and its control processes. In K. Spence & J. Spence (Eds.), Quarterly, 41(1), 36–66.
The psychology of learning and motivation (Vol. 2, pp. 89–195). New McMahon, S. I., & Raphael, T. E. (with Goatley, V. J., & Pardo, L. S.).
York: Academic Press. (1997). The book club connection: Literacy learning and classroom
Bakhtin, M. (1984). Problems of Dostoevsky’s poetics (C. Emerson, talk. New York: Teachers College Press.
Trans.). Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press. Mehan, H. (1979). Learning lessons. Cambridge, MA: Harvard Univer-
Baddeley, A. D. (2000). The episodic buffer: A new component of working sity Press.
memory? Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 4(11), 417–23. Morocco, C.C., Hinden, A., Mata-Aguilar, C., & Clark-Chiarelli, N.
Baddeley, A. D., & Hitch, G. J. (1974). Working memory. In G. A. Bower (2001). Building a deep understanding of literature with middle-grade
(Ed.), The psychology of learning and motivation (pp. 47–89). New students with learning disabilities. Learning Disability Quarterly,
York: Academic Press. 24, 47–58.
Bandura, A. (1986). Social foundations of thought and action: A social Nystrand, M. (2006, May). Research on the role of classroom discourse
cognitive theory. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall. as it affects reading comprehension. Research in the Teaching of
Berry, R. A., & Englert, C. S. (2005). Designing conversation: Book English, 40, 392–412.
discussions in a primary inclusion classroom. Learning Disability Nystrand M., & Gamoran, A. (1991). Instructional discourse, student
Quarterly, 28(1), 35–58. engagement, and literature achievement. Research in the Teaching of
Bloome, D., & Green, J. (1984). Directions in the socio-linguistic theory English, 25, 261–290.
of reading. In P. D. Pearson (Ed.), Handbook of reading research (pp. Nystrand, M., Wu, L. L., Gamoran, A., Zeiser, S., & Long, D. A. (2003).
395–421). White Plains, NY: Longman. Questions in time: Investigating the structure and dynamics of unfold-
Brinton, B., & Fujiki, M. (1984). Development of topic manipulation ing classroom discourse. Discourse Processes, 35(2), 135–198.
skills in discourse. Journal of Speech and Hearing Research, 27, O’Flahavan, J. F. (1989). An exploration of the effects of participant struc-
350–358. ture upon literacy development in reading group discussion. (Unpub-
Bruning, R. H., Schraw, G. J., & Royce, R. R. (1995). Building knowledge lished doctoral dissertation). University of Illinois-Champaign.
and reflective thought. In R. H. Burning, G. J. Schraw, & R. R. Royce Rogoff, B. (1990). Apprenticeship in thinking: Cognitive development in
(Eds.), Cognitive psychology and instruction: 2nd ed. (pp. 211–235). social context. New York: Oxford University Press.
Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall. Rosenblatt, L. M. (1978). The reader, the text, the poem: The transactional
Chase, W. G., & Ericsson, K. A. (1982). Skill and working memory. In theory of literary work. Carbondale: Southern Illinois University
G. H. Bower (Ed.), The psychology of learning and motivation (Vol. Press.
16, pp. 1–58). New York: Academic Press. Sandora, C., Beck, I., & McKeown, M. (1999). A comparison of two
Chinn, C. A., Anderson, R. C., & Waggoner, M. A. (2001). Patterns of discussion strategies on students’ comprehension and interpretation of
discourse in two kinds of literature discussion. Reading Research complex literature. Journal of Reading Psychology, 20, 177–212.
Quarterly, 36(4), 378–411. Sirois, P., & Dorval, B. (1988). The role of returns to a prior topic in the
Commeyras, M., & DeGroff, L. (1998). Literacy professionals’ perspec- negotiation of topic change: A developmental investigation. Journal
tives on professional development and pedagogy: A national survey. of Psycholinguistic Research, 17, 185–210.
Reading Research Quarterly, 33, 434–472. Trent, S. C., Artiles, A. J., & Englert, C. S. (1998). Deficit thinking to social
Delpit, L. (1988). The silenced dialogue: Power and pedagogy in educating constructivism. Review of Research in Education, 23, 277–307.
other people’s children. Harvard Educational Review, 58, 280–298. Vygotsky, L. S. (1962). Thought and language. In E. Hanfmann & G.
Ericsson, K. A., & Kintsch, W. (1995). Long-term working memory. Vakar (Eds. & Trans.). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. (Original work
Psychological Review, 102(2), 211–245. published 1934)
Graham, S., Harris, K. R., MacArthur, C. A., & Schwartz, S. (1991). Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). Mind in society: The development of higher
Writing and writing instruction for students with learning disabili- psychological processes. In M. Cole, V. John-Steiner, S. Scribner, &
ties: Review of a research program. Learning Disability Quarterly, E. Souberman (Eds. & Trans.). Cambridge, MA: Harvard University
14, 89–114. Press.
Hart, B., & Risley, T. R. (2003). The early catastrophe: The 30 million Wells, G. (1993). Reevaluating the IRE sequence: A proposal for the articu-
word gap. American Educator, 27(1), 4–9. lation of theories of activity and discourse for the analysis of teaching
Heath, S. B. (1982). What no bedtime story means: Narrative skills at and learning in the classroom. Linguistics and Education, 5, 1–38.
home and at school. Language and Society, 11, 49–76.
 Part V
Developmental Interventions

EDITORS: VICTORIA RISKO AND PATRICIA ANDERS

 24
Expert Classroom Instruction
for Students with Reading Disabilities
Explicit, Intense, Targeted … and Flexible
RUTH WHARTON-MCDONALD
University of New Hampshire

Children with learning disabilities represent about half numbers of children who experience reading and other
of the students currently identified for special education learning disabilities.
(Denton, Vaughn, & Fletcher, 2003). The Presidents’ Com- In a national study of first-grade classrooms, Pressley
mission on Excellence in Special Education (2002) has and his colleagues (Pressley et al., 2000) reported that the
estimated that two out of five children in special education lowest-achieving students in classrooms with exemplary
are there because of difficulties in reading. Elsewhere in teachers achieved at the same level as the average students in
this volume, authors have described the characteristics classrooms with more typical teachers. Under the guidance
of these students and specialized intervention programs of exemplary teachers, students not only performed better
developed to target their specific needs. In this chapter, I on a standardized test at the end of the year, they spent more
focus on the teaching and the learning environments cre- time engaged in instruction, read a variety of texts at grade
ated within heterogeneous classrooms—by regular educa- level, and wrote more coherently than students in class-
tion teachers—to support the growth and development of rooms with typical teachers. In a longitudinal study, Bembry
students with reading difficulties. et al. (1998) found that after 3 years, students enrolled in
Until recently, it was widely believed that children who classrooms with high-quality instruction achieved standard-
struggled to read in the primary grades were destined to ized reading scores that were approximately 40 percentile
continue their struggle as they progressed—trapped by their ranks higher than students enrolled in classrooms with lower
learning profiles, by the challenges posed by early reading quality instruction. Studies such as these—and the others
development, and by instruction that failed to overcome cited above—emphasize the role of the classroom teacher.
those challenges. Juel’s now classic (1988) study—in which Indeed, Snow and her colleagues at the National Research
the probability that a poor reader in first grade would be a Council have concluded that high-quality classroom instruc-
poor reader in fourth grade was 0.88—was cited in nearly tion in the early grades is “the single best weapon against
every examination of the effects of schooling on reading reading failure” (Snow, Burns & Griffin, 1998, p. 343).
development. The findings from several recent studies, Thus, despite a current emphasis on programs, materials,
however, indicate that when struggling readers are matched and assessment tools, it is the teacher—and the instruction
with highly effective classroom teachers, their developmen- she or he provides in the classroom—that matters most to
tal trajectory can be altered (e.g., Bembry, Jordan, Gomez, the development of successful readers.
Anderson & Mendro, 1998; Ferguson & Ladd, 1996; Foor-
man, Fletcher, Francis, Schatschneider, & Mehta, 1998; Juel
Distinguishing Instructional Needs for Disabled and
& Minden-Cupp, 2000; O‘Connor et al., 2002; Pressley,
Non-Disabled Readers
Allington, Wharton-McDonald, Block, & Morrow, 2001;
Taylor, Pearson, Clark, & Walpole, 2000). Three different Students with reading disabilities are more like their non-
expert panels (the National Commission on Teaching and disabled peers than they are different from them. All learners
America’s Future, 1997; the National Reading Panel, 2000; need high-quality instruction in the components of reading
Snow, Burns, & Griffin, 1998) have concluded that the most (concepts of print, phonological awareness, phonics, flu-
powerful intervention tool that schools have to offer students ency, vocabulary, comprehension, and writing) matched
who struggle to read is the classroom teacher. The expert to their current understandings and abilities; they all need
practice of the teacher can overcome the failing trajectory instruction that motivates them to engage in the learning
of the young struggling reader, substantially reducing the process; they all need access to texts they can—and want

265
266 Ruth Wharton-McDonald

to—read, and adequate time to read them. In Preventing to first and second graders receiving Title I services. Stu-
Reading Disabilities, Snow and her colleagues (Snow, dents in the direct code group received direct instruction in
Burns & Griffin, 1998, p. 159) suggest that “there is little letter-sound correspondences practiced in decodable text.
evidence to support the notion that struggling readers, The lessons introduced the 42 phonic rules using sound-
even those with identified disabilities, need dramatically spelling cards, alliterative stories and text with controlled
different reading instruction from students who learn to vocabulary matched to the most recent instruction. Those in
read more easily.” the embedded code group received less direct instruction in
Students with reading disabilities, of course, are not all systematic sound-spelling patterns embedded in connected
alike; nor do they all benefit from a single type of instruc- text. The emphasis in this group was on phonemic aware-
tion. They do, however, share some learning characteristics. ness and spelling patterns, taught using predictable books.
What students with reading disabilities need is instruction And students in the implicit code group received either the
that is more explicit, more intense, and provides more sup- district standard curriculum, emphasizing the importance
port than instruction suited to their typically developing of a print-rich environment with teacher as facilitator, or a
peers (Foorman & Torgesen, 2001; Jenkins et al., 1994). similar intervention grounded in an established definition of
Thus, despite some common misconceptions about whole language instruction. Students in this group received
best practices, effective classroom teachers do not provide implicit instruction in the alphabetic code while reading
dramatically different instruction for students with dis- connected text. All of the interventions took place in the
abilities. The key to these teachers’ expertise lies in their context of a literature-rich classroom environment. Over the
ability to identify the struggling readers in their classrooms course of the year-long intervention, children in the direct
and to know how to modify the nature and the intensity of code group improved in word reading at a faster rate and
high-quality instruction to meet the needs of those students had higher word recognition skills than those receiving the
(Fuchs, Fuchs, & Hamlett, 1998). implicit code instruction. Moreover, children who began
with low scores in phonological processing showed more
growth in word reading than children with low phonological
What Students with Reading Disabilities Need
processing scores in the other instructional groups. The pos-
Explicitness As they learn to read, students with reading itive effects were limited to growth in decoding and did not
disabilities are less likely than their peers to notice and gen- extend to differences in passage comprehension. However,
eralize patterns in the sounds and spellings of the language this finding is hardly surprising, given that the instruction
on their own (Atkinson, Wilhite, Frey, & Williams, 2002; did not address comprehension; one might hypothesize that
Foorman et al., 1998). They are less likely to infer strategies the same students who benefited from explicit instruction
required for comprehension (Atkinson et al., 2002; Jenkins in word recognition skills would also benefit from explicit
et al., 1994). Students at risk for reading difficulties often instruction in comprehension strategies.
do not discover what teachers leave unsaid about the use Many studies have supported the explicit instruction of
of strategies for reading; therefore effective instruction for comprehension strategies for all children (National Read-
these students includes an explicit sharing of knowledge ing Panel, 2000; Block & Pressley, 2002). A review of the
needed to read—at the word level, for fluency, and for research on the teaching of comprehension strategies to
the use of comprehension strategies and metacognition students with learning disabilities in particular confirms
(Foorman & Torgesen, 2001). Atkinson and her colleagues that this type of instruction may be especially valuable for
propose that “a never assume” approach often works well these students (Gersten, Fuchs, Williams, & Baker, 2001).
for students with learning disabilities (Atkinson et al., Joanna Williams, one of the review’s authors, argues that
2002, p. 160). while a constructivist approach in which students learn to be
Explicit instruction means that teachers teach skills metacognitive, reflecting on their own thinking while they
and strategies clearly and directly. They model their use, read, has been effective at the middle and high school levels
and deliberately guide students’ application of learning in (e.g., Allington, Guice, Michelson, Baker & Li, 1996), it
text. The instruction and scaffolding provided by teachers is not adequate for struggling and at-risk students at the
through explicit instruction reduces students’ reliance on elementary level (Williams, 2005). Williams conducted a
inference to figure out how written language works (Denton series of studies with at-risk second and third graders that
et al., 2003). In describing the explicitness required by these assessed the effectiveness of explicit instruction in narrative
learners, Foorman and Torgesen (2001) suggest that they and expository text structures. Compared with groups of
need two types of scaffolding. The first is a careful sequenc- students who received content instruction but not explicit
ing of skills so that concepts and skills build gradually upon comprehension instruction, the students with explicit in-
a strong, coherent foundation. The second is an on-going struction group demonstrated superior comprehension
teacher-student dialogue that demonstrates directly to the of themes taught—in both instructional materials and on
child the kind of processing or thinking that must be done near-transfer tasks involving the same themes.
in order to accomplish a particular task successfully.
In a study by Foorman and her colleagues (1998), teach- Intensity Students who struggle with reading not only
ers provided one of three types of word level instruction need explicit instruction, they need more of it (Foorman
 Expert Classroom Instruction for Students with Reading Disabilities 267

& Torgesen, 2001; Torgesen, 2000). Kvale has described Dreeben, 1991; Hiebert, 1983; Jenkins et al., 1994). Unfor-
instruction for these learners as necessarily more “intense” tunately, students with reading disabilities are often pulled
and more “relentless” than effective instruction for other out of their classrooms and provided with instruction in
students (1988, p.335). Generally speaking, there are two groups designed to meet the indications of overall reading
related ways to increase instructional intensity: (a) by levels—and scheduling demands. Thus, the groups tend to
increasing the amount of time children spend in instruc- be relatively large (4–7 students) and relatively undiffer-
tion, and/or (b) by reducing the size of the group in which entiated with respect to specific literacy needs (Allington,
students learn. 2002; Elbaum, Vaughn, Hughes & Moody, 2000; Vaughn
et al., 2002). Moreover, such groups have been criticized in
Increasing instructional time. Traditionally, it has been the past for dooming low achieving students to a lifetime in
the case that students placed in groups for struggling read- low groups (Anderson, Hiebert, Scott & Wilkinson, 1985;
ers have spent less time receiving instruction (Hunter, cited Barr & Dreeban, 1991; Gamoran, 1992; Hiebert, 1983;
in Barr & Dreeben, 1991; McDermott, 1976), have spent Oakes, 1985) and for providing consistently lower quality,
less of that instructional time on task (Gambrell, 1984); less engaging instruction (Allington, 1983; Hiebert, 1983).
and read less material (Allington, 1984; Barr & Dreeben, Such grouping practices clearly result in instruction that
1983). This is in direct opposition to their needs, which fails to meet the needs of individual children.
are for more instruction, more time on task, and more op- Despite the evidence against traditional intervention
portunities to read. groups, expert classroom teachers regularly utilize small
Daily lessons and support are more likely to impact groups and one-on-one instruction to meet the needs of
learning than lessons scheduled less frequently (Alling- individual children. The available evidence indicates that
ton, 2006). The strong history of Reading Recovery (Clay, this form of intensive instruction and support is significantly
1993; Forbes & Briggs, 2003 ; Lyons, 2003), in which poor more effective than whole class or large group instruction—
first-grade readers receive 20 (or more) weeks of daily, particularly for students who struggle in reading (Pressley
individual reading instruction is evidence of the effective- et al., 2001; Schumm, Moody & Vaughn, 2000; Taylor,
ness of directed, frequent instruction. In a study of early Pearson, Clark & Walpole, 2000). In a review of 18 studies
intervention based loosely on the Reading Recovery model, of early interventions with struggling readers, Wanzek and
Vellutino and his colleagues (Vellutino & Scanlon, 2002; Vaughn (2007) reported the largest effects for individual
Vellutino et al., 1996) also provided 30-minute sessions of interventions and the smallest effects for interventions
daily tutoring to poor readers in the first grade. The model with the largest group sizes. Clearly, students with reading
matched the intensity of Reading Recovery, differing in disabilities benefit from more individualized time with an
part, in the amount of professional development provided effective teacher.
for teachers (Vellutino’s study required significantly less The work of the CIERA School Change project (e.g.,
teacher training than that demanded by Reading Recovery). Taylor et al., 2000) confirms these findings. In studying
Vellutino’s tutors—all of whom were certified teachers— schools and classrooms that beat the odds—where stu-
addressed letter identification, phoneme awareness, word dents learn to read and write at high levels in the face of
reading skills, and practice in reading connected text. After overwhelming odds against it—Taylor and her colleagues
one or two semesters (depending on student progress), the found that the most accomplished teachers and the teachers
majority of these children became average readers. in the most effective schools consistently relied on small
Despite the recognized value of daily instruction for groups to teach and support important literacy skills and
struggling readers, it is rarely possible for a student to meet understandings.
with the reading specialist every day. It is the classroom The critical difference between traditional small groups,
teacher who necessarily sees every student every day, who in which students have received low-quality instruction and
can ensure such frequent instructional opportunities for the failed to improve, and those where student achievement
students who need them. Evidence indicates that effective has been accelerated appears to lie in the expertise of the
classroom teachers spend more time teaching—and their teacher—and some have argued—in the location of the
students spend more time engaged in instruction—in on- group itself. Allington and others have argued vehemently
task behavior (Bohn, Roehrig, & Pressley, 2004; Pressley against instructional practices that remove students from
et al., 2001; Wharton-McDonald, Pressley, & Motretta, the classroom and place them in remedial groups in an
199). This is especially important as it relates to students’ alternative location (e.g., the resource room). A great deal
need for instructional intensity. of instructional time can be lost in the transition from
classroom to intervention space. When students spend time
Decreasing group size. The most practical method for engaged in effective instruction as opposed to packing up
increasing instructional intensity for students with reading their materials and transitioning down the hall to the re-
disabilities is to provide instruction in small groups cre- source room, they learn more.
ated to provide targeted instruction to particular groups of While instructional time lost to transitions is likely a fac-
learners (Foorman & Torgesen, 2001). In fact, grouping tor in student learning (or lack thereof), the most important
students for reading is almost a universal practice (Barr & factor in determining learning is undoubtedly the teacher.
268 Ruth Wharton-McDonald

In fact, attempts to keep students in regular classrooms Teaching is not a generic enterprise. For any instruction to
by having Title I or special education aides work with be effective, it must target the learning needs and charac-
students in classroom groups have been no more effective teristics of a particular student or group of students. This
than similar instruction provided in groups pulled out of is true for both disabled and non-disabled literacy learners:
the classroom (Archambault, 1989; Puma, Jones, Rock, & “Effective instruction is characterized by adaptation of the
Fernandez, 1993). Expert teachers who use small groups in standard form of instruction in ways that better meet the
the classroom adapt both instruction and group membership needs of individual students” (Allington, 2006, p. 149). The
to meet the immediate needs of the students in ways that profiles of learners with reading disabilities are found on
less expert teachers are not able to do. They use ongoing the same continua as learners without reading disabilities.
formative assessments to determine the specific needs of Since all students vary in their development, it is reasonable
individual students and to ensure that students are neither to speculate that all students will differ with respect to the
overwhelmed by instruction that is too difficult or bored by aspects of reading instruction that will be most critical for
instruction that is no longer needed. their success at a particular time. It is crucial that the teacher
In summarizing the research on group size and inter- matches the instruction to the specific needs of the learner
vention effects, Allington (2006) concludes that “as the (Atkinson et al., 2002). Despite this well recognized finding,
size of the instructional group decreases, the likelihood a summary of observational studies conducted with students
of acceleration increases. Thus, the most effective designs with learning disabilities indicates that all too often, these
employ the most expert teachers and have them tutoring students are provided with generic reading instruction that
or working with very small (2–3) instructional groups” (p. is not directly linked to their specific needs (Denton et al.,
152). Indeed, in a meta-analysis examining the effects of 2003; Vaughn, Levy, Coleman, & Bos, 2002).
grouping practices, Elbaum and associates (2006) found To target support to individual students, teachers must
consistently positive effects of grouping practices that have detailed knowledge about literacy processes and their
increased instructional intensity. development; they must be familiar with a wide range of
reading materials and the pedagogy required to use them
effectively; and they must know their students extremely
What Expert Teachers Provide
well. Expert teachers are astute observers of their students.
Teaching is more than a technical process; it is a complex They are familiar with students’ cognitive abilities, their
human process in which the teacher’s knowledge of reading learning histories and characteristics, their preferences,
and learning processes intersects with his or her knowledge their temperaments, their cultural influences, and their goals
of the needs, interests, and individual characteristics of the (Allington & Johnston, 2002; Berliner, 1992; Clay, 1993;
learners. (Farstrup, 2002, pp. 1–2) Louden et al., 2005; Mazzoli & Gambrell, 2003; Pressley
et al., 2001). Expert teachers combine their knowledge of
Expert teachers have substantial knowledge of literacy literacy development and their knowledge of students as
processes, of pedagogy, of books and other teaching materi-
learners to individualize the instruction they provide. Not
als, and of their students (e.g., Allington & Johnston, 2002;
all students with reading disabilities share the same set of
Pressley et al., 2001; Taylor & Pearson, 2002). Their ability
difficulties. While this point seems obvious, it is too often
to apply their knowledge in providing learning experiences
the case that they all receive the same intervention neverthe-
for their students is what makes them so effective. It is what
less. If the special education teacher has been trained in the
enables students with reading disabilities to develop the
LiPS program (see www.lindamoodbell.com), then all of
skills, strategies, and dispositions of successful readers.
the students in grades 1-4 with reading disabilities receive
Expert teachers provide instruction that targets the par-
the same sequence of lessons from the LiPS manual. If
ticular skills needed by individual learners. They provide
the teacher has been trained in Wilson Reading (see www.
explicit and intense instruction, accompanied by ongoing
wilsonlanguage.com), then everyone receives that program
scaffolding to ensure student success. They provide lessons
instead. There are undoubtedly students for whom these
and materials at an appropriate level of challenge, so that
programs (both of which meet the criteria of explicit and
learners are engaged and moving forward. And they do it
intensive) are useful. What differentiates the expert teacher
in an environment that nurtures motivation and sustains
from a less effective colleague is the ability to match the
engagement.
intervention to the individual student. The expert’s plan-
ning is not based on a set program or what is written in a
Instruction Matched to Individual Skills, Understandings,
teacher’s manual; rather it is based on what an individual
and Needs
student needs at a given time (Thomas & Barksdale-Ladd,
You should design the program around your students, not 1995; Pressley et al., 2001; Allington & Johnston, 2002).
the students around a program. . . We have students of all Thus, each learner receives the instruction and scaffolding
different abilities. We should look at each of their individual needed to move him or her forward on a given day. While
abilities and work with them and find something that will this is important for all learners, Juel (1996) concludes that
work for each of them at different levels. (a highly effective the ability to offer individualized, targeted support in the
teacher, cited in Achinstein & Ogawa, 2006, p. 48) form of scaffolding while children are developing reading
 Expert Classroom Instruction for Students with Reading Disabilities 269

skills may actually have increasing significance as the sever- Motivational Learning Environments Students can only
ity of a child’s learning disability increases. learn from engaging with texts they can read. Thus, match-
ing the difficulty of a text to the instructional level of the stu-
Scaffolding Exemplary teachers are expert at scaffolding dent is critical from the perspective of skills development.
students’ learning (Allington & Johnston, 2002; Press- Moreover, when students experience success with a text,
ley, 2006 ; Loudon et al., 2005; Taylor & Pearson, 2002; they are more likely to be motivated to sustain their effort
Wharton-McDonald et al., 1998). Scaffolding in this context and engagement (Brophy, 1987; Guthrie & Wigfield, 2000).
refers to the support provided by a teacher or a peer that Expert teachers do many things to motivate children with
enables the student to solve a problem on his or her own disabilities to engage in classroom learning opportunities.
that he or she would not otherwise be able to solve inde- They construct interesting lessons; they connect reading and
pendently. Scaffolding may take the form of a question or writing to content area learning; they provide students with
a hint (sometimes a question that is a hint), or a reminder moderately challenging tasks and a variety of interesting
to pay attention to a particular feature or strategy that the book selections; and they use positive redirection to man-
student is not using (for example, “What do you know about age behavior (Bohn et al., 2004; Pressley et al., 2001). The
words that end with an ‘e’?” or “Is there a strategy you research on reading development and instruction includes
could use to figure that out?”). By definition, scaffolding many references to the importance of motivation. Many of
is individualized and cannot be scripted in advance. Scaf- them (e.g., the National Reading Panel Report) note the need
folding provides immediate support to a reader so that she for further research. Every section in the National Reading
will stay engaged and learning. It demands a high level of Panel Report (2000) mentions motivation as a potentially
knowledge of both the student and the instructional task in significant variable, but one on which there are still scant
which he is engaged. data. Expert teachers, however, create classrooms where
students are already motivated and engaged. Consequently,
Appropriate Level of Challenge A great deal of research students in these classrooms spend more time on task, more
confirms the significant positive effect of matching a student time reading, and more time learning.
with the appropriate instructional materials. To maximize
learning, learners must be moderately challenged by instruc- Informed Flexibility It is now well recognized that there
tional tasks and texts, without being overwhelmed. The Be- is not—and cannot be—one best way to teach children to
ginning Teacher Evaluation study (Denham & Lieberman, read (Allington, 2002; Allington & Walmsley, 2007; Duffy
1980 ) was among the first of many to find that students & Hoffman, 2002; Farstrup, 2002; International Reading
learn best when they experience high rates of success on the Association, 2000; Mathes et al., 2005; Mazzoli & Gam-
tasks in which they are engaged. They have the lowest rates brell, 2003; Taylor & Pearson, 2002). The nature of human
of learning when they are expected to complete tasks which development means that, even within the context of a single,
are too difficult and on which they make numerous errors. grade-level classroom, individual students will enter with
In confirming these findings, others have noted that students different understandings and backgrounds, learn in differ-
who experience high rates of success not only learn more, ent ways, at different rates, and in the context of different
but they also have better attitudes toward learning and are social environments. The most effective teachers use their
more motivated to pursue other, similar tasks (e.g., Berliner, complex knowledge of literacy, pedagogy, and student
1992; Brophy, 1987 ; Guthrie & Wigfield, 2000 ). characteristics flexibly, to provide uniquely responsive
With respect to reading, these findings emphasize the instruction for their students (Wharton-McDonald, 2008).
importance of providing students with texts that are not In contrast to the frequently documented one-size-fits-
only appealing, but also accessible. Allington (2005) all approach to students with reading disabilities (e.g., teach
refers to the matching of pupils and texts as one of the them all explicit phonics, or group them for instruction
“pillars of effective reading instruction” (p. 347). All too according to a particular available program), the expert
often, students with reading disabilities (and others who teacher eschews a single, static approach in favor of a flex-
struggle) are expected to read texts that are well beyond ible, dynamic one. Expert teachers have extensive knowl-
the moderate level of challenge that research supports. This edge in literacy development, in the range of instructional
is especially true at the intermediate and secondary levels, materials, in children’s literature, in child development, and
where teachers can be driven to “cover curriculum” rather in the learning profiles of their students. Using this depth
than acknowledge students where they are and move them of knowledge, the teacher can sit with two fourth graders,
forward. O’Connor and her colleagues (2002) reported that both identified with reading disabilities, both reading at a
when struggling middle school readers were asked to read level J (mid-second grade), and determine that Anna needs
grade-level texts as opposed to texts matched to their actual instruction that builds English vocabulary, background
reading abilities, their reading development was adversely knowledge in the content areas, and fluency, whereas
affected. According to Allington (2002), any classroom Mohammed has significant difficulties with phonemic
in which all students are expected to read the same book awareness and has not yet mastered decoding of multi-
“will fail to successfully develop reading proficiencies in syllabic words. Moreover, having made an individualized
all students” (p. 276). analysis of their needs, the expert teacher is familiar with
270 Ruth Wharton-McDonald

a range of strategies and materials she can use to support higher mean fluency scores achieved higher fluency scores in
each student’s growth. second grade. The authors hypothesize that gains in fluency
The teacher described above begins with a great deal were not influenced by repeated reading (conducted in all
of knowledge. But just knowing about students, strategies, first-grade classrooms) alone, but that “repeated readings in
and materials is only part of what makes her effective. It the context of faster reading models, in this case faster read-
is the flexibility to shift methods and materials to meet the ing peers in the classroom” accounted for the difference in
dynamic needs of the students that characterizes the most achievement gains (p. 391). Findings such as these related to
effective teachers (Wharton-McDonald, 2008). It has been classroom context have implications not only for inclusion
a frequent critique of special education that once students practices (in which students with disabilities are educated
are identified and coded, they remain in the system for life in regular classrooms), but for grouping practices within the
(Mueller, 2001 ). In too many cases, these students continue classroom. Foorman et al. (2008) conclude that for slower
to receive more of the same instruction that hasn’t worked readers, simply being in a classroom of faster reading peers
in the past; neither the system nor their teachers have had “seems to be an intervention all by itself” (p. 391). These
the informed flexibility to recognize what is working (and recent findings suggest the need to further investigate the
what isn’t) and make ongoing changes to ensure growth. role of the student-generated classroom environment in other
The special education placement in these cases tends to areas of literacy learning as well.
stabilize students’ reading growth rather than accelerating
it (Denton et al., 2003). After all, even if the instruction
Students and Teachers: Understanding
is effective and the student is making progress, then his
Students’ Needs and Addressing Them
needs are not the same as they were when the intervention
in the Classroom Context
began; almost by definition, the student will require a new
combination of instructional variables in order to continue to Students with reading disabilities have much in common
move forward. More of the same is rarely the best combina- with their typically developing peers. They demand high-
tion for long. “In the final analysis, effective teaching and quality reading instruction that supports development across
learning rests on the shoulders of the teacher who makes the essential components of literacy; they need access to
informed decisions about the instructional approaches and materials they can—and want to—read; they need oppor-
practices that are most appropriate for [individual students]” tunities to read and discuss books with others; they need
(Mazzoli & Gambrell, 2003, p.11). The flexibility to make motivating learning environments that support ongoing
these decisions in an always changing context is central to engagement in learning. And they need instruction that flex-
the success of effective teachers. ibly adapts to their changing needs. From an instructional
perspective, what distinguishes students with reading dis-
abilities is their need for particularly explicit instruction,
The Role of Classroom Context
provided with greater intensity than that which characterizes
Beyond the significant role of the teacher in supporting typical reading instruction. Expert teachers understand the
the development of children with reading disabilities, the needs of their students and are able to provide a great deal of
classroom context itself (the students) appears to play a informed, targeted instruction in the context of a motivating
role in students’ success. The 1997 reauthorization of the environment. Moreover, they flexibly adapt their instruction
Individuals with Disabilities Education Act Amendment in response to student successes, struggles, and interests
(IDEA) specifically identified the general education setting in order to sustain maximum student growth. The critical
as the most appropriate placement for all students (IDEA role of the teacher in developing and sustaining student
ref; Schmidt, Rozendal, & Greenman, 2002). Being in a learning is recognized by a growing number of research-
general education setting provides students with access to ers and educational organizations. Students with reading
the same high-quality instruction offered to their typically disabilities can make accelerated growth and develop the
achieving peers. It also provides struggling students with literacy behaviors and dispositions demonstrated by their
ongoing interactions—social and academic—with those typically achieving peers. They need to spend less time in
peers. Foorman, York, Santi, and Francis (2008) reported static, ineffective learning environments, and more time in
that when beginning readers were placed in classrooms with the company of expert classroom teachers and successful
higher average fluency scores, they demonstrated greater peers.
achievement gains than similar students who were placed
in classrooms with lower fluency scores.
References
In the study cited, the combination of student pretest score
(in fluency) and the mean pretest score for a classroom was Achinstein, B., & Ogawa, R. (2006). (In)fidelity: What the resistance of
a better predictor of student achievement than the student new teachers reveals about professional principles and prescriptive
educational policies. Harvard Educational Review, 76(1), 30–63.
pretest score alone. Examining first- and second-grade data Allington, R. L. (1984). Content coverage and contextual reading in read-
from 210 randomly selected schools in Texas, Foorman and ing groups. Journal of Reading Behavior, 16, 85–96.
her colleagues found that students with low fluency scores Allington, R. L. (2002). Research on reading/learning disability interven-
in first grade who happened to be placed in classrooms with tions. In A. E. Farstrup & S. J. Samels (Eds.). What research has to
 Expert Classroom Instruction for Students with Reading Disabilities 271

say about reading instruction (3rd ed., pp. 261–290). Newark, DE: Mehta, P. (1998). The role of instruction in learning to read: Preventing
International Reading Association. reading failure in at-risk children. Journal of Educational Psychology,
Allington, R. L. (2005, June/July). The other five “pillars” of effective 90, 37–55.
reading instruction. Reading Today, 22(6), 3. Foorman, B. R., & Torgesen, J. (2001). Critical elements of classroom
Allington, R. L. (2006). What really matters for struggling readers: and small-group instruction promote reading success in all children.
Designing research-based programs (2nd ed.). Boston: Pearson Learning Disabilities Research & Practice, 16, 203–212.
Education. Foorman, B. R., York, M., Santi, K. L., & Francis, D. (2008). Contextual
Allington, R. L., Guice, S., Michlson, N., Baker, K., & Li, S. (1996). effects on predicting risk for reading difficulties in first and second
Literature-based curricula in high poverty schools. In M. F. Graves, P. grade. Reading and Writing, 21, 371–394.
van den Broek, & B. M. Taylor (Eds.), The first R: Every child’s right Fuchs, L. S., Fuchs, D., & Hamlett, C. (1989). Effects of instructional use
to read (pp. 73–96). New York: Teachers College Press. of curriculum-based measurement to enhance instructional programs.
Allington, R. L., & Johnston, P. H. (2002). Reading to learn: Lessons from Remedial and Special Education, 10, 43–52.
exemplary fourth-grade classrooms. New York: Guilford. Gambrell, L. (1984). How much time do children spend reading during
Allington, R. L., & Walmsley, S. (Eds.). (2007). No quick fix, the RTI edi- teacher-directed reading instruction? In J. Niles & L. Harris (Eds.),
tion: Rethinking literacy programs in America’s elementary schools. Changing perspectives on research in reading/language process-
New York: Teachers College Press. ing and instruction. Thirty-Third Yearbook of the National Read-
Anderson, R. C., Hiebert, E. H., Scott, J. A., & Wilkinson, I. A. (1985). ing Conference (pp. 193–198). Rochester, NY: National Reading
Becoming a nation of readers. Washington, DC: National Institute Conference.
of Education. Gamoran, A. (1992). Is ability grouping equitable? Educational Leader-
Archambault, M. X. (1989). Instructional setting and other design features ship, 50(2), 11–17.
of compensatory education programs. In R. E. Slavin, N. Karweit, & N. Gersten, R., Fuchs, L. S., Williams, J. P., & Baker, S. (2001). Teaching
Madden (Eds.), Effective programs for students at risk (pp. 220–263). reading comprehension strategies to students with learning disabili-
Boston: Allyn-Bacon. ties: A review of the research. Review of Educational Research, 71,
Atkinson, T. S., Wilhite, K. L., Frey, L. M., & Williams, S. C. (2002). 279–320.
Reading instruction for the struggling reader: Implications for teachers Guthrie, J. T., & Wigfield, A. (2000). Engagement and motivation in read-
of students with learning disabilities or emotional/behavioral disorders. ing. In M. Kamil, P. B. Mosenthal, P. D. Pearson, & R. Barr (Eds.),
Preventing School Failure, 46(4), 158–162. Handbook of reading research (Vol. 3, pp. 403–422). Mahwah, NJ:
Barr, R., & Dreeben, R. (1983). How schools work. Chicago: University Erlbaum.
of Chicago Press. Hiebert, E. H. (1983). An examination of ability grouping for reading
Barr, R., & Dreeben, R. (1991). Grouping students for reading instruc- instruction. Reading Research Quarterly, 8, 231–255.
tion. In D. P. Pearson (Ed.), Handbook of reading research (Vol. II, Individuals with Disabilities Education Act Amendments of 1997 (IDEA),
pp. 885–912). New York: Longmire. Publ. L. No. 105-17, 20 U.S.C. 1400 et seq.
Bembry, K. L., Jordan, H. R., Gomez, E., Anderson, M., & Mendro, R. International Reading Association. (2000). Making a difference means
L. (1998, April). Policy implications of long-term teacher effects on making it different: Honoring children’s rights to excellent reading
student achievement. Paper presented at the American Educational instruction. Position statement of the International Reading Associa-
Research Association. tion. Newark, DE: International Reading Association.
Berliner, D. (1992). Exemplary performances: Studies of expertise in Jenkins, J. R., Jewell, M., Leicester, N., O’Connor, R. E., Jenkins, L. M.,
teaching. Collected speeches. National Art Education Association & Troutner, N. M. (1994). Accommodations for individual differences
Convention, Milwaukee, WI. without classroom ability groups: An experiment in school restructur-
Block, C. C., & Pressley, M. (2002). Comprehension instruction: Research- ing. Exceptional Children, 60, 344–358.
based best practices. New York: Guilford. Juel, C. (1988). Learning to read and write: A longitudinal study of 54
Bohn, C. M., Roehrig, A. D., & Pressley, G. (2004). The first days of school children from first to fourth grades. Journal of Educational Psychol-
in the classrooms of two more effective and four less effective primary- ogy, 80, 437–447.
grades teachers. The Elementary School Journal, 104, 269–287. Juel, C. (1996). What makes literacy tutoring effective? Reading Research
Brophy, J. (1987). On motivating students. In D. Berliner & B. Rosenshine Quarterly, 31, 268–289.
(Eds.), Talks to teachers (pp. 201–245). New York: Random House. Juel, C., & Minden-Cupp, J. (2000). Learning to read words: Linguistic
Clay, M. (1993). Reading recovery: A guidebook for teachers in training. units and instructional strategies. Reading Research Quarterly, 35,
Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann. 458–492.
Denton, C. A., Vaughn, S., & Fletcher, J. M. (2003). Bringing research- Kvale (1988). The long-term consequences of learning disabilities. In M.
based practice in reading intervention to scale. Learning Disabilities C. Wang, H. J. Walberg, & M. C. Reynolds (Eds.), The handbook of
Research & Practice, 18, 201–211. special education: Research and practice (pp. 303–344). New York:
Duffy, G., & Hoffman, J. (2002). Beating the odds in literacy education: Pergamon.
Not “betting on” but the “bettering of” schools and teachers. In B. Loudon, W., Rohl, M., Barratt-Pugh, C., Brown, C., Cairney, T., Elderfield,
Taylor & P. D. Pearson (Eds.), Teaching reading: Effective schools, J., et al. (2005). In teachers’ hands: Effective literacy teaching practices
accomplished teachers (pp. 375–387). Mahway, NJ: Erlbaum. in the early years of schooling. [Special issue]. Australian Journal of
Elbaum, B., Vaughn, S., Hughes, M. T., & Moody, S. W. (2000). How Language and Literacy, 27(3).
effective are one-to-one tutoring programs in reading for elementary Mathes, P. G., Denton, C. A., Fletcher, J. M., Anthony, J. L., Francis, D.
students at risk for reading failure? A meta-analysis of the intervention J., & Schatschneider, C. (2005). The effects of theoretically different
research. Journal of Educational Psychology, 92, 605–619. instruction and student characteristics on the skills of struggling read-
Farstrup, A. E. (2002). There is more to effective reading instruction ers. Reading Research Quarterly, 40, 148–182.
than research. In E. Farstrup & S. J. Samuels (Eds.), What research Mazzoli, S., & Gambrell, L. B. (2003). Principles of best practice: Finding
has to say about reading instruction (3rd ed., pp. 1–7). Newark, DE: the common ground. In L. M. Morrow, L. B. Gambrell, & M. Pressley
International Reading Association. (Eds.), Best practices in literacy instruction (2nd ed., pp. 9–21). New
Ferguson, R. F., & Ladd, H. F. (1996). How and why money matters: York: Guilford.
An analysis of Alabama schools. In H. Ladd (Ed.) Holding schools McDermott, R. (1976). Kids make sense: An ethnographic account of the
accountable: Performance-based reform in education (pp. 265–298). interactional management of success and failure in one first-grade
Washington, DC: Brookings Institution. classroom. (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). Stanford University,
Foorman, B. R., Fletcher, J. M., Francis, D. J., Schatschneider, C., & Palo Alto, California.
272 Ruth Wharton-McDonald

Mueller, P. (2001). Lifers: Learning from at-risk adolescent readers. difficulties in young children. Washington, DC: National Academy
Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann. Press.
National Reading Panel. (2000). Teaching children to read: An evidence- Taylor, B., & Pearson, P. D. (2002). Teaching reading: Effective schools,
based assessment of the scientific research literature on reading and accomplished teachers. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
its implications for reading instruction. Washington, DC: National Taylor, B., Pearson, P. D., Clark, K., & Walpole, S. (2000). Effective
Institute of Child Health and Human Development and U.S. Depart- schools and accomplished teachers: Lessons from primary grade
ment of Education. reading instruction in low-income schools. The Elementary School
Oakes, J. (1985). Keeping track: How schools structure inequality. New Journal, 101, 121–165.
Haven, CT: Yale University Press. Thomas, K. F., & Barksdale-Ladd, M. A. (1995). Effective literacy class-
O’Connor, R., Bell, K., Harty, K., Larkin, L., Sackor, S., & Zigmond, N. rooms: Teachers and students exploring literacy together. In C. K.
(2002). Teaching reading to poor readers in the intermediate grades: Kinzer, K. A. Hinchman, & D. J. Leu (Eds.), Inquiries into literacy
A comparison of text difficulty. Journal of Educational Psychology, theory and practice: Forty-sixth yearbook of the National Reading
94, 474–485. Conference (pp. 37–53). Chicago: National Reading Conference.
President’s Commission on Excellence in Special Education. (2002). A Torgesen, J. K. (2000). Individual differences in response to early interven-
new era: Revitalizing special education for children and their families. tions in reading: The lingering problem of treatment resisters. Learning
Retrieved from http://www.ed.gov/inits/commissionsboards Disabilities Research & Practice, 15, 55–64.
Pressley, M., Allington, R. L., Wharton-McDonald, R., Block, C. C., & Vaughn, S., Levy, S., Coleman, M., & Bos, C. S. (2002). Reading instruc-
Morrow, L. (2001). Learning to read: Lessons from exemplary first- tion for students with LD and EBD: A synthesis of observation studies.
grade classrooms. New York: Guilford. Journal of Special Education, 36(1), 2–13.
Pressley, M., Wharton-McDonald, R., Allington, R. L., Block, C. C., Velluntino, F. R., & Scanlon, D. M. (2002). The interactive strategies
Morrow, L., Tracey, D., et al. (2000). A study of effective first-grade approach to reading intervention. Contemporary Educational Psy-
reading instruction. Scientific Studies of Reading, 5, 35–58. chology, 27, 573–635.
Puma, M. J., Jones, C. C., Rock, D., & Fernandez, R. (1993). Prospects: Vellutino, F. R., Scanlon, D. M., Sipay, E., Small, S., Pratt, A., et al. (1996).
The congressionally mandated study of educational growth and op- Cognitive profiles of difficult-to-remediate and readily remediated poor
portunity — the interim report. (No. GPO 1993 0-354-886 QL3). readers: Early intervention as a vehicle for distinguishing between
Washington, DC: U. S. Department of Education, Office of Planning cognitive and experiential deficits as basic causes of specific reading
and Evaluation Services. disability. Journal of Educational Psychology, 88, 601–638.
Samuels, C. A. (2007, September 10). Experts eye solutions to the 4th Wanzek, J., & Vaughn, S. (2007).Research-based implications from
grade slump. Education Week, 1–4. Retrieved from http://www. extensive early reading interventions. School Psychology Review,
edweek.org/ew/articles/ 36, 541–561.
Schmidt, R. J., Rozendal, M. S., & Greenman, G. G. (2002). Reading Wharton-McDonald, R. (2008). The dynamics of flexibility in effective
instruction in the inclusion classroom: Research-based practices. literacy teaching. In K. B. Cartwright (Ed.), Literacy processes:
Remedial and Special Education, 23(3), 130–140. Cognitive flexibility in learning and teaching (pp. 342–357). New
Schumm, J. S., Moody, S. W., & Vaughn, S. (2000). Grouping for reading York: Guilford.
instruction: Does one size fit all? Journal of Learning Disabilities, Williams, J. P. (2005). Instruction in reading comprehension for primary-
33, 477–488. grade students: A focus on text structure. The Journal of Special
Snow, C. E., Burns, M. S., & Griffin, P. (Eds.). (1998). Preventing reading Education, 39(1), 6–18.
 25
Cultural Modeling
Building on Cultural Strengths as an Alternative
to Remedial Reading Approaches
MARJORIE FAULSTICH ORELLANA
University of California, Los Angeles

JENNIFER REYNOLDS
University of South Carolina

DANNY CORTEZ MARTÍNEZ

University of California, Los Angeles

In this chapter, we survey research that takes a sociohis- Sociocultural Perspectives on the Relationship
torical approach to the remediation of reading difficulties, between Home and School Practices
especially for students from non-dominant groups. This
approach starts from the assumption that all people engage Cultural Modeling emerges from sociocultural research that
in rich repertoires of linguistic practice (Gutierrez & Rogoff, explores the language practices of children and families in
2003) in their everyday lives and that those repertories of everyday, non-school contexts. Sociocultural researchers
practice can be resources for learning in school (Lee, 2007; have documented everyday practices in a range of commu-
Orellana & Reynolds, 2008). Teachers can model literacy nity contexts, family constellations, speech communities,
skills development on the cultural practices of their students and cultural groups (Alim, 2004; Barton & Hamilton, 1998;
in ways that leverage existing skills. Unlike deficit-based Cintron, 1997; Duranti, Ochs, & Ta’ase, 1995; Farr, 2006;
(Valencia, 1997; see also Gutierrez, 2007) approaches to Gonzalez, 2001; Goodwin, 1990; Guerra, 1998; Heath,
remediating learning challenges faced by students from 1983; Scribner & Cole, 1981; Zentella, 1997, 2005). These
non-dominant groups, a Cultural Modeling framework val- studies make clear that all people engage in rich repertoires
ues students’ actual histories, lived experiences, linguistic of oral and literate practices in their everyday lives. This in-
repertoires and participation in cultural practices; it does cludes members of non-dominant groups who too often are
not call for prescriptive teaching based on “broad, under- viewed as lacking in linguistic skills and disproportionately
examined generalities about groups” (Gutierrez & Rogoff, labeled as poor readers in school (Trent, Artiles, & Englert,
2003, p. 20) nor does it equate “culture” with race/ethnicity 1998). All children in all communities are socialized to and
or any categorical group membership. Cultural Modeling through language (Ochs & Schieffelin, 1984), though the
also differs from other approaches that draw connections specific kinds of practices that they are exposed to may vary
between in- and out-of-school learning such as those that on many dimensions.
focus on correcting presumed “mismatches” between home Sociocultural researchers and linguistic anthropolo-
and school cultural practices. Instead, Cultural Modeling gists have documented the linguistic dexterity involved
researchers use ethnographic and sociolinguistic methods in an array of everyday activities. For example, Goodwin
to identify analogues between everyday cultural practices (1990) analyzed the complex sequential organization of
and content knowledge. In this chapter we will examine argumentation in everyday gossip and storytelling among
the roots of a Cultural Modeling framework and consider African American youth and the role of talk in the “secret
how it has been used to re-mediate (Cole & Griffin, 1983) lives of girls” as they play games on school playgrounds
learning challenges, contrasting this with approaches to (Goodwin, 2007). Others have studied such discursive
teaching and learning that follow from a cultural mismatch activities as teasing and shaming (Miller, 1986; Schief-
perspective. felin, 1990), insulting (Evaldsson, 2005; Reynolds, 2007),

273
274 Marjorie Faulstich Orellana, Jennifer Reynolds, and Danny Cortez Martínez

storytelling in pretend play (Kyratzis, 2005), song games those practices, such as the forms of questions adults posed
(Minks, 2008), and other forms of conflict and playful talk. to children. Questioning practices in the Maintown com-
Rampton (1995), Zentella (1997), and Alim (2004) docu- munity more closely aligned with school questioning forms
ment the flexible ways in which bilingual and bidialectical than did the questioning practices of Roadville. This had the
youth style- and code-switch, crossing registers and codes, effect of making Maintown children appear more capable
deploying each appropriately for different relationships, than children from other groups in school, and eased their
contexts and purposes. These are just a few of many stud- engagement with teachers and texts.
ies that reveal rich and robust ways with words that have Other researchers have built upon Heath’s framework to
been studied in the everyday lives of young people outside identify differences in cultural practices along a range of
of school. dimensions as well as in a diversity of communities. First,
The practices detailed above are oral language practices, there are differences in the practices themselves. Storybook
but it is generally accepted that oral language practices reading by adults to children is a celebrated literacy practice
serve as a foundation for engagement with written texts; in middle-class U.S. homes, one that is assumed to benefit
the division between orality and literacy was an histori- young children’s literacy development (Bialostok, 2002). In
cal construction that has been the subject of much debate other communities, adults may rarely or never engage with
(Baumann & Briggs, 2003). Sociocultural researchers, such children around storybooks. Instead, children may read to
as Gee (1996), Heath (1983, as detailed below), and Mi- “their” adults (as when they translate for them) (Orellana,
chaels (1981, 1985) argue that exposure to specific genres 2003), or they may read to their siblings (Gregory, 2001;
in out-of-school language practices matters for children’s Orellana, 2001). (See also Purcell-Gates, 1995; Taylor &
abilities to perform on school literacy tasks. Even phonemic Dorsey-Gaines, 1988; and Reese, Goldenberg, Loucky, &
awareness research, centered in a psycholinguistic rather Gallimore, 1995, for descriptions of varied literacy practices
than a sociocultural tradition, argues that the ability to hear in working-class communities.) Although there may be
differences in spoken language is related to early reading overlap across cultural communities in terms of practices,
skills (Adams, Foorman, Lundberg, & Beeler, 1998); though some practices are more privileged than others, and the
Taylor (1998) notes that this research rarely looks at the constellation of valued practices can look quite different
impact of everyday language play on phonemic awareness, across groups. (See, for example, Barton & Hamilton, 1998;
focusing instead on isolated language tasks, disconnected Scribner & Cole, 1981.)
from children’s social worlds. Who participates in what ways in these practices also
varies across communities. In all communities there are
Cultural Mismatch But if youth from non-dominant implicit rules for interaction across socially-meaningful
groups engage in such sophisticated language practices out- lines of difference such as gender and age, but those rules
side of school, and if exposure to oral language practices has can look very different from the norms imposed by schools.
“pay-off” for engagement with complex written language Philips (1993), for example, compared the participation
practices, why do these same students sometimes struggle structures of home and school practices on the Warm
with school language demands? Cultural mismatch theory Springs Indian Reservation, noting patterns in gendered
has been proffered as an answer to this seeming paradox. and generational relations that affected youths’ engage-
This theory holds that school discourse patterns are diver- ment with talk in school. Au (1980) identified similar dif-
gent from the everyday practices of many communities in ferences in the participation structures of home and school
ways that can create blockages for the display and/or uptake for Hawaiian youth.
of school practices. Rogoff, Paradise, Arauz, Correa-Chavez, and Angelillo
The classic work in this tradition is the work of Shirley (2003) go beyond the linguistic dimension to reveal how
Brice Heath (1983). Through her 10-year ethnographic study in some communities children are socialized to attend to
of the communities of Trackton, Roadville, and Maintown, ongoing activities; they engage in what she terms “intent
Heath worked in the tradition of linguistic anthropologists to participation”—keen observations of activities that do not
bring attention to variations in the socialization of children directly involve them, with the intent of participating in
across three communities in South Carolina: an African those activities at some point in time. Rogoff contrasts this
American working-class community that she calls “Track- form of participation, which she finds prevalent in a range of
ton,” a White, working-class community that she calls contexts, with the child-centered, adult-organized activities
“Roadville,” and “Maintown,” a middle-class community that predominate in middle-class, European-ancestry homes
of both White and African American professionals. Heath and schools in the United States.
went beyond simply documenting these varied ways with Other researchers have focused on differences in dis-
word” in and of themselves; she compared the practices with course patterns across groups, and between home and school
school practices, highlighting the notion that white, middle- practices. Delpit (1995), for example, highlights differences
class language practices more closely paralleled school in the explicitness of commands in African American com-
practices than did the practices of the other communities. munities and in schools (which are implicitly organized
She identified differences in the kinds of practices that each around White notions of politeness and child-adult rela-
community engaged in and the discourse styles that shaped tions). She notes that White teachers may expect African
 Cultural Modeling 275

American students to hear mitigated requests as commands, Cultural Modeling Cultural Modeling represents a dif-
while those same students may expect commands to be ferent way of drawing connections between everyday and
delivered in a more direct form. Thus, students may be seen school practices. The Cultural Modeling framework is a ve-
as misbehaving or disobeying, with implications for their hicle for identifying substantive ways of connecting every-
academic identities and their engagement with learning day language practices to academic skills and for building
tasks. Ballenger (1992) explores this with Haitian-Creole on the resources of students from non-dominant groups
children living in Boston. whose linguistic skills often go unrecognized in schools. A
At a deeper level, values, beliefs and epistemological Cultural Modeling framework does not dichotomize home
stances also vary across cultural communities. What counts and school practices, nor does it call for an alignment of the
as knowledge and authority differs, as do the purposes for two sets of practices. Teachers are not expected to change
engaging in particular activities. Baquedano-López (1998), their own discourse patterns—patterns that are generally
for example, looks at literacy as embedded in catholic deeply entrenched and difficult to modify. Rather, this ap-
“doctrina” classes, shaped by religious norms and values, proach calls for an analysis of home and school practices
as well as by larger language policies. Groups may also to purposefully find analogues between the two.
develop different taxonomies of the social and scientific By leveraging, we mean that these practices become
world, in ways that matter for how students engage with open for scrutiny by students and serve as a base to be
subject matter. Bang, Medin, and Atran (2007) identify expanded upon. Differences between everyday and school
such differences in scientific thinking between Menomoni practices are acknowledged, as is the disconnect between
Indians and White, middle-class Americans. They suggest school and home ways with words. The aim is not simply
how these differences may matter for children’s take-up of to celebrate everyday linguistic virtuosity as much as it is
the science concepts that are privileged in schools. to recruit that virtuosity as a strength. Ultimately, the goal
Taken together, these and other studies suggest that is also not simply to bridge from everyday ways to school
the mismatch between home and school practices can be ways, leaving everyday ways behind; rather it is to expand
a source of learning difficulties for students from non- all students’ repertoires of practice.
dominant groups. School practices in the United States more The approach to “culture” that is assumed by a Cultural
closely model White, middle-class ways than they do the Modeling perspective is that of sociohistorical theory (Vy-
practices that are prevalent in non-dominant communities, gotsky, 1978). That is, the focus is on “how people live
on all of the above-detailed dimensions: in terms of the culturally” (Moll, 1990); cultural communities are those
practices themselves, the discourse patterns that structure that share a history of traditions, practices, and understand-
them, and the values, beliefs, purposes, and epistemological ings, not simply membership in some shared, socially-
stances that frame them. Thus White, middle-class children constructed category like Latino or Asian. Indeed, conflating
have fewer adjustments to make when they engage with race/ethnicity and culture has led to great problems in
school tasks than do children from non-dominant groups, educational research, such as the assumption that children
and because they more easily insert themselves into school who identify with a group label like Latino or Asian de
practices they may be seen as more capable by their teach- facto share a common learning style (Gutierrez & Rogoff,
ers, creating self-fulfilling prophecies. This may help to 2003) or a common set of experiences. Meaningful notions
explain the greater incidence of identified learning chal- of culture are instead drawn from an understanding of the
lenges among non-white populations. routine practices of people’s daily lives.
Recognition of these mismatches has led some research- A Cultural Modeling approach resonates with Moll,
ers to call for greater alignment between home and school Amanti, Neff, and Gonzalez’s (1992) work on identify-
practices. Attempts to match participation structures (Au, ing community-based “cultural funds of knowledge,”
1980; Philips, 1993) have had some success; young chil- which involves “develop(ing) both theory and methods
dren seem to engage more readily and achieve better when to identify and document the cultural resources found in
practices are modeled on the relationship structures that the immediate school community, as represented by the
are valued in children’s homes. But it is not easy to change children’s households, that could be used for teaching” (p.
deeply engrained ways of speaking and interacting, much 258). Funds of knowledge are treated as general resources
less to shift epistemologies, values and beliefs. Moreover, for learning, and researchers have focused on how those
how are teachers to match their own styles with the styles funds are exchanged in communities, and how they can be
of all their students? Even when teaching in seemingly brought into schools. Cultural Modeling approaches focus
homogeneous cultural communities, this can be a chal- more specifically on identifying relationships between the
lenge, as not all families take up cultural practices in the modes of reasoning and discursive practices of everyday
same way, and there are with-in group differences as well, practices and disciplinary work. Fundamental differences
such as those based on gender. Further, if our goal is to between the two lie in Cultural Modeling’s focus on the
help student acquire schools’ valued ways with words, then practices that youth themselves engage in, rather than those
simply aligning school discourse forms with home forms of adults in their communities or households (Lee, 2007),
could defeat this aim, unless other ways with words are and in how it addresses the “specific and very different
simultaneously cultivated. demands of subject matter learning” (p. 35).
276 Marjorie Faulstich Orellana, Jennifer Reynolds, and Danny Cortez Martínez

Cultural Modeling starts from a deep understanding of knowledge explicit as well as available for sharing and
routine practices, drawn from ethnographic and sociolin- public scrutiny.
guistic research in homes and communities such as those Other researchers have extended the Cultural Modeling
referenced above. The aim is to identify the linguistic skills approach to other disciplines. Nasir (2000) examines ways
that youth garner from their engagement in cultural prac- of thinking that are cultivated through practices like basket-
tices. What do children learn about language, about ways ball, dominoes (Nasir 2002, 2005), and track and field (Na-
of using language, and about learning, from their everyday sir, Rosebery, Warren, & Lee, 2006) drawing connections
lives? What skills do they develop from participating in with ways of doing math in school. The Algebra Project
routine practices? What particular kinds of skills look like (Moses, Kamii, Swap, & Howard, 1989) is also based on
analogues of the kinds of skills that we seek to develop in the principles of Cultural Modeling. At the Chéche Konen
youth in school? Center, Warren and Roseberry (1996) identify relations
A parallel step involves analyzing disciplinary modes of between children’s everyday experiences and the kinds of
reasoning to determine generative ways of mapping every- thinking that are valued by scientists in a practice they call
day practices onto academic processes. Unlike the cultural Science Workshop.
mismatch approach, this involves identifying commonalties In our own work we elaborated on the Cultural Modeling
or continuities between home and school ways with words, framework in several ways. First, we focused on a largely
rather than differences in the structure, purpose or goals unexplored language practice: the everyday translation and
of home and school tasks. The intent is to identify specific interpretation activities of the children of immigrants. Al-
and substantive ways in which one set of skills can be though we worked mostly with the children of immigrants
transformed for use in another setting. What ways of think- from Mexico, we were careful not to claim translation work
ing, of using language, and of organizing and representing as a practice unique to members of any cultural, ethnic, or
knowledge in the disciplines are analogous with the modes national group, but rather as a practice that arises from the
of reasoning that are identified in everyday practices? circumstances in which immigrants find themselves in their
The Cultural Modeling tradition was pioneered by Carol host country. We built on ethnographic work in a range of
Lee (1995, 1997, 2000, 2007), who identified analogues immigrant communities to document the wide range of
between the rhetorical skill of signifying (practices of verbal ways in which the children of immigrants use their knowl-
irony that have a long history in African American com- edge of two languages to read, write, listen, speak, and
munities), and the deployment of literary tropes as found do things for their families. This includes interpreting for
in the study of literature. Lee detailed the nature, purposes, their families and representatives of U.S. institutions such
and varieties of forms that this practice of verbal irony can as schools, clinics, and social service agencies; making and
take and compared it to an array of related tropes used in answering phone calls; reading and explaining a variety of
literature: irony, metaphor, symbolism, and the use of un- texts, filling out forms, and a host of complex language and
reliable narrators. She also illuminated common processes literacy practices (Orellana, 2001, 2007; Orellana, Dorner,
used to recognize and interpret signifying in discourse and & Pulido, 2003; Orellana, Reynolds, Dorner, & Meza,
irony in literature. She showed how skills involved in in- 2003; Orellana & Eksner, 2006). The common feature of
formal interpretive contexts can be applied to more formal, these practices, and the feature we sought to exploit, was
or school-based contexts. This is done by helping students that they involved taking ideas then transposing them into
to make more explicit their predominantly tacit knowledge a different form, language, and/or social register for a dif-
of signifying practices, and then to apply them to the new ferent audience.
context of text interpretation. We were interested in mapping the skills involved in
In related work, Lee (2007) used cultural data sets, units translation onto generalized academic language skills as
of instruction that mirror practices and knowledge that instantiated in classroom practices, not discipline-specific
schools do not typically value, and have sometimes been reasoning (Orellana & Reynolds, 2008). That is, we did not
viewed as interfering with learning. Cultural data sets, such set out with the intention of drawing analogues between
as music lyrics, videos, and art, were employed to motivate translation work and any particular discipline, such as math
children to write rich narratives, connecting school-based or English; instead we focused on practices of reading and
literacy work with the oral storytelling traditions that many writing in schools. Our aim was to reveal not just theoretical
African American children participate in at home. She points of leverage between everyday skills and school-based
shows how children displayed particular discursive fea- ways of using language, but specific ways in which every-
tures in their writing, such as the use of sermonic tone and day skills could be leveraged for classroom learning across
vivid language, by leveraging children’s experiences with a range of classroom learning contexts and disciplinary
art forms that were popular in the community under study. studies. We identified analogues between cross-language
In Lee’s work with high school students (2007), cultural paraphrasing (translation/interpretation work, or what we
data sets served to facilitate students’ comprehension of call “para-phrasing”) and within-language paraphrasing,
complex canonical texts found in high school reading lists. which includes a host of highly valued school language
The Cultural Modeling framework introduced students to practices. These included vocabulary building to reading
metacognitive strategies, and helped to make their tacit comprehension exercises. We did this by first identifying a
 Cultural Modeling 277

set of skills that bilingual youth utilize when they engage follow Cole and Griffin’s (1983) argument that rather than
in everyday practices of translation or interpretation and remediate learners, we should “re-mediate” learning, by
then exploring the relationship between those skills and the fundamentally changing the forms of mediation through
modes of reasoning used across disciplines in practices of which learning takes place. This involves reorganizing
summarizing and paraphrasing. Following this we searched relationships between teachers and learners and learners
for points of leverage in actual school practices, through and learning tasks. Cultural Modeling reorganizes the re-
ethnographic research in classrooms. lationship between school language and literacy practices
Our research team observed several classrooms, across and the everyday language skills that students display in
content areas in fifth-, sixth-, and seventh-grade classrooms, their lives outside of school.
of youth that we identified as translators. During observa- With the exception of Lee’s work with high school Eng-
tions, the research team focused on the kinds of literacy lish students, Cultural Modeling approaches have not been
practices that required students to make sense of written applied to the re-mediation of reading difficulties; they have
texts. We were interested in how students dealt with the been used to help students expand their repertoires of prac-
challenges of paraphrasing, therefore we closely examined tice in writing, mathematics, and science. We call for more
talk about translating, paraphrasing, summarizing, retell- scholarship in the Cultural Modeling tradition that uncovers
ing, or saying the same thing in different ways; activities analogues between everyday practices and the modes of
that share disciplinary modes of reasoning with that of thinking that are demanded of readers in schools.
para-phrasing.
After identifying these points of leverage, we col-
laborated with a classroom teacher to design curriculum References
that built on students’ translation experiences. Focusing Adams, M. J., Foorman, B. R., Lundberg, I., & Beeler, T. (1998). Phonemic
on the development of writing, we studied how youth ap- awareness in young children: A classroom curriculum. Baltimore,
plied their skills in moving between English and Spanish MD: Brooks.
Alim, H. S. (2004). You know my steez: An ethnographic and sociolinguis-
to the movement across registers and voices as they wrote
tic study of styleshifting in a Black American speech community. Dur-
essays directed to different audiences (Martínez, Orellana, ham, NC: Duke University Press for the American Dialect Society.
Pacheco, & Carbone, 2008), and provided opportunities. Au, K. H. (1980). Participation structures in a reading lesson with Hawai-
We worked with students to identify the skills they already ian children: Analysis of a culturally appropriate instructional event.
deployed when they shifted registers appropriately for Anthropology & Education Quarterly, 11, 91–115.
Ballenger, C. (1992). Because you like us: The language of control. Har-
different audiences in their everyday lives as translators/
vard Educational Review, 62(2), 199–208.
interpreters for their families, and then to apply this skill to Bang, M., Medin, D. L., & Atran, S. (2007). Cultural mosaics and mental
the writing of persuasive essays. In ongoing work, we are models of nature. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences,
also identifying ways to enhance children’s comprehension 104(35), 13868–13874.
of written texts by utilizing the strategies that they display Barton, D., & Hamilton, M. (1998). Local literacies: Reading and writing
in one community. London: Routledge.
when they translate complex texts for their parents (Orel- Baquedano-López, P. (1998). Language socialization of Mexican children
lana & Reynolds, 2008). in a Los Angeles Catholic parish (Unpublished doctoral dissertation).
An important feature of our approach to Cultural Model- University of California Los Angeles.
ing is that the practice we examine cross-cuts communities Baumann, R., & Briggs, C. L. (2003). Voices of modernity: Language
and social classes that are typically the focus of “cultural” ideologies and the politics of inequality. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge
University Press.
inquiries. That is, this is a practice that is shaped by the Bialostok, S. (2002). Metaphors for literacy: A cultural model of white,
experience of being non-English speaking immigrants who middle-class parents. Linguistics and Education, 13(3), 347–371.
are not familiar with all tacit sociocultural practices and Cintron, R. (1997). Angel’s town: Chero ways, gang life, and rhetorics of
procedures of U.S. institutions. Further, para-phrasing is the everyday. Boston: Beacon Press.
really a set of practices, not a singular practice in itself. In Cole, M., & Griffin, P. (1983). A socio-historical approach to re-mediation.
The Quarterly Newsletter of the Laboratory of Comparative Human
this sense, it has multiple points of leverage for academic Cognition, 5(4), 69–74.
literacies, and we are just beginning to explore these. Delpit, L. D. (1995). Other people’s children: cultural conflict in the
classroom. New York: New Press.
Duranti, A., Ochs, E., & Ta’ase, E. K. (1995). Change and tradition in
Why This Differs from Typical Approaches literacy instruction in a Samoan American community. Educational
to Remediation Foundations, 9(4), 57–74.
Evaldsson, A. C. (2005). Staging insults and mobilizing categorizations in
Traditional approaches to remediating reading difficulties a multiethnic peer group. Discourse Society, 16(6), 763–786.
identify the source of reading problems in the student; Farr, M. (2006). Rancheros in Chicagoacan: Language and identity in a
students are seen as lacking skills that are needed for aca- transitional community. Austin: University of Texas Press.
demic success. Remediation involves “fixing” the student. Gee, J. P. (1996). Social linguistics and literacies: Ideology in discourses
(2nd ed.). London: Taylor & Francis.
Everyday practices are not viewed as assets for learning; Gonzalez, N. (2001). I am my language: Discourses of women and children
indeed, everyday ways with words are generally seen as in the borderlands. Tucson: University of Arizona Press.
sources of difficulty for students and as practices to be Goodwin, M. H. (1990). He-said-she-said: Talk as social organization
eliminated, not built upon. Cultural Modeling approaches among black children. Bloomington: Indiana University Press.
278 Marjorie Faulstich Orellana, Jennifer Reynolds, and Danny Cortez Martínez

Goodwin, M. H. (2007). Participation and embodied action in preado- Culture theory: Mind, self, and emotion (pp. 276–320). Cambridge,
lescent girls’ assessment activity. Research on Language & Social UK: Cambridge University Press.
Interaction, 40(4), 353–375. Orellana, M. F. (2001). The work kids do: Mexican and Central American
Gregory, E. (2001). Sisters and brothers as language and literacy teachers: immigrant children’s contributions to households, schools, and com-
Synergy between siblings playing and working together. Journal of munity in California. Harvard Educational Review, 71(3), 366–389.
Early Childhood Literacy, 1(3), 301–322. Orellana, M. F. (2003). Responsibilities of children in Latino immigrant
Guerra, J. C. (1998). Close to home: oral and literate practices in a trans- homes. New Directions for Youth Development, 100, 25–39.
national Mexicano community. New York: Teachers College Press. Orellana, M. F. (2007). Moving words and moving worlds: The challenges
Gutierrez, K., & Rogoff, B. (2003). Cultural ways of learning: Indi- of being “in the middle.” In C. Lewis, P. Enciso, & E. Moje (Eds.),
vidual traits and repertoires of practice. Educational Researcher, Reframing sociocultural research on literacy: Identity, agency, and
32(5), 19–25. power (pp. 123–136). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
Gutierrez, K. (2007). Historicizing literacy. In M. Blackburn & C. Clark Orellana, M. F., Dorner, L. M., & Pulido, L. (2003). Accessing access:
(Eds.), Literacy research for political action (pp. ix–xiii). New York: Immigrant youth’s work as family translators or “paraphrasers.” Social
Peter Lang. Problems, 50(4), 505–524.
Heath, S. B. (1983). Ways with words: language, life, and work in communi- Orellana, M. F., & Eksner, H. J. (2006). Power in cultural modeling: Build-
ties and classrooms. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. ing on the bilingual language practices of immigrant youth in Germany
Kyratzis, A. (2005). Language and culture: Socialization through personal and the U.S. In C. M. Fairbanks, J. Worthy, B. Maloch, J. V. Hoffman,
story-telling practice. Human Development, 48(3), 146–150. & D. L. Schaller (Eds.), National Reading Conference yearbook, 55.
Lee, C. D. (1995). A culturally based cognitive apprenticeship: Teaching (pp. 224–234). Austin, TX: The University of Austin.
African American high school students skills in literary interpretation. Orellana, M. F., Reynolds, J., Dorner, L., & Meza, M. (2003). In other
Reading Research Quarterly, 30, 608–630. words: Translating or “para-phrasing” as a family literacy practice in
Lee, C. D. (1997). Bridging home and school literacies: Models for immigrant households. Reading Research Quarterly, 38(1), 12–34.
culturally responsive teaching, a case for African American English. Orellana, M. F., & Reynolds, J. (2008). Cultural modeling: Leveraging
In J. Flood, S. B. Heath, & D. Lapp (Eds.), Handbook of research bilingual skills for school paraphrasing tasks. Reading Research
on teaching literacy through the communicative and visual arts (pp. Quarterly, 43(1), 48–65.
334–345). New York: MacMillan. Philips, S. U. (1993). The invisible culture: Communication in classroom
Lee, C. D. (2000). Signifying in the zone of proximal development. In C. and community on the Warm Springs Indian reservation. Prospect
D. Lee & P. Smagorinsky (Eds.), Vygotskian perspectives of literacy Heights, IL: Waveland Press.
research: Constructing meaning through collaborative inquiry (pp. Purcell-Gates, V. (1995). Other people’s words: The cycle of low literacy.
191–224). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Lee, C. D. (2007). Culture, literacy, & learning: Taking bloom in the midst Rampton, B. (1995). Crossing: Language and ethnicity among adolescents.
of the whirlwind. New York: Teachers College Press. London: Longman.
Martínez, R., Orellana, M. F., Pacheco, M., & Carbone, P. (2008). Found Reese, L., Goldenberg, C., Loucky, J., & Gallimore, R. (1995). Ecocultural
in translation: Connecting translating experiences to academic writing. context, cultural activity, and emergent literacy: Sources of variation
Language Arts, 85(6), 421–431. in home literacy experiences of Spanish speaking children. In S. W.
Michaels, S. (1981). “Sharing Time”: Children’s narrative styles and dif- Rothstein (Ed.), Class, culture, and race in American schools (pp.
ferential access to literacy. Language in Society, 10, 423–442. 199–224). Westport, CT: Greenwood Press.
Michaels, S. (1985). Hearing the connections in children’s oral and written Reynolds, J. F. (2007). “Buenos Días/(Military Salute)”: The natural his-
discourse. Journal of Education, 167(1), 36–56. tory of a coined insult. Research on Language & Social Interaction,
Miller, P. (1986). Teasing as language socialization and verbal play in a 40(4), 437–465.
White working-class community. In B. Schieffelin & E. Ochs (Eds.), Rogoff, B., Paradise, R., Arauz, R. M., Correa-Chavez, M., & Angelillo,
Language socialization across cultures (pp. 199–212). New York: C. (2003). Firsthand learning through intent participation. Annual
Cambridge University Press. Review of Psychology, 54(1), 175–203.
Minks, A. (2008). Performing gender in song games among Nicaraguan Schieffelin, B. B. (1990). The give and take of everyday life: Language
Miskitu children. Language & Communication, 28(1), 36–56. socialization of Kaluli children. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge Uni-
Moll, L. C. (1990). Introduction. In L. C. Moll (Ed.), Vygotsky and edu- versity Press.
cation: Instructional implications and applications of sociohistorical Scribner, S., & Cole, M. (1981). The psychology of literacy. Cambridge,
psychology (pp. 1–27). New York: Cambridge University Press. MA: Harvard University Press.
Moll, L. C., Amanti, C., Neff, D., & Gonzalez, N. (1992). Funds of knowl- Taylor, D., & Dorsey-Gaines, C. (1988). Growing up literate: Learning
edge for teaching: using a qualitative approach to connect homes to from inner-city families. Portsmouth, N H: Heinemann.
classrooms. Theory into Practice, 31(2), 132–141. Taylor, D. (1998). Beginning to read and the spin doctors of science: The
Moses, R. P., Kamii, M., Swap, S. M., & Howard, J. (1989). The Algebra political campaign to change America’s mind about how children learn
Project: Organizing in the spirit of Ella. Harvard Educational Review, to read. Urbana, IL: National Council of Teachers of English.
59(4), 423–443. Trent, S. C., Artiles, A. J., & Englert, C. S. (1998). From deficit thinking
Nasir, N. S. (2000). “Points aint everything”: Emergent goals and aver- to social constructivism: A review of theory, research, and practice
ages and percent understandings in the play of basketball among in special education. Review of Research in Education, 23, 277–307.
African-American students. Anthropology & Education Quarterly, Valencia, R. R. (1997). The evolution of deficit thinking: Educational
31(3), 283–305. thought and practice. London: Falmer Press.
Nasir, N. S. (2002). Identity, goals, and learning: mathematics in cultural Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). Mind in society: The development of higher
practice. Mathematical Thinking and Learning, 4(2 & 3), 213–247. psychological processes (M. Cole, V. John-Steiner, S. Scribner, & E.
Nasir, N. S. (2005). Individual cognitive structuring and the sociocultural Souberman, Trans.). Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
context: Strategy shifts in the game of dominoes. Journal of the Learn- Warren, B., & Roseberry, A. (1996). “This question is just too, too easy!”:
ing Sciences, 14(1), 5–34. Perspectives from the classroom on accountability in science. In L.
Nasir, N. S., Rosebery, A. S., Warren, B., & Lee, C. D. (2006). Learning Schuble & R. Glaser (Eds.), Innovations in learning: New environments
as a cultural process: Achieving equity through diversity. In K. R. for education (pp. 97–125). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Sawyer (Ed.), The Cambridge handbook of the learning sciences (pp. Zentella, A. C. (1997). Growing up bilingual: Puerto Rican children in
489–504). New York: Cambridge University Press. New York. Malden, MA: Blackwell.
Ochs, E., & Schieffelin, B. (1984). Language acquisition and socializa- Zentella, A. C. (2005). Building on strength: language and literacy in La-
tion: Three developmental stories. In R. Shweder & R. LeVine (Eds.), tino families and communities. New York: Teachers College Press.
 26
Interventions to Develop Phonological
and Orthographic Systems
DARRELL MORRIS
Appalachian State University

Since the publication of Jeanne Chall’s (1967) landmark not surprisingly, the different instructional paths suggested
book, Learning to Read: The Great Debate, research has by the two phoneme awareness positions highlight an old
advanced our understanding of the beginning reading pro- and controversial fissure in the beginning reading field–
cess. While we still may disagree about the “best” method that between phonics- and meaning-emphasis instructional
for teaching beginning reading, the discussion has moved approaches.
beyond a surface comparison of various instructional
approaches to a consideration of the cognitive and devel-
Phonemic Awareness: The Prerequisite Argument
opmental underpinnings of the learning-to-read process
(Adams, 1990; Snow, Burns, & Griffin, 1998; Rayner, Over 30 years ago, in a paper titled, “Speech, the Alphabet,
Foorman, Perfetti, Pesetsky, & Seidenberg, 2001). One and Teaching to Read,” Isabelle Liberman and Donald
dominant concept that has been studied and re-studied over Shankweiler (1979) carefully explained both the theoretical
the past four decades is phonemic awareness—a child’s and practical significance of phonemic awareness. Their
conscious awareness of the phonemic or sound segments argument went something like this:
within a spoken word. Today, any serious reading theorist
or practitioner must take into account the role of phonemic • The reader’s task is to convert print to speech.
awareness in the early stages of learning to read. • An alphabetic writing system maps to speech at the
In this chapter, I contrast two different positions or phoneme level.
ways of thinking about phonemic awareness in the read- • Young children have difficulty segmenting speech into
ing acquisition process. Position 1 (P.A.–first), which has phonemes because the discrete unit of speech perception
exerted considerable influence on teaching practice over the is the syllable, not the phoneme.
past 20 years, views phonemic awareness as an important • Therefore, a first step in teaching reading is to help
prerequisite to learning to read. It holds that children need children become aware of phoneme segments in spoken
to be able to attend to the sound segments in spoken words words so that they can make the initial speech to print
(e.g., /hăt/ = /h/ /ă/ /t/) before they begin to read an alpha- match at a low-order letter-sound level.
betic written language. Position 2 (P.A.–interactive), while
acknowledging the importance of phonemic awareness, Liberman and Shankweiler took point 4—the pedagogical
questions its role as a prerequisite. This alternative posi- implication—seriously. They stated:
tion suggests that a child’s awareness of intra-word sound
segments evolves in the act of learning to read. Therefore, Phonemic analysis is hard because of the encodedness of
spoken speech into units of syllable size; syllabic segmenta-
beginning reading instruction need not await the develop-
tion is demonstrably easier. However, it need not follow that
ment of full phonemic awareness, but instead can precede the phonemic level of analysis should be bypassed at the
and actually facilitate such development. beginning in favor of the syllable or the word. Instead, per-
After reviewing representative research studies that haps the child can be given better preparation for phoneme
support the viability of the P.A.–first and P.A.–interactive segmentation before reading instruction begins. With that
positions, respectively, I will turn to instructional impli- preparation, certain elements of both the so-called phonic
cations that speak directly to the prevention of reading and syllabic methods can be introduced later to good effect.
problems in kindergarten and first grade. Interestingly and (1979, p. 122, emphasis added)

279
280 Darrell Morris

ters. The remaining groups served as controls—Group 3

categorizing the pictures by meaning (e.g., hen goes with
dog), and Group 4 receiving no instruction. Results showed
that children receiving sound categorization training only
(Group 1) scored somewhat higher in reading and spelling
than children in the control groups. However, children
who received sound categorization plus letter instruction
(Group 2) scored significantly higher than the controls on
reading and spelling, and also outperformed the sound
categorization-only group on the spelling measure. These
results suggested that phoneme awareness training can
increase later reading achievement and that teaching chil-
dren to connect letters to sound segments may augment the
effects of such training.
Another pivotal study in the phoneme awareness-first
literature was Share et al. (1984). These researchers as-
Figure 26.1 An example
sessed a wide variety of reading-related factors (including
of Elkonin’s phoneme
segmentation training oral language, memory, and motor skills) in a sample of
procedure. preschoolers. Reading achievement was assessed at the end
of kindergarten and first grade. Results showed that the two
As an example of phonemic analysis training, Liberman and strongest predictors of end-of-kindergarten and end-of-first-
Shankweiler cited the work of the Russian psychologist, grade reading achievement were phoneme segmentation and
Elkonin (1973). In Elkonin’s procedure, the child is presented letter-name knowledge (r’s above .60). The identification
with a line drawing of a familiar object or animal. Below the of letter-name knowledge as an important co-predictor
drawing is a rectangle divided into sections; for example, of reading achievement helped to explain (a) why the ef-
the word, /pĭg/, would have three sections (see Figure 26.1). fectiveness of phoneme awareness training is enhanced by
The child is taught to say the word slowly, putting a counter a letter-sound matching component, and (b) why young
into the appropriate section as he or she pronounces each children’s invented spelling performance (which requires
phoneme. This task is repeated with many different words both phonemic awareness and letter knowledge) is a good
until the child can successfully perform the segmentation predictor of later reading achievement (see Mann, Tobin, &
task without the diagram. According to Liberman and Shank- Wilson, 1987; Morris & Perney, 1984). Taken together, the
weiler (1979), this represents the end of the prereading phase: Bradley and Bryant (1983) and Share et al. (1984) studies
“Once the child has been taught, by whatever method, to definitely encouraged future researchers to include alphabet
segment spoken syllables into their phonemic components, letters in phoneme awareness training studies.
the graphic representations [letters] of the phonemes can be Through the 1990s, reading researchers continued to
introduced” (p. 124). Then the long process of learning to conduct phoneme awareness training studies in kindergar-
convert print into speech (i.e., reading) begins. ten classrooms (e.g., Ball & Blachman, 1991; O’Connor,
During the 1970s and 1980s, Liberman and Shank- Notari-Syverson, & Vasdasy, 1996; Torgesen, Morgan, &
weiler’s phoneme awareness-first position was supported by Davis, 1992). A good example was a study by Blachman,
many studies showing that phonemic awareness, measured Ball, Black, & Tangel (1994). Non-reading kindergartners
prior to first grade, is a powerful predictor of future read- were placed into treatment (N = 84) and control (N = 75)
ing achievement (e.g., Bradley & Bryant, 1983; Helfgott, groups. Children in the treatment group received 41 pho-
1976; Liberman, Shankweiler, Fischer, & Carter, 1974; neme segmentation/alphabet letter lessons provided by the
Share, Jorm, Maclean, & Matthews, 1984). Two of these classroom teacher. Each lesson the children (a) practiced
early studies deserve special mention. Bradley and Bryant moving a blank tile down a page as they pronounced each
(1983) was really two studies within one. First, using a large phoneme in a word, and (b) drilled on a few letter names
sample (N = 368), the researchers found a strong relation- and letter sounds. After the kindergartners could segment
ship (r = .57) between children’s pre-school phonemic two- and three-phoneme words using the “say it and move
awareness and their reading achievement three years later. it” procedure, they practiced segmenting words using tiles
Second, within their longitudinal design, Bradley and Bry- and letters. A variety of activities were used to reinforce
ant were able to conduct one of the first phoneme awareness phonemic segmentation and letter-sound learning. The
training studies. They divided a group of low scorers (N = control group received traditional kindergarten literacy
68) on their phoneme awareness pretest into four groups. instruction that included letter-sound work. Results showed
Group 1 received sound categorization training only (e.g., that the treatment group (phonemic awareness + letter/
pictures of hen and hot go together because they share the sounds) outperformed the control group on measures of
same initial sound). Group 2 categorized the same pictures, phonemic awareness (d = 1.83), word recognition (d =.65),
but also learned to represent the shared sounds with let- and spelling (d = .94).
 Interventions to Develop Phonological and Orthographic Systems 281

In summary, phoneme awareness-first research in the spellings: (a) visually distinctive spellings whose letters did
1980s and 1990s supported Liberman and Shankweiler’s not correspond to sounds (e.g., wbc for giraffe), and (b)
(1979) original insights about the phenomenon. It turns simplified phonetic spellings that did contain letter-sound
out that we can teach prereaders to attend to phonemes correspondences (e.g., LFT for elephant). Results showed
within spoken words, and that, subsequently, this ability that the prereaders learned the visual spellings more easily
helps the children to read and spell words. It also seems than the phonetic spellings, but the opposite was true for the
clear that including letters in phoneme awareness training novice readers. They learned the phonetic spellings more
provides children with important insight into the alphabetic easily than the visual spellings. This suggested that the
nature (grapheme-phoneme pairings) of printed English novice readers used their superior letter-name knowledge
(Gough & Hillinger, 1980; Perfetti, 1992). Nonetheless, in learning the phonetic spellings, perhaps using the letter-
we should keep in mind that individual children differ in name cues of a given spelling (e.g., JL) to help remember
the ease with which they acquire phonemic awareness. In its spoken word match (“jail”). Commenting on this study
fact, some beginning readers and writers learn to segment several years later, Ehri (1996, p. 193) stated:
words into phonemes even when the skill is not explicitly
taught (e.g., consider children taught with the whole-word The [1985] study supported my contention that there is an
approach of the 1950s, or, for that matter, with the whole- intermediate phase in the development of word reading that
comes between the [logographic] phase and the later cipher
language approach of the 1990s). This raises an important
[or phonetic] reading phase. In this intermediate phase,
question. Besides explicit instruction, is there another way beginners store partial letter-sound cues–for example,
for beginning readers to acquire phonemic awareness, and, beginning and ending letter-sounds–to remember how to
if so, how does it work? read words. I called this type of word reading phonetic
cue reading.
Phonemic Awareness: The Interactive Argument
A second and quite different study (Stuart & Coltheart,
By the mid-1980s, the predominant phoneme awareness- 1988) provided further support for the existence of an
first position had led to a stage-like explanation of beginning intermediate stage between Frith’s logographic and alpha-
reading (see Frith, 1985; Marsh, Friedman, Welch, & Des- betic stages. Stuart and Coltheart assessed 36 children’s
berg, 1981; Seymour & MacGregor, 1984). For example, phonological awareness just prior to school entry (e.g., de-
Frith (1985) described three stages. In the logographic tection of rhyme, identification of final syllables and initial
stage, children recognize familiar words by attending to phonemes). Then, at 2-month intervals across kindergarten
salient, visual features (e.g., the “two circles” in the middle and first grade, the researchers assessed the children’s letter-
of look, or the “tail” at the end of big); however, they do not sound knowledge and their ability to read single words to
use phonology or letter-sounds as a means of word identi- which they had been exposed in the classroom. A standard-
fication. In the second or alphabetic stage, children decode ized reading assessment was administered to the children
new words by attending to the sequential letter- sounds in at the end of first, second, and third grade.
the words (e.g., m → a → p). Finally, in Frith’s third or Although there were several interesting findings in this
orthographic stage, children read words not by sounding- longitudinal study, let us focus on the patterns of word-
out sequential letter sounds, but rather by attending to reading errors the children made, and how these related
distinctive spelling or orthographic patterns (e.g., fl-at; to preschool phonological awareness and later reading
m- ake; sp- eak; fl- ight). According to Frith’s three-stage achievement. Stuart and Coltheart (1988) divided the chil-
model, phonemic awareness is absent in the logographic dren’s reading errors into six patterns or groups (see Table
stage and unnecessary in the orthographic stage. However, 26.1). Notice in the table that errors in Group 3 featured
it is absolutely necessary in the pivotal alphabetic stage; a correct letter-sound in the initial position, and errors in
to decode sequential letter sounds, one must be aware that Group 5 featured correct letter-sounds in the initial and final
words are composed of sounds. positions. (Note: There were few Group 6 errors.)
A few psychologists, at the time, questioned stage theo- Regarding these error patterns, Stuart and Coltheart
ries such as Frith’s. They asked: Does attending to salient (1988) made three points. First, the incidence of each child’s
visual cues (logographic stage) and, later, sounding-out errors in Groups 1, 2, and 4 (non-phonological) decreased
letter sequences (alphabetic stage) fully explain how begin- over time, whereas the incidence of errors in Groups 3 and
ning readers identify printed words? Ehri and Wilce (1985) 5 (phonological) increased. Second, only errors in Groups
and Stuart and Coltheart (1988) thought not, and the studies 3 and 5 correlated positively with reading achievement, the
they conducted provided a new way of thinking about the Group 5 pattern (beginning and ending letter-sounds) show-
role of phonemic awareness in beginning reading. ing a high correlation with reading age (r = .83) at the end
In a laboratory study, Ehri and Wilce (1985) divided of first grade. And third, preschool phonological knowledge,
kindergarten children into prereaders who read no words when coupled with letter-sound scores, proved to be a good
and did not know many letters (6.7) and novice readers predictor of overall first-grade reading performance, as well
who could read a few words and knew most of their letters as quality of single-word reading errors.
(20.6). The children were taught to read two types of word For Stuart and Coltheart (1988), the reading errors made
282 Darrell Morris

TABLE 26.1 shield: SH-EE-LD. Upon seeing the IE spelling of the

Six error groups in Stuart & Coltheart’s (1988) study vowel, he has a chance to process, and store in memory,
Group Identifying Characteristic % total the correct spelling of the word. In Share’s words, “Suc-
1 (Partial or irrelevant information used) 20% cessful decoding encounters with new letter strings provide
Target Error
opportunities to learn word-specific print-to-meaning con-
play sister nections” (p.151).
look baby Drawing on the work of Ehri and Wilce (1985), Stu-
rat-tat ice-cream art and Coltheart (1988), Perfetti (1992), and others,
2 (Letters or letter segments used) 13% Share (1995) argued that a limited but functional form of
school home self-teaching also exists for beginning readers. This self-
play help teaching process depends on three factors: (a) letter-sound
made am knowledge, (b) partial phonemic awareness (e.g., aware-
3 (Beginning letter used) 32% ness of beginning or beginning and ending sounds), and
cat car (c) the ability to use context to determine specific word
yellow you pronunciations based on limited letter-sound processing.
wait white For example, suppose a kindergarten child, who possesses
4 (Final letter used) 11% letter knowledge and awareness of beginning and ending
hat cat sounds, is reading the following sentence: The puppy plays
reading driving in the mud. On reading the final word, mud, the child’s
lorry boy
phonological anticipation or existing word-recognition
5 (Both beginning and ending letters used) 20% unit (i.e., M - D) is confirmed by sentence context (and
bird bad possibly a supporting picture). Furthermore, the additional
goat got letter in the middle of the word (i.e., u) could inform the
bell ball
child, visually, that there is another phoneme to be ac-
6 (Target included in error) 3% counted for, thus driving awareness of medial vowels (see
looks look Morris, 1993). In any case, we see how the combination
coming comes
of letter-sound knowledge, partial phonemic awareness,
boy boys
and sentence context can enable a neophyte to read simple
* Adapted from Table 9 of “Does reading develop in a sequence of stages?” by texts. Share (1995) put it this way: “There is evidence that
M. Stuart & M. Coltheart, 1988, Cognition, 30, pp. 139–181. Reprinted with
permission from Elsevier Press. rudimentary, yet functional self-teaching may develop at
the very outset of learning to read, sufficient perhaps to lay
by the children provided a view of the developing word down primitive orthographic representations (see Perfetti,
recognition process. A beginning reader’s pattern of errors 1992) well before the child has acquired conventional
(see Table 26.1) revealed the underlying analytical frame decoding skill (p. 163).” (Note: Self-teaching of this kind
available to him or her at a given point in time. For example, also depends on finger-point reading skill or the ability to
reading “rag” for cup revealed a logographic analytical match spoken words to printed words in reading a line of
frame; reading “can” for cup, a beginning letter-sound text (see Clay, 1991; Morris, 1993).
frame; and reading “cap” for cup, a beginning-and-ending In summary, we see that there is theoretical and research
letter-sound frame. These latter two frames, or partial word support for both phoneme awareness positions: P.A.–first and
recognition units (i.e., C - - and C - P for cup), hark back to P.A.–interactive. With regard to preventing reading problems
Ehri and Wilce’s (1985) notion of “phonetic cue reading.” in kindergarten and first-grade, both camps acknowledge
Their significance is that they allow the child to move into that, early on, children need to develop letter knowledge
reading with incomplete phoneme awareness. Armed with and awareness that spoken words are comprised of sounds.
just a few sight words and knowledge of beginning letter- However, P.A.–first supporters stress that phonemic aware-
sounds, he or she can begin to read simple texts, using ness should be taught explicitly prior to formal reading
the act of reading to help complete or fill in partial word instruction, whereas P.A.–interactive supporters believe that,
recognition units (e.g., B - -, B - G, BIG). This interactive given minimum entry-level knowledge, the process of early
(or reciprocal) relationship between phonemic awareness reading can actually promote further phonemic awareness. It
and early reading has been described in several places (see is important to note, here, that phonemic awareness does not
Morris, 1993; Perfetti, 1986), but nowhere more fully than develop in a vacuum (via maturation, for example); instead,
in the research synthesis by Share (1995). how and when the ability develops depends on the type of
Share’s (1995) major premise was that phonological reading experiences provided to children. I turn now to in-
recoding (or simply decoding), functions as a self-teaching structional implications of the two theoretical positions.
mechanism across levels of reading development. Think
of a third-grade boy reading the following sentence: “The
Instructional Implications
sword struck his shield with a glancing blow.” Possessing
phonemic awareness and letter-sound knowledge, the child To provide a framework for discussing instruction, I will
might be expecting the following spelling of the new word use a developmental model of printed word learning that
 Interventions to Develop Phonological and Orthographic Systems 283

Figure 26.2 Developmental model of printed

word learning.

we tested several years ago (Morris, Bloodgood, Lomax, & The developmental model depicted in Figure 26.2 is not
Perney, 2003) (see Figure 26.2). Although this model was meant to represent the only path to reading acquisition. Dif-
originally intended to explain word recognition develop- ferent instructional schemes (e.g., storybook-, sight word-,
ment in a traditional, meaning-based instructional setting, or phonics-emphasis), will influence, to a degree, the course
it can be used to examine pedagogical implications of both of development (Barr, 1984). Nonetheless, Morris et al.’s
the P.A.–first and P.A.–interactive positions. The model (2003) model does provide a useful framework for examin-
comprises seven components or ability areas: alphabet ing the different instructional implications of the P.A.–first
knowledge (ABC), beginning consonant awareness (BC), and P.A.–interactive positions.
concept of word in text (CW), spelling with beginning and
ending consonants (SPBE), phoneme segmentation (PS), Phoneme Awareness–First: Instructional Implications
word recognition (WR), and contextual reading (READ). In a sense, we have already touched on instructional im-
Over time, beginning of kindergarten to end of first grade plications of the phoneme awareness-first position (see
(T1 to T5), the components are expected to exert their de- training study by Blachman et al., 1994). The idea is to
velopmental influence as shown in Figure 26.2. make a “frontal attack” on the phoneme awareness factor,
At Time 1, beginning of kindergarten, the model features teaching beginning readers to (a) attend to the individual
alphabet knowledge and beginning consonant awareness. phonemes in spoken words; (b) match alphabet letters to
It is assumed that alphabet knowledge (ability to name the these phonemes; (c) blend letter-sounds into words (e.g.,
letters) tends to precede and facilitate attention to the be- hat = h -> a -> t); and (d) read simple texts that reinforce
ginning consonant sound in words (Johnston, Anderson, & decoding of regular CVC words. For example:
Holligan, 1996; Stahl & Murray, 1994). At Time 2, middle
Max can not nap in my hat.
of kindergarten, concept of word in text and spelling with
beginning and ending consonants come to the fore. By this Max can nap on this mat.
time, children have learned to use beginning consonant cues
to guide their finger point reading of simple texts. As their Referring to Figure 26.2, notice that such intensive
concept of word in text stabilizes (i.e., begins to “stand phonics instruction, for that is what it amounts to, bypasses
still” for analysis), they begin to process other sounds in the components of Morris et al.’s (2003) developmental model.
word, particularly the ending consonant. They also commit Why worry about beginning consonant (BC) or beginning-
a few words to sight memory (Morris, 1993). At Time 3, and-ending consonant (SPBE) stages of development if the
end of kindergarten, phoneme segmentation (or awareness first goal of instruction is to make children aware of each
of the sequential sounds in a syllable) is the targeted ability. sound in a word (beginning, middle, and ending)? The P.A.–
Finger point reading and writing practice over the second first instructional model is depicted in Figure 26.3:
half of kindergarten lead children to refine their phonemic
awareness so that they now can attend to the medial vowel
in spoken words (e.g., /dĭg/ = /d/ /ĭ/ g/). At Time 4, 2 months PS WR
into first grade, word recognition is the ability of interest.
Armed with phonemic awareness, the underlying “glue” that
allows printed words to adhere in memory (Adams, 1990;
Ehri, 1992), and benefiting from direct reading instruction,
first graders demonstrate word recognition skill after a few
months in school. Moreover, the ability to decode printed
words and to establish a small sight vocabulary in October ABC
of first grade is predictive of contextual reading skill at
Time 5, the end of first grade. Figure 26.3 Does reading develope in a sequence of stages?
284 Darrell Morris

The advantages of such an approach seem clear. First, or phonics instruction? These are important questions for
intensive phonics instruction quickly and directly gets both researchers and teachers.
at the roots of decoding skill—i.e., phonemic awareness Another possible disadvantage of an intensive phonics
and letter-sound knowledge. And keep in mind that Share approach concerns the time allotted to such instruction.
(1995) argued that decoding (or phonological recoding) is Many kindergarten children enter school with an underde-
the central process in learning to read. Second, such instruc- veloped “set for literacy” (Holdaway, 1979). Along with
tion is explicit and systematic, leaving little to chance. The letter-sound knowledge, they may lack general information
child’s mind does not have to fill in pieces of the decod- and word meanings, and be unfamiliar with story structure
ing puzzle; the pieces are directly taught. Third, phonics and the cadence of written language. Each of these areas
instruction is relatively easy to break into sequential steps, must be addressed in kindergarten (and later grades) because
making it attractive to designers of instructional programs. they will ultimately determine how well a child can read
Although teaching routines and workbook activities can be with understanding (see Whitehurst & Lonigan, 2001). The
programmed, effective phonics instruction still depends on kindergarten teacher’s challenging task is to touch each of
teacher judgment. The teacher must know when to advance these curriculum bases. Too great an emphasis on phonics,
a group of students in the phonics curriculum and when to to the exclusion of broader literacy concerns, may produce
stay put, spending more time on a given concept to insure good decoders at the end of the year; however, these same
mastery. students may perform poorly on a reading comprehension
The potential disadvantages of an intensive phonics test administered three years later. Again, this is not a
approach are sometimes difficult for non-educators to defining flaw in a phonics-based reading program. One
recognize. For example, a research psychologist, who can envision a classroom where there is an effective bal-
understands the importance of phonemic awareness and ance between direct phonics instruction, guided reading of
letter-sound knowledge, may see phonics as a direct and decodable texts, reading good literature to children, build-
concrete way to introduce reading. But ... what is concrete ing meaning vocabulary, and encouraging self-expression
to the adult reader (e.g., phonemes and alphabet letters) through writing.
can be abstract and meaningless to a five-year-old child.
During the pre-school years, function (or meaning), Phoneme awareness–interactive: Instructional implica-
not form, has been front-and-center in the child’s use tions Instructional implications of the phoneme aware-
of language. However, with P.A.–first instruction, he or ness–interactive position more closely fit the developmental
she abruptly is confronted with form, and not the larger model depicted in Figure 26.2. Let us consider how such
structural units first (e.g., sentence, word), but the smallest, instruction might unfold across the kindergarten year. Over
most difficult to detect unit—the phoneme. What if the the first few months of school, Ms. Harris teaches alpha-
kindergarten child has difficulty attending to individual bet letter-sound correspondences and demonstrates to her
sounds in spoken words? Is the pedagogical response students how to sort spoken words [pictures] by beginning
simply to provide more practice or drill, resulting in pos- consonant sound. She also carefully models how to match
sible frustration or confusion on the learner’s part? Or, spoken words to printed words when reading short, memo-
could more global literacy experiences (e.g., attempting rized texts (see Figure 26.4). These two lines of instruc-
to finger-point read big books, or to write with invented tion (letter-sounds and supported reading), repeated daily,
spellings) serve to ready the child for phoneme-awareness eventually enable Ms. Harris’s students to use beginning

____________________________________________________________________________
Figure 26.4 Three examples of
beginning reading texts. (1) Leveled book (excerpt) (2) Dictated story

“I can run,” said the boy, We made popcorn.

“and a horse can run, too.” We made it in a popcorn popper.
“I can jump,” said the girl, We put butter and salt on
“and a rabbit can jump too.” the popcorn.

(3) Nursery rhyme

Humpty Dumpty sat on a wall;

Humpty Dumpty had a great fall;

All the king’s horses

And all the king’s men
Couldn’t put Humpty together again.

____________________________________________________________________________
 Interventions to Develop Phonological and Orthographic Systems 285

consonant letter-sound cues to guide their own finger-point (Chomsky, 1979; Clay, 1985; Richgels, 2001). Given
reading efforts. Morris et al. (2003) described the process beginning-and-ending consonant awareness, each time a
as follows: child attempts to sound-out a new spelling, he or she is
on the cutting edge of vowel awareness. The teacher can
As the child learns letter-sound relationships and begins play a helpful role here.
to appreciate the significance of spacing between words,
finger-point (or word-by-word) reading becomes possible. Teacher: James, you got the beginning and ending letters
Spoken words (e.g., /pădl/) can be matched to printed words in “jeep”–J and P. Say the word slowly, and see
(e.g., paddle) because there is a space between words and
if you can hear what sound or letter goes in the
a beginning letter-sound match. (p. 307)
middle.
Child: I cxx pxxxxx a bxxx. James: /j - ē - p/. An “e” goes in the middle.
Text: I can paddle a boat Teacher: Good, write it down.

With practice, Ms. Harris’s kindergartners become more A third way the teacher can foster vowel awareness is
skillful at using spacing and beginning consonant cues to to use a “say it and move it” phonics strategy (Blachman et
track print. At this point, the printed word begins “to stand al., 1994; Morris, 2003). Here, the child says a target word
still” for some children, making further analysis possible. (e.g., “mat”) and then moves letter chips, one by one, to
For example, on meeting the word boat in our example construct its spelling (see Figure 26.5). Or, the teacher can
sentence (I can paddle a boat.), a kindergarten girl may be construct the word—letter by letter—and have the child
routinely processing only beginning consonant letter-sounds attempt to decode it. Such an explicit teaching strategy be-
(i.e., b - -). Nonetheless, if her phonological anticipation comes important if a student has undue difficulty attending
for the word is /bōt,/, then she is confronted, visually, with to medial vowel sounds. In fact, this ‘‘say it and move it”
an ending letter (-t ) that matches the final phoneme (/t/) strategy is often used with students who have severe phono-
in the anticipated word. Repeated occurrences of this kind logical processing problems (e.g., Wilson Phonics, Wilson,
could lead the child to begin processing both beginning 1996). Nonetheless, for most children, once basic phoneme
and ending consonant letter-sounds in her word recogni- awareness is attained, such isolated skill instruction can be
tion attempts. discontinued. Blachman (1997) put it this way:

Child: I cxn pxddlx a bxxt. Once children are aware that speech can be segmented
Text: I can paddle a boat. and that these segmented units can be represented by
letters, [they] should be engaged in reading and spelling
Once a child can consistently process beginning and instruction that utilizes these insights… This is not meant
ending consonants in printed words (e.g., B - T for boat), to suggest that the development of phoneme awareness is
there are several ways to develop further phonemic aware- complete or even adequate at the point that children can
ness, specifically, awareness of the medial vowel. First, in demonstrate success on the simpler phoneme awareness
reading simple texts, the child’s concomitant attention to tasks… The question is how best to facilitate develop of
phoneme awareness after those early discoveries. There is
beginning and ending consonant letter-sounds may serve
no evidence that it is advantageous to continue to develop
to frame the interior of a printed word for further sound- phoneme awareness outside the context of learning to read
letter analysis. That is, the unaccounted-for letter(s) in and spell words, once those early discoveries are made.
the printed word (e.g., cxn, pxd-, or bxxt) may promote (pp. 416–417)
attention to the medial vowel in the corresponding spoken
word (e.g., /căn/, /păd/, or /bōt/). A second way to guide This discussion has taken us from the beginning to the
young children’s attention to the medial vowel sound end of kindergarten, or from time points 1 to 3 in Figure
is to have them write stories using invented spellings 26.2. The hypothetical kindergarten children progressed

Figure 26.5 Making words with individual

letters.
286 Darrell Morris

from alphabet knowledge and beginning consonant aware- blends, and short- and long-vowel patterns. Results show
ness at T1, to concept of word in text and beginning and end- that, given this balance of story reading and systematic
ing consonant awareness at T2, to full phonemic processing phonics, Early Steps students outperform controls on mea-
(beginning, middle, and end) at T3. The main instructional sures of word recognition, sentence comprehension, and
vehicle was supported storybook reading, supplemented by pseudo-word decoding. These findings counter the fear that
phonics instruction and writing experiences. What should be P.A.–interactive instruction will fail to develop decoding
quite apparent in this scenario is the important role played skill in beginning readers.
by partial word-recognition units (Ehri & Wilce, 1985; A second disadvantage of P.A.–interactive instruction,
Stuart & Coltheart, 1988; Share, 1995) in the developing to some at least, is that it requires considerable teacher
reading process. knowledge. A teacher’s manual can suggest a sequence
There are several advantages to a P.A.–interactive or of stories to be read and phonics skills to be mastered,
story-reading approach. First, guided reading of stories and even describe some general instructional routines.
and dictated accounts provides children with a concrete, However, a manual cannot address the moment-to-moment
meaningful entry into reading. They are able to start with decision making that defines good teaching. To skillfully
the larger pieces of written language (story, sentence) and guide young children’s story book reading, a teacher needs
work down to the smaller, more abstract pieces (words, to understand the developmental reading process. That is,
letter-sounds). These smaller bits (e.g., beginning consonant he or she must know which skills come in first, second,
awareness and letter-sound correspondences) are taught and so on, and how to intervene effectively when a child is
directly and then infused into the story reading through stalled. Some teachers are able to acquire such pedagogi-
careful teacher modeling. A second advantage is that guided cal knowledge through experience (trial and error); others
story reading, as opposed to isolated phonics instruction, are not so fortunate. This remains an important challenge
is a multi-dimensional task that simultaneously addresses for teacher education (preservice and inservice); how to
several aspects of literacy learning, including concept of develop knowledgeable, problem-solving teachers to work
word, application of letter-sound knowledge, sight word with struggling beginning readers.
acquisition, meaning vocabulary, and comprehension.
This integration of multiple knowledge areas in the same
Conclusion
task speaks to the “instructional time” problem facing the
teacher. That is, time-wise, guided reading of a big book or In this chapter, I have examined two theoretical positions
dictated story can “kill several birds with one stone.” regarding the development of phonemic awareness in the
A possible third advantage of having children read beginning reading process. One position, phoneme aware-
simple texts from the start was pointed out by Clay (1991). ness–first, is better understood by educators (whether they
Although acknowledging that reading could be introduced accept it or not) and has exerted considerable influence on
to children at different levels (e.g., letter-sound, word, teaching practice (e.g., National Reading Panel, 2000; No
sentence, or story), Clay argued that supported reading of Child Left Behind Act, 2002). The other position, phoneme
simple stories affords more cues to the child who struggles. awareness–interactive, has largely been ignored by educa-
(Note. This is the premise on which her Reading Recovery tors, ironically even at times when it could have provided
program was based.) When a beginner reads a list of short support for favored, holistic teaching approaches. I wish
a words (e.g., hat, man, bag, sad, and clap), he or she is to conclude with a short history lesson. Going back just 25
limited to using letter-sound cues. However, when the same years, I believe, reveals an interesting story that summarizes
child comes upon the word, sad, in a story, he or she can the past and clarifies what could happen in the future.
potentially use letter-sound, word-order, and meaning cues My story begins in the mid-1980s. At that time, the
to identify the word. The effective use of multiple cues, whole-word approach—i.e., the formulaic repetition of a
according to Clay, fosters adaptability and independence set of high-frequency words—still characterized beginning
in the beginning reader. reading instruction in the United States (Chall, 1967). It is
Turning to disadvantages of P.A.–interactive instruction, true that basal reader programs of the 1980s had increased
some argue that story reading, accompanied by incidental the amount of phonics instruction in first grade; however,
phonics instruction, is ineffective, or at least inefficient, in there was little attention to beginning readers’ cognitive
developing decoding skill. The idea is that hit-and-miss readiness for such an increase in phonics. During this
letter-sound instruction will not get the job done. However, same period, psychologists were busily studying the role of
from a P.A.–interactive perspective, there is no require- phonemic awareness in reading acquisition. Their findings
ment that phonics be taught incidentally (i.e., geared to an suggested that phonemic awareness might be an important
immediate student need). In the Early Steps intervention prerequisite to learning to read an alphabetic language.
program (Morris, Tyner, & Perney, 2000; Santa & Hoien, In the 1990s there was a sea change in beginning reading
1999), struggling first graders read leveled stories each day, instruction. During this Whole Language period, a meaning-
but they are also paced, at their individual learning rates, ful, storybook introduction to reading was favored, while
through a systematic phonics curriculum that includes be- word control and phonics were de-emphasized. Basal reader
ginning consonants, short-vowel word families, consonant programs of the decade embodied this point of view. Initially,
 Interventions to Develop Phonological and Orthographic Systems 287

many educators seemed pleased and energized by the new Allington, R., & Woodside-Jiron, H. (1999). The politics of literacy
emphasis on meaning and holism; however, psychologists teaching: How “research” shaped educational policy. Educational
Researcher, 28, 4–13.
who had been studying the beginning reading process were Ball, E., & Blachman, B. (1991). Does phoneme awareness training in
confused and, in some cases, angry. They believed that kindergarten make a difference in early word recognition and devel-
their research, documenting the importance of phonemic opmental spelling? Reading Research Quarterly, 26, 49–66.
awareness and letter-sound knowledge, was being ignored Barr, R. (1984). Beginning reading instruction: From debate to reformation.
by reading educators. And to some degree, they were cor- In P. D. Pearson, R. Barr, M. Kamil, & P. Mosenthal (Eds.), Handbook
of reading research (pp. 545–581). New York: Longman.
rect. Interestingly, within the psychological community, the Blachman, B. (1997). Early intervention and phonological awareness: A
developmental course of phonemic awareness was being re- cautionary tale. In B. Blachman (Ed.), Foundations of reading acquisi-
thought. By the mid-1990s, several prominent theorists (e.g., tion and dyslexia: Implications for early intervention (pp. 409–430).
Ehri, Stuart & Coltheart, Perfetti, Share) were suggesting Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
that phonemic awareness bears a reciprocal (or interactive), Blachman, B., Ball, E., Black, R., & Tangel, D. (1994). Kindergarten teach-
ers develop phoneme awareness in low-income, inner-city classrooms:
as opposed to a prerequisite, relationship to reading acquisi- Does it make a difference? Reading and Writing, 6, 1–17.
tion. Although this theoretical stance provided potential sup- Bradley, L., & Bryant, P. (1983). Categorizing sounds and learning to read:
port for a holistic introduction to reading, it too was ignored A causal connection. Nature, 30, 419–421.
by the reading education community. (Note: Marie Clay was Chall, J. (1967). Learning to read: The great debate. New York: McGraw-
an exception here. Her work [1985, 1991], had long been Hill.
Chomsky, C. (1979). Approaching reading through invented spelling. In
guided by a P.A.–interactive perspective.) L. Resnick & P. Weaver (Eds.), Theory and practice of early reading
Around the year 2000, there was a strong reaction to (Vol. 2, pp. 43–65). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Whole Language instruction. Fourth-grade reading test Clay, M. (1985). The early detection of reading difficulties. Auckland,
scores had fallen (at least in California), and a new group New Zealand: Heinemann
of reading experts had gotten the attention of educational Clay, M. (1991). Becoming literate: The construction of inner control.
Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.
policy makers. This new group (see Allington & Woodside- Ehri, L. (1992). Reconceptualizing the development of sight word reading
Jiron, 1999; Lyon, 2001), claiming the imprimatur of and its relationship to recoding. In P. Gough, L. Ehri, & R. Treiman
science, recommended that beginning readers, from the (Eds.), Reading acquisition (pp. 107–143). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
start, should be taught phonemic awareness and phonics— Ehri, L. (1996). Researching how children learn how to read: Controver-
explicitly and systematically. So much for holism. Federal sies in science are not like controversies in practice. In G. Brannigan
(Ed.), The enlightened educator: Research adventures in the schools
policy makers adopted the new, “scientific” position in their (pp. 179–204). Boston, MA: McGraw-Hill.
Reading First initiative (NCLB), and basal reader publish- Ehri, L., & Wilce, L. (1985). Movement into reading: Is the first stage of
ers quickly followed suit, providing the needed materials. printed word learning visual or phonetic? Reading Research Quarterly,
By 2005, intensive phonics instruction, along with practice 20, 163–179.
reading decodable text, was the standard introduction to Elkonin, D.B. (1973). U.S.S.R. In J. Downing (Ed.), Comparative reading
(pp. 551–580). New York: Macmillan.
reading for most American schoolchildren. Frith, U. (1985). Beneath the surface of developmental dyslexia. In K.
What are we to make of this proverbial “pendulum Patterson, J. Marshall, & M. Coltheart (Eds.), Surface dyslexia: Neu-
swing” in beginning reading instruction (from part to whole ropsychological and cognitive studies of phonological reading (pp.
to part to ...)? First, we should acknowledge that teaching 301–330). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
children to read is a complex matter, involving differences in Gough, P., & Hillinger, M. (1980). Learning to read: An unnatural act.
Bulletin of the Orton Society, 30, 179–196.
learners, teachers, methods, and materials. Where complex- Helfgott, J. (1976). Phonemic segmentation and blending skills of kin-
ity reigns, there will always be differences of opinion and, dergarten children: Implications for beginning reading acquisition.
in the case of teaching beginning reading, different ways Contemporary Educational Psychology, 1, 157–169.
to accomplish the task. In this chapter, I have focused on Holdaway, D. (1979). The foundations of literacy. Portsmouth, NH:
the role of phonemic awareness in learning to read. I have Hieneman
Johnston, R., Anderson, M., & Holligan, C. (1996). Knowledge of the
reviewed two theoretical perspectives and argued that the alphabet and explicit awareness of phonemes in prereaders: The nature
way one thinks about the development of phonemic aware- of the relationship. Reading and Writing, 8, 217–234.
ness has important implications for teaching beginning Liberman, I., & Shankweiler, D. (1979). Speech, the alphabet, and teaching
readers. When, not if, the instructional pendulum swings to read. In L. Resnick & P. Weaver (Eds.), Theory and practice of early
back once more (this time, toward holism), perhaps it should reading (Vol. 2, pp. 109–132). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Liberman, I., Shankweiler, D., Fischer, F., & Carter, B. (1974). Explicit
settle somewhere in the middle, near to what I have termed syllable and phoneme segmentation in the young child. Journal of
the phoneme awareness-interactive position. At the least, Experimental Child Psychology, 18, 201–212.
next time around, teacher educators and practicing teach- Lyon, G. R. (2001). Testimony of Dr. G. Reid Lyon, Chief of Child
ers should know that there is a middle, one that is clearly Development and Behavior Branch (NICHD), to the House Subcom-
outlined in the research literature. mittee on Education Reform. Retrieved from http://www.hhs.gov/asl/
testify/t010308.html
Mann, V., Tobin, P., & Wilson, R. (1987). Measuring phonological aware-
References ness through the invented spellings of kindergarten children. Merrill-
Palmer Quarterly, 33, 365–391.
Adams, M. (1990). Beginning to read: Thinking and learning about print. Marsh, G., Friedman, M., Welch, V., & Desberg, P. (1981). A cognitive-
Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. developmental theory of reading acquisition. In G. MacKinnon & T.
288 Darrell Morris

Waller (Eds.), Reading research: Advances in theory and practice Rayner, K., Foorman, B., Perfetti, C., Pesetsky, D., & Seidenberg, M.
(Vol. 3, pp. 201–215). New York: Academic Press. (2001). How psychological science informs the teaching of reading.
Morris, D. (1993). The relationship between children’s concept of word Psychological Science in the Public Interest, 2, 31–74.
in text and phoneme awareness: A longitudinal study. Research in the Richgels, D. (2001). Invented spelling, phonemic awareness, and reading
Teaching of English, 27, 133–154. and writing instruction. In S. Neuman & D. Dickinson (Eds.), Hand-
Morris, D. (2003). Reading instruction in kindergarten. In D. Morris & book of early literacy research (pp. 142–155). New York: Guilford.
R. Slavin (Eds.), Every child reading (pp. 8–32). Boston: Allyn and Santa, C., & Hoien, T. (1999). An assessment of Early Steps: A program
Bacon. for early intervention of reading problems. Reading Research Quar-
Morris, D., Bloodgood, J., Lomax, R., & Perney, J. (2003). Developmental terly, 34, 54–79.
steps in learning to read: A longitudinal study in kindergarten and first Seymour, P., & MacGregor, C. (1984). Developmental dyslexia: A cogni-
grade. Reading Research Quarterly, 38, 302–328. tive experimental analysis of phonological, morphemic, and visual
Morris, D., & Perney, J. (1984). Developmental spelling as a predictor impairments. Cognitive Neuropsychology, 1, 43–83.
of first-grade reading achievement. Elementary School Journal, 84, Share, D. (1995). Phonological recoding and self-teaching: Sine qua non
441–457. of reading acquisition. Cognition, 55, 151–218.
Morris, D., Tyner, B., & Perney, J. (2000). Early Steps: Replicating the Share, D., Jorm, A., Maclean, R., & Matthews, R. (1984). Sources of
effects of a first-grade reading intervention program. Journal of Edu- individual differences in reading achievement. Journal of Educational
cational Psychology, 92, 681–693. Psychology, 76, 1309–1324.
National Reading Panel (NRP). (2000). Teaching children to read: An Snow, C., Burns, M., & Griffin, P. (1998). Preventing reading difficulties
evidence-based assessment of the scientific research literature on in young children. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.
reading and its implications for reading instruction. Rockville, MD: Stahl, S., & Murray, B. (1994). Defining phonological awareness and
National Institute of Child Health and Human Development. its relationship to early reading. Journal of Educational Psychology,
No Child Left Behind Act of 2001 (NCLB), Public Law No. 107-110. 86, 221–234.
(2002). Retrieved from http://www.ed.gov/policy/elsec/leg/esea02/ Stuart, M., & Coltheart, M. (1988). Does reading develop in a sequence
index of stages? Cognition, 30, 139–181.
O’Connor, R., Notari-Syverson, A., & Vasdasy, P. (1996). Ladders to Torgesen, J., Morgan, S., & Davis, C. (1992). Effects of two types of
literacy: The effects of teacher-led phonological activities for kinder- phonological awareness training on word learning in kindergarten
garten children with and without disabilities. Exceptional Children, children. Journal of Educational Psychology, 84, 364–370.
63, 117–130. Whitehurst, G., & Lonigan, C. (2001). Emergent literacy: Development
Perfetti, C. (1986). Continuities in reading acquisition, reading skill, and from prereaders to readers. In S. Neuman & D. Dickinson (Eds.), Hand-
reading disability. Remedial and Special Education, 7, 11–21. book of early literacy research (pp. 11–29). New York: Guilford.
Perfetti, C. (1992). The representation problem in reading acquisition. Wilson, B. (1996). Wilson reading system: Instructor’s manual. Millbury,
In P. Gough, L. Ehri, & R. Treiman (Eds.), Reading acquisition (pp. MA: Wilson Language Training Corporation.
145–174). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
 27
Interventions to Develop Decoding Proficiencies
IRENE W. GASKINS
Benchmark School

This chapter is grounded in the well-documented observa- Swanson, 2000), a few detailed descriptions of successful
tion that children learn differently and vary in their develop- interventions are provided to give the reader a sense of
ment of reading-related abilities (Mathes et al., 2005). Thus, the differences in decoding approaches among those that
it follows, that not all children will respond successfully have had significant effects with at-risk and struggling
to the same instructional approach to developing decoding readers. Finally, the inextricable link between mastery
proficiency (Ysseldyke & Taylor, 2007). The inevitable of decoding and children’s affective, motivational, and
outcome is that in schools in which only one instructional volitional characteristics is discussed. Conclusions about
program is in use, some students will experience difficulty instruction will be drawn both from theories about ways
learning to read (Valencia & Riddle-Buly, 2004). A one- of reading words and phases of development in word read-
size-fits-all approach does not encourage teachers to provide ing and from research about interventions and children’s
the differentiated opportunities that children need in order characteristics. Based on those conclusions, suggestions
to learn to decode (Allington, 2006). This gloomy prognosis will be made for interventions that seem to have the
is the case even when the approach being implemented is most potential for helping all children develop decoding
evidence based (Al Otaiba & Fuchs, 2006). proficiencies.
The missing ingredient is instruction at the hands of
knowledgeable teachers who are focused on what each
Ways to Read Words
child needs (Valencia & Riddle-Buly, 2004), including
the teaching approach and pace that work for each child Learning to read words is necessary if children are to
(Taylor, Peterson, Marx, & Chein, 2007; Vaughn, Wan- achieve the goal of reading—the construction of meaning.
zek, & Fletcher, 2007). The thesis of honoring children’s Based on the studies reviewed in this chapter, plus extensive
differences by providing differentiated instruction will experience teaching struggling readers, I am convinced that
be explored and extended in this chapter as components simultaneously teaching struggling readers to read words
of evidence-based (Chhabra & McCardle, 2004), multi- and to construct meaning provides the best opportunity for
level (Allington & Johnston, 2001), and multidimensional students to become successful readers (McGill-Franzen,
(Gaskins, 1999; Vellutino & Scanlon, 2002) approaches to 2006; Pressley, 2006). However, as the topic of this chapter
reading words are described. Multilevel, multidimensional is decoding, only one part of the reading equation will be
approaches are approaches in which teachers adapt instruc- discussed here. One way to read words is to decode them.
tion to the characteristics and developmental phase of each According to Harris and Hodges (1995), the term decode
student and students are introduced to more than one way is used in reading practice “primarily to refer to word
to decode words (Gaskins, 1999, 2005). identification” (p. 55). In this chapter decoding is used as
The chapter begins with a presentation of four ways to a synonym for both word identification and non-automatic
read words, followed by a summary of phase theory as it word reading and is regarded as a thinking activity in which
applies to matching ways of decoding to children’s ways readers flexibly consider alternative ways to read unknown
of reading words. Next, research is reviewed regarding the or miscued words, depending on their developmental phase
current status of knowledge about interventions to develop and array of decoding strategies. Similar to Afflerbach,
decoding proficiency among at-risk and struggling readers. Pearson, and Paris (2008), strategy is associated with a
Because there are several different paths to the remediation conscious and systematic plan, while skill is associated with
of children with reading disabilities (O’Shaughnessy & a proficient, often automatic, act.

289
290 Irene W. Gaskins

Ehri’s Theory of Word Reading Ehri (2005), based Predicting. In this way of reading words, the reader
on several decades of research, outlines four basic ways uses the context surrounding an unknown word, plus one
children read words. These include: sounding out and or a few letters in the unknown word, to predict the pro-
blending letters into pronunciations that are recognized nunciation of a word. For example, in reading the sentence
as meaningful words; analogizing to familiar words (e.g., “At the farm John saw a cow,” in which all of the words are
reading frog by analogy to dog); and predicting words based known except cow, the reader predicts (based on the initial
on context. A fourth way of reading words is sight-word consonant and the sense of the sentence) that the word is
reading. In addition, children use combinations of these cow. Predicting is an approach frequently used to read un-
basic approaches. known words by students in the early phases of learning to
read and by struggling readers. Able readers less frequently
Sounding out and blending. The sounding-out-and- use predicting as a decoding strategy, relying instead on all
blending approach to decoding is known as synthetic pho- of the letter-sound matches in the word (Stanovich, 1984).
nics. In a synthetic phonics program, students are taught to In applying a predicting strategy, readers have usually not
decode new words by retrieving from memory the sound looked at all the letters in the unknown word, therefore they
that each letter, or combination of letters, in a word rep- are less accurate. For example, in the earlier example about
resents and blending the sounds into a recognizable word the farm and cow, unless a picture cues the reader, he or
(National Reading Panel, 2000). It is a parts-to-whole ap- she may read any word that begins with C, such as cat or
proach (Strickland, 1998). For some children who struggle calf. For this reason, use of predicting as a preference for
in learning to read, holding in memory and blending indi- decoding is discouraged except as a cross check for sense
vidual sounds into a synthesized, recognizable word proves once a word has been decoded.
difficult, even when they are able to produce the individual
sounds for the letters they see. Unfortunately, producing Sight. Words that are read by sight are words that
sounds in isolation often results in students adding an /uh/ have been read before (usually, by using one of the three
sound to each consonant sound, so the resulting sounds in ways discussed above) and stored in memory. However, as
pronouncing “game,” for example, might be /guh/, /a/, / pointed out by Vellutino and Scanlon (2002), some children,
muh/, a combination of sounds some students might not perhaps unaware of the alphabetic principle, circumvent
recognize as “game.” letter-sound matching and attempt to learn words by the
unanalyzed whole word or paired associates approach, an
Analogizing. An analogy approach is sometimes approach which eventually fails. According to Ehri’s phase
referred to as a rhyming approach because students look theory and research (1998), the most effective way to read
at the part of the unknown word that makes the rhyming words by sight is to acquire knowledge of the major letter-
sound (the vowel and consonant that follows) and think sound correspondences and apply this knowledge to retain
of a known word that contains the same vowel-consonant complete representations of words in memory. Students who
pattern or rime. In cases in which students know the have learned words by analyzing their letter-sound matches
sounds represented by the word’s onset (beginning have better memory for the words (compared to students
consonant or consonants), they are then able to decode who lack complete letter-sound representations of known
the word by rhyming. If I know like, then I can decode words) and this facilitates retaining new words in memory
strike. If the onset is unknown, the reader recalls a word for reading, spelling, and decoding new words by analogy
he or she knows that begins with the same onset (e.g., (Ehri, Satlow, & Gaskins, 2009).
thinks of strong to aid in matching the sounds for the
onset STR). Goswami’s Grain-Size Theory of Word Reading Pub-
This approach tends not to work well for students who lished reading programs tend to advance just one way to
do not have analogous known words (keywords) stored in decode words; however, research and experience suggest
memory in a fully-analyzed way, matching all the sounds that it is to a reader’s advantage to be able to access and
in the word to the letters that represent the sounds (Gaskins, apply multiple ways (Ehri et al., 2009; Juel & Minden-
Ehri, Cress, O’Hara, & Donnelly, 1996–1997, 1997). For Cupp, 2000; Lovett et al., 2000; Vellutino & Scanlon, 2002;
example, when attempting to call to mind an analogous Walton & Walton, 2002; Ziegler & Goswami, 2005). As
word to aid in decoding the first chunk of “target,” the child Ziegler and Goswami explain, “English-speaking children
may recall “can” because he or she has never looked care- need to use a variety of recoding strategies, supplementing
fully all the way through the keyword “car” (an appropriate grapheme-phoneme conversion strategies with the recogni-
analogous word for the first chunk of “target”). Further, he tion of letter patterns for rimes and attempts at whole-word
or she may call to mind “not” to decode the second chunk recognition” (p. 19). This is the case due to the inconsistent
in “target,” as a result of not fully analyzing the words to nature of English orthography and is explicated by the
realize that E is the vowel that precedes the T. Due to the psycholinguistic grain-size theory (Goswami, 2006). This
difficulties some children experience in calling analogous theory explains that, in English, children who are successful
words to mind, a word wall or keyword chart can be made in learning to read develop large-grain (whole-word and
available as a bootstrap. rhyme analogy) decoding strategies in parallel with small-
 Interventions to Develop Decoding Proficiencies 291

grain (grapheme-phoneme) decoding strategies as a way to The final and most efficient phase of word learning is the
cope with the inconsistencies in our language. consolidated alphabetic phase. Readers in this phase have
consolidated their letter-sound knowledge and remember
matches between multi-letter units and syllabic units. For
Developmental Models of Word Learning
example, in reading the unknown word “blot,” they match
There is general agreement among literacy researchers onset and rime units by recognizing the letter-sound matches
regarding theoretical models of word learning develop- from the onset of a known word (e.g. black) and the rime of
ment (Bear, Invernizzi, Templeton, & Johnston, 2008; Ehri, a known word (e.g. not). In addition, in this phase, readers
1995; Frith, 1985; Henderson, 1990; Vellutino & Scanlon, recognize as a unit common word parts such as unstressed
2002). “These models suggest that the acquisition and in- syllables (e.g., -tion, -le).
tegration of knowledge and skills underlying reading and
writing proceeds in something akin to developmental stages Overlapping-Wave Model Another view of word knowl-
characterized by typical literacy behaviors that reflect the edge development (specifically spelling development) is
child’s knowledge and level of skills development at given the overlapping-wave model (Sharp, Sinatra, & Reynolds,
points in time” (Vellutino & Scanlon, 2002, p. 581). Word- 2008), a model that seems equally applicable to word read-
learning models provide a framework regarding the typical ing, positing that development proceeds both in phases and
sequence of decoding acquisition and the processes to be in degrees. As explained by Sharp and colleagues, “students
scaffolded to lead students from one phase of word learning may not necessarily think in a qualitatively different fashion
to the next; although, the pace of movement through these from one phase to the next, so much as adapt the various
phases differs both between and within age groups. The ways that they think and reason to the current tasks. This
models have in common a beginning period of learning to perspective suggests that although progress is incremental, it
read and spell in which children know little about letters or is hardly steady; and more and less sophisticated strategies
the alphabetic principle (thus rely on salient visual clues), are in use at the same time” (p. 224). As true of word read-
a middle period in which children become increasingly ing as of spelling, movement into a more advanced phase
aware of using letter-sound matches to decode and spell, does not signal exclusive use of strategies characteristic of
and a more advanced period in which children use letter the new phase. In fact, the designation of a phase seems
patterns to unlock the pronunciation of unknown words. best defined by the majority of strategies that a student is
Ehri’s (1995) phase model will be discussed as an example using at any one time.
of a developmental word learning model.
Summary Children learn to read words in at least four
Ehri’s Phase Model The initial phase (designated pre- different ways. Knowledge and ability to apply all of these
alphabetic by Ehri) is characterized by students remember- ways is a definite advantage for children who learn to read
ing a word based on a distinctive and purely visual cue. For in a language in which there is not a consistent one-to-one
example, a child may read “elephant” based on the length relationship between letters and sounds. As children learn to
of the word or might identify “donkey” by the “tail” at the read words, they pass through at least three phases: initially
end, then read “lady” and “story”—and other words with depending primarily on visual cues, followed by becom-
a “tail”—as “donkey.” ing increasingly familiar with and applying letter-sound
The second phase is partial alphabetic. In this phase knowledge, and, finally, using consolidated units of words
students begin to use letter-sound information, but do not to decode unknown words. These phases are overlapping,
yet use all the letter-sound information in a word. Instead, with children using strategies typical of both the new phase
they remember and apply a few salient letter-sound matches. and previous phases. To enable struggling readers to begin
For example, some students might remember the letter- their journeys to becoming successful readers, teachers must
sound matches for only H and S in the word “horse.” These match their instruction and expectations to each student’s
students will likely read the word correctly when they read acquired knowledge and level of development (Vellutino
a story about a horse; however, a few days later, when they & Scanlon, 2002). This means starting at the phase where
read a story that includes the sentence “The boys went in each student is primarily functioning and scaffolding in-
the house to play,” some will misread the sentence as “The struction to support students as they approach and move
boys went in the horse to play.” Guiding students to seg- into the next phase.
ment the words horse and house into sounds and match the
sounds to letters, increases student awareness of the need to
Current Status of Knowledge about Decoding
use all the letter-sound information in a word and begins to
Interventions
move the student into the full alphabetic phase.
In the third phase, the full alphabetic phase, students During the past decade, a panel of literacy experts (National
notice and remember all the letter-sound matches in a Reading Panel, 2000) was commissioned to review literacy
word. They can decode and spell words such as “plant” research in search of evidence-based ways of teaching
because they have matched the letters and sounds for P, L, children to read. In addition, groups of researchers, many
A, N, and T. funded by the National Institute of Child Health and Human
292 Irene W. Gaskins

Development, have completed immense bodies of interven- to close the gap in word reading between pre-intervention
tion research related to remediation of “core deficits” that status and age-appropriate reading, especially for older
are hypothesized to hinder the development of decoding children. The reading skills of struggling older students
proficiency. The studies are too numerous for each to be remained in the disabled range and the interventions were
discussed separately, therefore the results of several sum- characterized as “stabilizing” students’ degree of reading
mary reports, in addition to several individual studies, will failure. Additional research reviewed by Torgesen suggested
be shared. Also, two current approaches to early interven- that special education placements for children with read-
tion, Response to Instruction (RTI) and multidimensional ing disabilities, which typically featured synthetic phonics
instruction, will be reviewed. Research about these pro- instruction, “produced no gains in word level reading skills
grams and practices follow. relative to normal readers during a three-year period in el-
ementary school” (p. 524). Torgesen et al. (2001) discovered
National Reading Panel In an attempt to settle the lack in their intervention study that the phonics intervention can
of consensus concerning decoding instruction in the United be intense (daily one-to-one instruction delivered in two
States, the NRP completed a meta-analysis of phonics in- 50-minute sessions each day for 8 weeks) and combine
struction studies and concluded that “systematic” phonics a variety of components in different proportions (in one
was more effective than non-phonetic approaches, especial- intervention student time receiving instruction in explicit,
ly for kindergarten and first-grade students. An additional systematic word-level skills—compared to applying those
outcome of the NRP meta-analysis was to distinguish two skills while reading and writing connected text—was 85%
types of systematic phonics instruction: synthetic phonics and in the other 20%) and, despite differences in the two
(sounding out and blending) and larger unit phonics such as interventions, still obtained remarkably similar results.
analogizing (using onset and rime). The two approaches did About half the children attained average-level reading skills
not differ statistically in the size of their effects. This was (standard score 90 or above) by the end of the 2-year follow-
the case for mainstream students and for students with read- up period. One cannot help but wonder if the outcome
ing disabilities. With respect to the effectiveness of phonics would have been even better had the classroom instruction
instruction, Hammill and Swanson (2006) have offered an and supplementary instruction been congruent during and
alternative view suggesting that 96% of the achievement after the 8-week intervention..
variance in learning to read was unexplained by the pres-
ence or absence of phonics lessons and could be attributed Conclusions from a review of synthetic phonics inter-
to other factors. This reminds the reader that there is much ventions. Based on this brief look at studies reviewed by
more to learning to read than learning to decode. However, Torgesen which featured synthetic phonics, we can draw
for some children learning to decode puts them on the road several conclusions about increasing the chances of bring-
to becoming readers. ing the skills of children with reading disabilities into the
In a much-cited review of phonics research, Stahl, Duffy- typical range. Many of these conclusions revolve around one
Hester, and Stahl (1998) also reported that a synthetic ap- point—different children need different kinds of instruction.
proach and an analogy approach performed equally well and Torgesen (2004) points this out with respect to intensity,
“both were more effective than whole-word approaches” (p. length of delivery, and educational context and suggests
348). O’Shaughnessy and Swanson (2000) reported similar two ways to provide differentiated instruction: increase
results with second-grade, reading disabled public school instructional time and provide individual or small-group
children, some of whom received a phonological awareness instruction. Other possibilities include teaching students
program and the others received an analogy program. I now how to strategically use the synthetic phonics skills being
turn to the research about synthetic phonics, certainly the taught (Gaskins, 2005), providing alternatives to phonemic
most researched systematic phonics approach, to learn about awareness and synthetic phonics (e.g., large grain decod-
both the practices that seem to support its effectiveness and ing strategies, Goswami, 2006, such as using key words,
some problems with the intervention that remain unsolved. Gaskins 2004, because synthesizing onset and rime is
sometimes easier for beginning readers than synthesizing
Synthetic Phonics Interventions Torgesen (2005) sum- individual phonemes), coaching about how to select an ap-
marized data from 13 intervention samples of children with propriate decoding strategy (Gaskins, 2004), increasing the
severe to moderate word-level reading difficulties. All of amount of reading that each child does in traditional texts
the interventions provided explicit instruction in phonemic (Allington, 2006; Stanovich, 1986), creating many oppor-
awareness and phonemic decoding skills, with some of the tunities for students to write connected text by segmenting
interventions variants of the Lindamood method for increas- words into sounds and applying sound-letter knowledge
ing children’s awareness of individual sounds in words (Moats, 1995), and providing on-going professional de-
(Lindamood & Lindamood, 1984, 1998). Examination of velopment for both regular education and supplemental
the data suggests that equal growth rates were possible using program teachers (McGill-Franzen, 2006).
a variety of direct-instruction approaches to word reading.
Despite evidence of encouraging gains in these intervention Unsolved problems with synthetic phonics interven-
samples, synthetic phonics interventions were not sufficient tions. In reflecting on the outcomes for struggling readers
 Interventions to Develop Decoding Proficiencies 293

receiving direct instruction in synthetic phonics, it becomes led to an interest in “multilevel” models of instruction and
apparent that something in addition to more intensive in- assessment (Al Otaiba & Fuchs, 2006).
struction in phonemic awareness and synthetic phonics is
necessary if struggling readers are to catch up to their peers. Multilevel Intervention Prevention and intervention are
Perhaps that something is instruction that combines ways of the goals of RTI. These goals are accomplished by offering
learning words and a balance of reading and writing in con- at-risk and struggling readers targeted, expert, and intensive
nected contexts. In the remainder of this chapter a variety reading instruction in kindergarten and first grade before
of interventions are reviewed. Exploring some of these to they fall behind (Allington & Walmsley, 2007; Vaughn &
find what works for specific students may have a greater Klingner, 2007). This is accomplished “by identifying stu-
likelihood of achieving significant student gains than more dents who are not responsive to the early reading instruction
intensely teaching what seems not to be working. that is effective with most students” (Chard & Lian-Thomp-
Another unresolved problem with synthetic phonics son, 2008, p. 99), usually by means of curriculum-based
instruction, but also with any supplementary instruction, measures (Vaughn, Wanzek, Woodruff, & Lian-Thompson,
is how to teach decoding skills and strategies in such a 2007). Once identified, these students are provided with
way that students will become independent in applying more intensive instruction than they were previously receiv-
them and maintain a satisfactory rate of growth once the ing, often with an emphasis on phonemic awareness and
supplementary intervention has ended. Researchers have synthetic decoding, despite the fact that this emphasis may
often been disheartened to follow-up students who received have been exactly what was not working. Perhaps a differ-
special interventions and find that, despite almost all of ent emphasis might be more appropriate, at least in some
the children responding well during the intervention, only cases. The three-tier model specifies the implementation of
slightly more than half are able to sustain or improve their multiple levels of interventions for students whose response
gains once the intensive intervention is concluded (Torgesen to instruction does not indicate the improvement needed for
et al., 2001). A possible explanation may lie in the students’ them to no longer be considered at risk.
return to regular-classroom settings where instruction was
different in many ways (including the number of students) Tier I. One definition of a Tier 1 classroom is a class-
from that received in the one-to-one treatment setting. As room that has an effective core reading program provided to
one example, it may be more difficult for students to main- a whole class by a general education teacher (Kamps et al.,
tain attention and engagement during reading instruction 2008; Vaughn & Klingner, 2007). Allington and Walmsley
with a higher student to teacher ratio. This possibility gains (2007) define a good Tier 1 classroom as one that ensures
credence based on the fact that, during the follow-up period, that classroom reading instruction is appropriate to stu-
teacher ratings of students’ attention/behavior most reli- dents’ needs and that no one is receiving a one-size-fits-all
ably predicted growth trajectories (Torgesen et al., 2001). program. Denton, Fletcher, Anthony, and Francis (2006)
Further, as noted by Harn, Linan-Thompson, and Roberts define the first tier as consisting of enhanced classroom-
(2008), the larger the instructional group the less likely the level instruction that is of consistently high-quality.
intervention will be targeted to students’ instructional needs
and enlist active engagement. Tier II. The next level of instruction, for those students
These findings suggest that, once a supplementary pro- identified through progress monitoring as in need of read-
gram has ended, students would profit from a maintenance ing interventions beyond Tier I, is often provided in the
program in their regular classrooms that would review, classroom. This intervention is supplemental, small-group
reinforce, and value the concepts and strategies taught in instruction that is in addition to the core reading program
the supplementary intervention. In addition, students in (Kamps et al., 2008) and, ideally, is taught by a reading
supplementary phonics programs would likely benefit from teacher. One model of small-group instruction often used,
being taught metacognitive strategies that would increase and which has proved successful for improvement in early
awareness of the need for taking charge of their attention literacy skills for Tier I non-responders, is explicit instruc-
and for applying self-talk strategies both to help maintain tion using a highly structured and sequenced curriculum.
attention and engagement and to self-teach as emphasized However, some students continue to struggle even after
by Share (1995). receiving high-quality classroom instruction, supplemented
The conclusions from systematic phonics instruction by small-group instruction, suggesting that these children
discussed above are based on studies of at-risk and strug- may need a different amount or type of intervention.
gling readers of a variety of ages and grade levels. A more
optimistic prognosis emerges for students in kindergarten Tier III. Intervention at the Tier III level is generally
and first grade who are exhibiting difficulty acquiring pull-out instruction that is more intensive than the instruc-
phonemic awareness and alphabet knowledge. One model tion in Tiers I and II. “More intensive” may be defined as
guiding intervention during the early years is Response decreasing the instructional group size or increasing the
to Intervention (RTI) discussed below. Recognizing that amount of time each day a student spends receiving instruc-
evidence-based, generally effective early literacy programs tion. Other conceptualizations of intensity are the duration
do not accommodate the decoding needs of all students has of the intervention over months and years and an increase
294 Irene W. Gaskins

in the number of sessions or hours of instruction per day. Recovery is a short-term intervention for first graders
As discussed previously, more minutes per day or more who have the lowest achievement in literacy learning for
instruction that did not work in Tiers I and II may not be their grade. These first graders meet on a one-to-one basis
what the struggling reader needs. Progress monitoring is with a specially trained teacher for 30 minutes each day.
believed to be the key to making good instructional deci- The goal is for children to develop effective reading and
sions about these issues. writing strategies at an accelerated pace in order to work
Believing that non-responders may need more intense satisfactorily within the average range of their class after
instruction, Wanzek and Vaughn (2008) compared non- 12 to 20 weeks of tutoring. Successful implementation of
responders who received “one dose” of small-group in- the program is the result of the full year of academic train-
tervention with another group receiving a “double dose” ing teachers receive as they simultaneously implement the
(twice as much time). Response to the two treatments was intervention while being critiqued. Approximately one half
similar over time, leading the researchers to conclude that of a Reading Recovery lesson is devoted to reading text,
more of the same intervention did not prove beneficial and while the remaining half is spent writing a story, identifying
that an individualized intervention might have been a bet- letters, and doing word work.
ter alternative.
One-to-one tutoring programs modeled on Reading
Summary The underlying assumption of the RTI model is Recovery. Over the years, Reading Recovery’s responsive
that entering first-grade students (including those at risk for approach to decoding was viewed by some as a deficiency.
failure in reading) will begin first grade in regular education Responsive is used here as discussed by Mathes and as-
classes in which they receive a generally effective, evidence- sociates (2005): teaching the specific decoding strategies
based core reading program, accompanied by an in-class, students need in the moment, rather than systematically
supplementary intervention as needed, and a special pull-out and sequentially introducing the decoding strategies tra-
program as a third response. This is a gigantic step forward ditionally found in phonics-based early-reading programs.
from the second half of the 20th century when children had In addition, the requirement of 1 year of intensive training
to fail in learning to read for 2 or 3 years before they were prior to becoming a Reading Recovery teacher was regarded
eligible for remedial intervention. Despite the progress as a roadblock to implementing the program inexpensively
signaled by RTI, Al Otaiba and Fuchs (2006) recommend an and extensively. As a result, some researchers and teachers
even earlier intervention, worrying that as many as 30% of developed tutoring programs modeled after Reading Recov-
children at risk for reading difficulties may not benefit from ery, but with on-the-job training and systematic decoding
the kind of generally effective early literacy interventions (e.g., Iversen & Tunmer, 1993; Morris, 2007). One such
suggested by scientifically based reading research. In this program was Early Steps implemented in studies by Santa
next section, we will explore early intervention. and Hoien (1999) and by Morris, Tyner, and Perney (2000).
Posttests showed that first graders tutored in Early Steps
Interventions to Develop Decoding Proficiencies Early outperformed controls in pseudoword reading and passage
Although often associated with No Child Left Behind comprehension.
(NCLB, 2002), early intervention became a widely-ac-
claimed possibility for preventing reading problems in the One-to-one tutoring: Interactive strategies. An addi-
mid-1980s when Marie Clay brought Reading Recovery, a tional one-on-one first-grade tutoring program, Interactive
one-to-one tutoring program for first graders, to the United Strategies, employed in a study by Vellutino and colleagues
States from New Zealand (Clay, 1979). Since then the What (1996) was described by Vellutino and Scanlon in a 2002
Works Clearinghouse (WWC) and the Institute of Education paper. They compared their program to other one-on-one
Sciences (IES) have released a 3-year independent review programs, describing Reading Recovery as having a text
of the experimental research on Reading Recovery (March emphasis, while the programs researched by Iversen &
2007) establishing Reading Recovery as an effective inter- Tunmer (1993), Morris (1999), and Santa and Hoien (1999)
vention based on scientific evidence. incorporated more structured code-oriented activities than
found in Reading Recovery. They further compared their
One-to-one tutoring: Reading Rcovery. A recent program to those of Torgesen and colleagues (2001) which
report by McNaughton (2008) of a comparison between they view as primarily code-oriented analysis and blending
the original Reading Recovery model (Clay, 1979) and programs. Vellutino and Scanlon’s program includes both
the latest codification (Clay, 2005) reveals refinements in text-based and code-based remedial activities. The com-
theoretical ideas and processes, although the basic tenets of ponents of a lesson include: (a) rereading of one or more
the program remain the same. From the earliest versions of previously read texts; (b) learning the alphabetic principle
Reading Recovery to the present, Reading Recovery stresses (i.e., names of letters and their relationships to sounds, the
intense professional development for teachers and, for phonemes in spoken words and how they are related to let-
students, repeated reading of beginning-level texts, mean- ters in printed words, and larger orthographic units such as
ing making, sentence writing, and decoding in response word families and prefixes and suffixes); (c) reading new
to unknown words encountered in daily reading. Reading texts while the teacher guides the use of decoding strate-
 Interventions to Develop Decoding Proficiencies 295

gies and engages the child in comprehension conversations in behavior theory. Reading tasks were systematically ar-
about the story; (d) helping the child master the most fre- ranged into a scope and sequence from which daily lessons
quently occurring sight words, often using word cards; and were derived. “The result was that students learned phonetic
(e) engaging the child in dictating (or writing) a message, elements in isolation before applying them strategically to
segmenting the spoken words, and deciding which letters words and practiced decoding words in isolation before
to use to represent the sounds. In each lesson, depending on reading decodable connected text and applying compre-
the child’s level of skills development, emphasis is placed hension strategies” (Mathes et al., 2005, p. 152). Teachers
both on fostering the conjoint and interactive use of multiple followed a script for teaching the lessons. Students read
strategies for systematic decoding and text processing and fully decodable text, for which all phonetic elements and
on promoting fluent reading and the integration of reading, all irregular sight words had been taught previously and
writing, and comprehension. Students are encouraged to students had demonstrated mastery of those elements and
unlock unknown words by applying both code-based and words. There was much student response in unison, fol-
context-based strategies, including sentence meaning (se- lowed by individual turns. The teacher moved quickly from
mantic clues) and grammatical constraints (syntactic clues). activity to activity, with 7 to 10 short activities in a typical
Teachers encourage students to monitor their reading of 40-minute lesson. The daily teaching routine comprised the
text to pick up miscues that do not conform to grammatical teacher modeling new content, providing guided practice,
constraints or do not make sense. Semantic and syntactic and implementing independent practice for every activity.
cues are used in combination with phonics and all three are Teachers were required to consistently monitor students’
central to their approach. responses, provide positive praise for correct responses,
and provide immediate corrective feedback. The majority
Small-group early-intervention programs. Early of each lesson was composed of review and generalization,
intervention in kindergarten and first grade of the nature with each lesson containing very little new content.
described in the RTI model, discussed earlier, is widely sup- Responsive Reading, which aligns with cognitive theory
ported as a viable answer to decreasing the number of strug- and characterizes learning in terms of the acquisition of
gling readers in Grade 3 and beyond. A study completed problem-solving strategies through explicit instruction,
by Mathes and colleagues (2005) sheds light on enhanced modeling, guided practice, coaching, scaffolding, and fad-
and supplementary approaches aimed at providing at-risk ing, was the other supplemental intervention. There was no
first graders with a strong start in learning to read. During predetermined scope and sequence because the objectives
each of 2 years, a sample of first graders who showed sig- of daily instruction were determined by the observed needs
nificant risk for reading difficulties was selected from six of students. Although Responsive Reading provided explicit
high-performing schools to investigate the effectiveness of instruction in phonemic awareness and phonemic decod-
combining enhanced classroom instruction with two differ- ing, it dedicated less time to the practice of these skills in
ent intense supplemental interventions. All 30 first-grade isolation than did the Proactive approach. In Responsive
teachers in the six schools used as their core program one Reading students applied literacy skills and strategies in
of two basal reading series. Implementation was highly the context of extensive reading and writing. Teachers used
varied and almost all teachers included other resources and data from student assessments and daily anecdotal records
methods to supplement or replace activities in the basal. as the foundation for lesson planning.
Because of the support given beyond simply using a basal To individualize instruction in Responsive Reading,
reader series, the classroom instruction provided for all first every third day teachers focused their daily lesson plan-
graders in the six schools was deemed “enhanced.” In addi- ning and text selection on an individual student. Teachers
tion to core reading instruction in their regular classrooms, followed a lesson cycle that outlined how time was used
students in the supplemental interventions met in groups of across each 40-minute lesson. Teachers chose activities
three for 40 minutes a day, 5 days a week from a menu of options for each part of the lessons based
The research team built on the district’s extensive pro- on the observed needs of their students. Passage fluency
fessional development program by providing a one-day (supported by repeated reading and teacher modeling) and
professional development session focusing on the use of assessment occupied 8 to 10 minutes of each lesson. During
assessment data to plan and deliver differentiated instruc- letter and word work, students received 10 to 12 minutes
tion. In addition, the six supplemental intervention teachers of explicit instruction and practice related to phonemic
who delivered the small-group instruction (Proactive Read- awareness, letter-sound relationships, word reading, or
ing or Responsive Reading) received 42 hours of training spelling. Letter-sound correspondences, as well as onsets
specific to their intervention prior to the beginning of the and rimes, were taught for decoding new words. Students
study. Intervention teachers also participated in monthly segmented the phonemes within each onset and rime before
half-day inservice meetings throughout the school year. applying these units to read words and they segmented and
The two supplemental interventions, derived from diverse wrote words dictated by the teacher. Sound boxes (Elkonin,
theoretical foundations, will next be described. 1973) were sometimes used to record letters matched to
Proactive Reading was developed from the model of sounds. Supported reading lasted 10 to 12 minutes. The
Direct Instruction (Engelmann, 1980) and has its roots books read were leveled for difficulty, but were not intended
296 Irene W. Gaskins

to be phonetically decodable. Each day the focus student they would be teaching. Although significantly higher post
read alone a portion of a text not previously read. Next, treatment phonological processing and word reading scores
the other students in the group read the same text, either were reported for the Direct Code students, this finding has
chorally or individually. The final 8 to 10 minutes of the been questioned in view of the Direct Code group testing
lesson was devoted to supported journal writing about the significantly higher at pretest than the other two groups on
new story. Teachers sometimes provided explicit instruction phonological processing. After adjusting for initial differ-
in word patterns and modeled the segmenting of words in ences in phonological processing, the difference between
order to write the letters for phonemes. The primary word Direct Code and Embedded Code on improvement in word
recognition strategy taught in Responsive Reading was to reading was no longer significant (Taylor et al., 2000).
look for letter combinations you know, blend the sounds, A third example of early intervention is a study by Al
reread the sentence, and decide if it makes sense. Decod- Otaiba and Fuchs (2006). They studied 104 kindergarten and
ing of unknown words using analogous known words was first-grade students who participated in what was deemed
also taught. best-practice instruction in three conditions: kindergarten
The two approaches were different in their theoretical and first grade, kindergarten only, first grade only, and nei-
underpinnings, but both were comprehensive, integrated ther. Responsiveness/non-responsiveness was determined
approaches to reading instruction based on scientific evi- after 2 years in one of the above conditions. The classroom
dence. Both provided instruction in phonemic awareness, core program for all students was the district-adopted 1995
alphabetic knowledge, and application of this knowledge Harcourt Brace basal reading program, a program that fea-
to reading and writing words and text, and they engaged tures an implicit approach to the teaching of phonological
students in making meaning from text. awareness and phonics. This characteristic was in contrast
Results of this study indicate that first-grade students to the secondary interventions which featured a synthetic
who were at risk for reading failure and who received approach to phonological awareness and phonics. In ad-
supplemental instruction in either the Proactive or Respon- dition to the core program, the kindergarten intervention
sive intervention scored significantly higher on measures students received teacher-directed, explicit phonological
of reading and reading-related skills than students who awareness activities, some during 5 to15 minute sessions
received only enhanced classroom instruction. Enhanced 3 times per week for 20 weeks and some during 20-minute
classroom instruction alone was inadequate for a small sessions 3 times per week for 16 weeks. The first-grade
number of students. The two interventions were equally secondary intervention consisted of 20-minute sessions, 3
effective. The authors concluded: “These findings suggest times a week for 20 weeks and included explicit phonologi-
to us that there is likely not ‘one best approach’ and not one cal awareness and decoding instruction, sight word training,
right philosophy or theory for how to best meet the needs and reading in connected text. A combination of tests and
of struggling readers. Nor did we find evidence that one checklists, plus amount of intervention, correctly predicted
approach was better for some at-risk children than another” 82.1% of the non-responsive students. Interestingly, many
(Mathes et al., 2005, p. 179). of the non-responders were in classrooms in which teachers
An influential early intervention study, and the subject of demonstrated the least fidelity of intervention implementa-
some controversy, was that of Foorman, Francis, Fletcher, tion. The researchers concluded that non-responders needed
Schatschneider, and Mehta (1998; see Taylor, Anderson, either a secondary level of intervention of greater intensity
Au, & Raphael, 2000, for a review of this study). The or a different instructional approach than was available to
Foorman et al. study examined the effectiveness of meth- study participants. Other possible conclusions are that non-
ods of reading instruction used by teachers as part of their responders need to be placed in classrooms where teachers
ongoing classroom instruction. Although not expressly a demonstrate a high level of intervention fidelity or where
study of methods of teaching decoding, the data reported supplementary instruction is congruent with the core read-
featured the response of Title I first and second graders to ing program. The non-responders were a heterogeneous
three methods of teaching students to read words. These group, suggesting that the secondary level of instruction
were Direct Code (direct synthetic phonics practiced in should be tailored not only to verbal and phonemic abilities,
decodable text), Embedded Code (explicit instruction in but also to attention and behavior which were two predictors
word patterns embedded in text), and Implicit Code (based of non-responsiveness.
on Reading Recovery). One of these methods was taught to
the whole class by each of the study’s 66 classroom teachers Early intervention emphasizing professional develop-
during the 90-minute daily language arts period. In addition, ment. McGill-Franzen (2006) advocates teaching reading
during 30 minutes of the language arts period, 28 Title I and writing in kindergarten, especially for children who
teachers delivered one-to-one or small-group tutorials (3 to are at risk, and building this instruction, not on children’s
5 students) matched to the instructional method of the class- weaknesses, but rather on what each child can do. To dis-
room. All 66 classrooms were described as print-rich, used cover what each child can do, McGill-Franzen has designed
literature-based texts, and stressed writing and comprehen- eight brief assessments, each administered in 10 minutes or
sion. In addition, professional development was provided less, to evaluate what students know and can do related to:
for teachers and tutors about the word learning approach letter-sound identification, phonological awareness, print
 Interventions to Develop Decoding Proficiencies 297

concepts, segmenting words into sounds and representing content study, including family and community knowledge,
those sounds with letters, text writing, word writing, text as well as thematic units and integrated curricula. All of
reading, and word reading. Once it is determined what a these activities use what students know to learn what they
child knows, the teacher uses what is known to teach the do not know.
unknown. Sometimes the known may be as little as the Believing that the success of kindergarten literacy
child recognizing his or her own name in print. The child programs depends on teacher knowledge, McGill-Franzen
(e.g., Ben) can be encouraged to look for names of other helped develop the Tennessee Kindergarten Literacy Proj-
students that have the same initial letter and sound as in his ect involving 200 kindergarten teachers, 37 curriculum
name. Next, Ben can search for names that have the same generalists, and approximately 4,000 children in 50-plus
end letter and sound as in his name. This can be followed elementary schools. The project grounds its assessment
by all sorts of discoveries as Ben analyzes the letters and and professional development in McGill-Franzen’s (2006)
sounds in his name and the names of students in his class. book, Kindergarten Literacy: Matching Assessment and In-
Another example of using the known to learn the new oc- struction in Kindergarten. The framework for professional
curs when a child is confusing two similar letters (e.g., p development described in this book was discussed in the
and q), the teacher can use as a reference a word the child preceding paragraph with respect to the McGill Franzen et
automatically recognizes that contains one of these let- al. (1999) study.
ters, such as pig. Similarly, in teaching students to read
and write words, teachers identify the words that students Summary The earlier literacy intervention occurs in the
already know and help them use the known words to write school life of a child at risk for difficulty in learning to read,
and read other words. Words that have common spelling the more likely the child will be reading on level by third
patterns are especially good words to use. By substituting grade. This is the belief undergirding No Child Left Behind
known consonants for the first letter in known words with (NCLB, 2001) and a belief actualized several decades
common spelling patterns (e.g., and, up, jump, let, not, cat), earlier in the work of Marie Clay and Reading Recovery.
students can read and write words they have not yet learned. This successful one-on-one tutoring program for at-risk first
Using the known to learn the unknown is no formula for graders, taught for 30 minutes daily by intensely trained
a one-size-fits-all approach. It requires differentiation of Reading Recovery teachers, has become a model for other
methods to build on the specific word learning prerequisites, early intervention programs (e.g., Inversen & Tunmer, 1993;
skills, and strategies individual students already possess. Morris, 2007; Vellutino & Scanlon, 2002), with Vellutino
According to McGill-Franzen, two essential ingredients for and Scanlon’s program placing the strongest emphasis on
crafting a powerful personalized approach are assessment teaching a variety of decoding strategies, including semantic
and professional development. and syntactic strategies.
The impact of professional development on children was Another form of early intervention occurs in small, sup-
illustrated in a study by McGill-Franzen, Allington, Yokoi, plemental groups which meet daily for 30 to 40 minutes and
& Brooks (1999). In this study of an urban kindergarten are in addition to enhanced classroom reading instruction.
literacy initiative, kindergarten teachers were assigned to In one study, two diverse, supplemental small-group pro-
one of three treatments: receive a 200-book classroom grams with strong professional development components
library, receive, 200 books plus professional development, were compared (i.e., Direct Instruction and Responsive
or receive neither books nor professional development. Reading). Although different in theoretical underpinnings,
Students of the teachers who received both the books and researchers found the two interventions equally effective,
professional development outperformed the students in suggesting that there is likely not one best approach for
the other classrooms on every measure of print knowledge at-risk students. In a second study, one of three methods
and vocabulary development. The students of teachers who of decoding was taught to first and second graders in their
received books, but no professional development, performed classrooms, supplemented by tutorials using the same ap-
no better than the control students. The framework for the proach. In this study both explicit teaching of small-grain,
study’s professional development included systematic letter-sound matches and larger-grain, onset-rime combi-
assessment of literacy development (work samples and nations appear to have been equally effective. In a third
observed behaviors); teacher reading support via classroom small-group intervention, non-responders were found to be
routines (read-alouds, shared reading, guided reading, a heterogeneous group, suggesting that instruction should
reading and discussion groups, independent reading) and target more than verbal and phonemic abilities, but also
teaching strategies (reading aloud, thinking aloud, prompt- other personal characteristics such as attention and behavior
ing, linking reading to writing); teacher writing support via which were predictors of non-responsiveness.
classroom routines (read-alouds, dictated writing, shared The importance of professional development to success
writing, interactive writing, writing workshop and confer- with at-risk children was evident in most of these studies.
ences, independent writing); word study embedded in read- This was further illuminated by the work of McGill-Franzen
ing and writing via classroom routines (name work, wall and her colleagues, both in their research, as well as in the
words work, sorting, hunting) and teaching strategies (sound Tennessee Kindergarten Literacy Project.
stretching, thinking aloud, prompting); and inquiry-based The next section focuses not on single approaches, but
298 Irene W. Gaskins

on combining scientifically based approaches into one meaning and writing were emphasized. Peer coaching was
program, the direction in which some researchers seem employed for decoding, but there was little direct, sequen-
to be moving. Such a combination approach appears to tial phonics instruction. Teacher 4 was the most phonics
include methods that will mesh with each at-risk child’s oriented and was adamant about behavior. Instruction dif-
unique way of learning to read words. Some call such an fered considerably for each of her three reading groups and,
approach a multidimensional approach. It is an approach compared to the other three teachers, she showed the most
that allows for differentiation by the variety of decoding change in instructional practices between fall and spring.
strategies it presents and the instructional adjustments that Her phonics instruction was highly sequenced and teacher
can be matched to each child with respect to development modeling was used to teach students to segment words into
and other personal characteristics. chunks. She insisted on finger pointing, particularly in the
fall of the year.
Multidimensional Instruction or Combined Approaches Spring testing showed considerable difference among
Dickinson, McCabe, and Essex; Juel; Morrison, Connor, the students in the four classrooms. For example, if stu-
and Bachman; Neuman; and Ramey and Ramey in their dents were low in decoding in the fall and they received
chapters in the Handbook of Early Literacy Research structured phonics instruction during reading group, they
(Dickinson & Neuman, 2006) document that difficulties were most likely to be on grade level in the spring. On the
in word learning are the result of multiple factors and all other hand, in classroom 3 where peer coaching replaced
of these factors need to be addressed, a thesis echoed by systematic phonics instruction, children with few incoming
Snow, Porche, Tabors, and Harris (2007). Therefore it literacy skills fared poorly on end-of-the-year decoding
seems logical that instruction needs to be differentiated assessments. In classroom 4, which proved to be the most
if teachers are to successfully teach all children to read successful for children who entered first grade with few
words. One way to meet children’s needs that result from literacy skills, instruction in phonics was a combination of
differences in word learning and personal characteristics is onset/rime and sequential letter-sound decoding. Instruc-
to employ a multidimensional approach in which students tion also included hands-on activities that served to focus
are taught more than one way to unlock the pronunciation children’s attention and require active decision making. In
of words (Gaskins, 1999; Gaskins & Labbo, 2007), as well general, those children who entered first grade with mini-
as metacognitive strategies for taking charge of person mum skills had the greatest success when the following
characteristics that interfere with learning, such as poor conditions were present: the teacher modeled word recog-
attention, self-regulation, and motivation (Gaskins, 2005; nition strategies, students were expected to finger point,
Snow et al., 2007). In the sections that follow, research will manipulative materials were used, writing for sounds was
be presented that supports the need for a multidimensional part of phonics instruction, and instructional groups were
and differentiated approach to instruction in decoding. small and designed to meet the specific word recognition
needs of children within that group.
Instructional practices and particular student pro- Results of the Juel and Minden-Cupp (2000) study
files. Juel and Minden-Cupp (2000) analyzed word suggest at least three generalizations: (a) Instruction that
recognition instruction in four general education first- produces exceptional achievement gains for children at
grade classrooms to identify instructional practices that, one developmental phase of word learning may not yield
for particular profiles of children, seem to foster learning similar results with children at a different phase of develop-
to read words. In their year-long study of language arts ment (e.g., low-group members in a trade book classroom
instruction as it naturally occurred in the classrooms tended to be relatively poor readers at the end of first grade,
of four teachers nominated by their principals as “very yet their classmates in higher groups made exceptional
good” first-grade teachers, the researchers looked at how progress). (b) Children who enter first grade with minimal
different types of instruction appeared to affect students literacy skills seemed to benefit from early and intense
with different early literacy foundations. (Based on the exposure to phonics, reinforced by writing that stressed
practices of some of these teachers, the reader may not sound-letter matching. However, once these children could
agree that all are very good teachers, nevertheless we can read independently, they appeared to profit from instruction
still analyze the effects of different types of instruction on characteristic of the curriculum of their higher performing
students with a variety of learning profiles.) In each of the peers. (c) Onsets and rimes combined with sounding and
four classrooms students were homogeneously grouped blending phonemes within rimes in a structured, sequential
into three reading groups. phonics program seemed to be very effective. As this was
Teacher 1’s teaching of her first-grade reading groups not an experiment, further observations are needed to assess
consisted primarily round robin reading. Teacher 2 cre- the accuracy of these generalizations.
ated charts and little books for students to read and used Next, a study is summarized regarding several decoding
manipulatives and word sorts. She tailored reading group interventions employed in a clinic setting with severely
instruction to the needs of students, modeled onset and rime disabled readers This work led to the conclusion that several
decoding, and stressed finger pointing for tracking words. approaches to decoding used in combination may produce
Teacher 3 had a classroom packed with trade books in which better decoding results than any approach by itself.
 Interventions to Develop Decoding Proficiencies 299

Synthetic phonics and onset-and-rime combined. During the first 4 years of the study, 51 students new to the
Lovett et al. (2000) compared the effectiveness of teaching school received a keyword analogy method (KEY) which
85 students, ages 6 to 13, with severe reading disabilities taught them to decode words by analogy to keywords. At
to decode in three different ways: (a) synthetic-phonics, the end of the first 4 years, the KEY analogy program was
(b) analogy, and (c) the two approaches combined. The enriched by adding instruction in grapho-phonemic analysis
synthetic phonics instruction, called Phonological Analysis (KEY-PLUS). During the 4 years that followed, 51 more
and Blending (PHAB), followed Engelmann’s (1980) direct beginning readers who were new to the school received the
instruction model. Students were taught grapheme-phoneme Key-Plus program. All 102 KEY and KEY-PLUS students
relations, phoneme segmentation, and a sounding-out- were taught by the same teacher.
and-blending strategy. Visual cues to aid in decoding were During the course of a year in the KEY program, students
provided by special marks on letters and words. The second learned 120 common monosyllabic words that contained
approach was analogy instruction called Word Identification high-frequency spelling patterns (i.e., the vowel and the
Strategy Training (WIST), an adaptation of the Benchmark consonant that follows). These keywords (e.g., make, and,
Word Identification-Vocabulary Development Program he, let, in, king, stop, truck) were placed on a word wall
(Gaskins, Downer, & the Teachers of Benchmark School, once they were introduced and students used these known
1986; Gaskins et al., 1988). In WIST, children learned five words to decode unknown words saying, for example, “If
keywords a day containing high frequency spelling patterns. this is make (keyword), then this is flake.” All the elements
They used these keywords to decode unknown words by of the KEY program were maintained for the KEY-PLUS
analogy (e.g., If I know car (keyword), then I know star). As program, with the addition of fully analyzing the sound-
in the Benchmark program, students were also taught to use letter matches in each of the keywords by segmenting the
metacognitive strategies such as varying the pronunciations words into phonemes. When introducing a new keyword in
of vowels to maintain flexibility in decoding attempts and the KEY-PLUS program, the teacher said the word without
“peeling off” prefixes and suffixes in words. showing the word. Students then stretched the word in uni-
Four treatment groups, all of whom received 70 hours of son, putting up a finger for each sound they heard (e.g., /t/
instruction, were compared. Treatment groups received only /r/ /u/ /k/). As the teacher showed the word card containing
PHAB, only WIST, or both treatments combined. One group the keyword, students followed the Talk-to-Yourself chart
completed PHAB before WIST and the other completed to repeat together what they had discovered: “I hear four
WIST before PHAB. The control group received instruction sounds, but I see five letters because it takes the letters c-k
in academic survival skills. Groups receiving either of the to represent the /k/ sound. The spelling pattern in the word
combined treatments outperformed the groups receiving is U-C-K.” Next, students suggested words that rhyme with
either of the single treatments. All groups outperformed the keyword. As students suggested a rhyming word the
the control group. These findings lead one to expect that teacher wrote it on chart paper under the keyword if it had
students who receive keyword analogy training enriched the same spelling pattern as the keyword. If the spelling pat-
by analysis of sound-letter matches will learn to read better tern was different, the word was written on the chalkboard
than students who receive only word analogy instruction or so students could compare the spelling of the word to the
synthetic phonics instruction. As in the Juel and Minden- keyword. In the KEY-PLUS program children received
Cupp (2000) study, teaching students several ways to decode guided practice in decoding words several ways: by analogy
provided them with options from which to choose based if they knew an analogous keyword for the unknown word
on the decodability of unknown words and based on each or, if they did not know an analogous keyword for the spell-
student’s phase of development and learner profile. ing pattern, by synthetic phonics or initial consonant and
The next study summary is of a longitudinal study of 102 predicting. As in the KEY program, students were taught to
struggling readers, half of whom were taught to decode by be flexible about the sounds for vowels and vowel patterns
analogy while the remaining half were taught to decode by and to be metacognitive by using self-talk to guide them
an enhanced-analogy program. In the enhanced program, through problem-solving the decoding of unknown words.
students were taught to decode by analogy, plus they fully For example, a child might say to herself, “I can’t think of
analyzed the grapho-phonemic components of the keywords a keyword with the same spelling pattern as I see in this
they used in decoding by analogy. word (fence), but I see E-N as in TEN and I know C can
represent /k/ or /s/, so I’ll try using TEN to get FEN, plus
Fully analyzing sound-letter matches in keywords. Ehri both sounds for C and see which makes a word that makes
et al. (2009) compared two groups of first-, second-, and sense in the sentence.”
third-grade beginning readers who received two different Data were collected about the decoding and spelling
types of decoding instruction. The remainder of their liter- abilities of these students before beginning the program and
acy instruction featured the same components: small-group at the end of each year they attended the school. These data
instruction in applying comprehension strategies to reading showed that students receiving KEY-PLUS read and spelled
literature basals and writing in response to reading and to words significantly better at the end of their first and second
their experiences. Students in both decoding treatments years of decoding instruction in this program as compared to
attended an independent school for struggling readers. students receiving the KEY method. The same differences
300 Irene W. Gaskins

remained evident, although not significant, during students’ self-regulation (Snow, et al., 2007; Zimmerman & Schunk,
third and fourth years in the program. 2001), strategy use (Swanson, 2000), and motivation (Snow
et al., 2007; Wigfield, 1997). Additional characteristics
Summary The research discussed above suggests that that support learning to decode, but when absent tend to
a combination of evidence-based decoding approaches impede decoding progress, are active involvement, flex-
better meets the needs of struggling readers than does ibility, persistence, and reflectivity. (See Gaskins, 2005,
any one approach alone. A combined or multidimensional for instructional suggestions.) Flexibility is particularly
approach allows children who evidence different proclivi- important to decoding (Gaskins, 2008). If children are to
ties for learning words and who are at different phases of become good decoders, they need to be taught that when
development to discover and apply what works for them one decoding option does not work, they must try several
and for which words. Further, this approach has room in it possibilities for word features (e.g., letter-sound matches,
for guiding struggling readers with respect to other factors syllabic divisions, sounds represented by vowels depending
(e.g., attention, executive control) that may interfere with on whether a syllable is stressed or unstressed, and multiple
success in reading. Snow et al. (2007) call such an approach other phonological, orthographic, morphological, lexical,
multifaceted. syntactic, and semantic aspects of processing words). Strug-
gling decoders benefit from being taught self-talk routines
for considering alternatives, using “self-teaching” (Share,
The Link between Decoding and Children’s Personal
1995), and applying discoveries about how their language
Characteristics
works (Gaskins et al., 1996–1997). In addition, instruction
Anyone who has taught a child with a decoding problem should emphasize self-monitoring and taking control of
will readily attest to the multifaceted nature of the prob- one’s own learning (Strickland & Snow, 2002).
lem and yet, sadly, only one facet is often addressed—the Many children who experienced difficulty learning to
cognitive. Logic would suggest, however, that a successful decode in the primary grades, and who received an appropri-
decoding program cannot be planned in isolation from the ate intervention, continue to experience reading-related dif-
characteristics of the students who will be instructed (Wasik ficulties even after they have reached grade-level norms for
& Hendrickson, 2004). Instruction needs to address more decoding (Gaskins, 1998; Pressley, 2006). Perhaps in these
than the cognitive product (decoding), but also the process cases there were other factors that needed to be addressed
of achieving it, the habits of mind, dispositions, and other in addition to poor decoding. For example, processing in-
affective, motivational, and volitional characteristics which efficiencies (Perfetti, 2007; Siegel, 2003) or unproductive
mediate learning (Afflerbach, 2007). This is echoed by behavioral characteristics may still exist (Gaskins & Baron,
Kamhi (2005) who suggests that it is important to consider 1985). In addition, students may not have acquired adequate
the nonphonological aspects of reading because learning to fluency or comprehension strategies to meet with success at
decode “involves more than simply establishing an efficient their grade level. All of these need to be addressed as part
phonological decoding mechanism” (p. 203). Further, it of a complete intervention.
is rare when a single characteristic explains why a child
is struggling to develop decoding proficiency (Gaskins, Summary Decoding ability, like other abilities, is a com-
1984; Keogh, 2002); more often it is a combination of plex of cognitive, conative, and affective variables (Snow,
factors (Gaskins, 1998; Gaskins & Baron, 1985; Klenk & Corno, & Jackson, 1996) that interact with task, text, and
Kibby, 2000). situation variables in determining how well a child will
There are many ways in which children’s idiosyncratic learn to read (Gaskins, 2005; RAND Study Group, 2001).
characteristics can affect their response to instruction, and These variables can be either facilitative or impeding. A
some combinations of characteristics, unless addressed, can multiple-pronged intervention (Ackerman & Beier, 2006)
wreak havoc with a struggling reader’s success in learning that addresses these variables is the surest route to creating
to decode (Snow et al., 2007). A few of these characteristics successful decoders.
were mentioned as concerns in the studies reviewed in this
chapter (e.g., attention, behavior).
Conclusions about Interventions
Therefore, if the core processing deficit for many chil-
dren with reading disabilities extends beyond the realm The ability to read words is one of the keys that opens the
of phonological processing to other domains of process- door to reading. And, just as there are many choices of the
ing and behavior (Lovett, Barron, & Benson, 2003), jogs and turns in crafting a key, there are also many choices
then instruction, perhaps including techniques such as a teacher must make in crafting a decoding program, espe-
cognitive behavior modification (Meichenbaum, 1977), cially for struggling readers. The secret lies in crafting an
must address these factors. Some of these factors include: intervention that is personalized for each struggling reader.
speed of processing (Wolf, Bowers, & Biddle, 2000), at- That is the goal of this chapter—how to craft decoding
tention (Swanson & Saez, 2003; Olson & Byrne, 2005) interventions that have enough degrees of freedom to meet
retrieval of word identities (Perfetti, 2007), memory (Ehri each child where he or she is functioning, despite the dif-
& Snowling, 2004), executive functioning (Meltzer, 2007), ferences children exhibit.
 Interventions to Develop Decoding Proficiencies 301

So what should this intervention look like? The interven- in this chapter did not take place as early as would have
tions reviewed in this chapter that proved to be significantly benefited students, it is clear that the trend in the United
more effective than comparison interventions in increasing States is toward early intervention.
the achievement of reading disabled students had several
ingredients in common, all of which evidence-based schools Frequent monitoring of progress. Teachers whose
and knowledgeable teachers will want to include in their students made significant gains tended to monitor students’
arsenal for responding to individual student’s word learn- needs and progress by curriculum-based measures, stan-
ing needs. dardized tests, and daily anecdotal notes, and then adjust
instruction accordingly. In the case of small-group instruc-
Ingredients of Successful Interventions tion, they might also focus on one student a day, having him
Emphasis on teacher skill and professional develop- or her read a new book to the other students in the group
ment. The solution to children’s decoding difficulties as a way of monitoring the use of decoding strategies, or
does not lie in specific programs, but in what teachers the teacher might ask a student to explain how to decode a
know (Allington, 2006; Reutzel & Cooter, 2009; Tay- word that represented a concept recently taught. The results
lor, Pearson, Clark, & Walpole, 2002). Teachers make a of systematic progress checks were sometimes graphed so
greater difference in students’ reading growth than do the that students could see their progress on a week-by-week
programs the teachers use (Bond & Dykstra, 1967). As a or monthly basis.
result, researchers have begun to pay increasing attention
to teachers’ knowledge about literacy. For example, Cun- Sensitivity to phases of development and the right level
ningham, Perry, Stanovich, and Stanovich (2004) found of instructional intensity. Another ingredient noted in this
not only that teachers demonstrated limited knowledge of chapter was that successful interventions were sensitive to
phoneme awareness and phonics, but also that they were each child’s phase of development. They tended to begin in
often unaware of what they did and did not know. Other each child’s zone of proximal development and to use what
studies have also focused on the importance of teacher was know by the child to learn the unknown. The interven-
knowledge (Bos, Mather, Dickson, Podhajski, & Chard, tions were multileveled and the teaching was diagnostic.
2001; Hoffman & Pearson, 2000; McCutchen et al., 2002; When one approach did not work, other alternatives were
McGill-Franzen et al., 1999; Moats & Foorman, 2003; tried. Sometimes the intervention needed to become more
Strickland & Snow, 2002). Researchers tend to agree that intense by decreasing the size of the group or individualiz-
it is the knowledge that teachers possess and translate into ing instruction. On other occasions the teacher might decide
instruction to match the differences they see in children that there needed to be more time devoted to an intervention
that accounts for students’ progress, or lack of progress, or that to continue the same program that was not working
in learning to read (Taylor et al., 2000; Pressley, 2006). As was a bad choice and another approach was needed. There
a result, professional development is a more efficacious was awareness that what was an appropriate intervention at
course to pursue than mandating supposedly teacher-proof one phase of development might not be the best intervention
programs (Snow, Burns, & Griffin, 1998). at another phase of development. For example, segmenting
In schools where professional development was of high words into phonemes is an appropriate intervention at the
quality and consistently provided as a support for instruc- early phases of development, but once children reach the
tional initiatives, at-risk and struggling readers had the best consolidated phase, doing a great deal of reading with an
opportunity for attaining substantial growth in decoding emphasis on comprehension is a better intervention. Dif-
proficiency. Research suggests that effective teachers are ferent interventions with different levels of intensity are
individuals who are continually growing in their knowledge called for at different phases of development.
of children and of curriculum and instruction. They take
advantage of professional development opportunities, as Attention to student characteristics in the choice of in-
well as create them, such as collaborating with co-workers, structional activities. Decoding difficulties are frequently
reading professional journals, or video taping and critiquing exacerbated by learner characteristics such as poor attention,
their own lessons (Haager & Mahdavi, 2007). They know lack of flexibility, impulsivity, or poor self-regulation. To
that learning to teach is a lifelong process. help students cope with these characteristics, teachers build
into their decoding intervention a brisk pace and frequent
Commitment to early intervention. Ideally, children change of activities. Teachers choose activities that require
who are at risk for developing decoding difficulties will have a response from every student, such as writing, pointing,
the benefit of early intervention programs that allow them chanting, or manipulating materials (Gaskins, 2005). In
to beat the odds for developing reading problems (Taylor addition, they provide a metacognitively rich instructional
& Pearson, 2002; Vellutino & Scanlon, 2001). Currently, environment (Gaskins, Gaskins, Anderson, & Schommer,
however, this ideal does not occur frequently enough to 1995; Lovett, Lacerenza, & Borden, 2000). In such an
make it unnecessary to address the topic of teaching chil- environment, teachers mental model how students can use
dren to read who exhibit reading disabilities throughout self-talk to work their way through the decoding of words
their schooling. While some of the interventions reviewed (Gaskins et al., 1996–1997; Gaskins et al., 1997), as well
302 Irene W. Gaskins

as to take charge of nonproductive personal characteristics explained to students what they were about to teach them,
(Gaskins, 2005; Gaskins & Elliot, 1991). why and how it would be helpful, when it could be used,
and explicitly how to do it. These explicit explanations were
Combination of approaches to reading words. Multi- immediately followed by teacher modeling of the procedure
dimensional interventions, comprised of the best practices and scaffolded practice. Misconceptions were corrected dur-
of evidence-based instruction, were more effective in im- ing scaffolding and students received immediate feedback
proving word reading proficiency than any one-size-fits-all about their responses.
intervention. As one example, interventions that combined
synthetic phonics and analogizing achieved better results Priorities established for use of instructional time. In
with at-risk and reading disabled students than either ap- effective interventions time frames were established and
proach alone. Successful multidimensional interventions strictly observed for each element of a lesson. Practice
often included explicit instruction in both large-grain and reading and rereading text was often allocated half of the
small-grain strategies (e.g., synthetic phonics, analogizing, instructional time, with various word-work activities com-
predicting, sight), with many opportunities to apply these prising the other half. Pointing to words as they were read
strategies to reading and writing continuous text. In addi- was emphasized by some teachers. Pointing helped students
tion, teachers of multidimensional interventions explicitly keep their eyes on the words and attend to the task at hand.
taught students to segment spoken words into phonemes It also aided students in moving words into their sight vo-
and to match phonemes or groups of phonemes to letters or cabularies. Echo reading and choral reading while pointing
groups of letters. They also encouraged children to decode also enhanced familiarity with words. Word-work included
and spell words using a variety of strategies. Students came decoding and writing words, especially words composed
to realize that when one strategy does not help in decod- of letter-sound matches that had recently been taught. Let-
ing an unknown word, the best thing to do is try a second, ters were manipulated in words to create new words, and
or even a third; and in decoding a word of more than one then the new words were read. (See Cunningham, 2005;
chunk (syllable), two or three different decoding strategies McCandliss, Beck, Sandak, & Perfetti, 2003; and Rasinski
may be needed. Comprehension was also an important & Oswald, 2005, for word-building suggestions.) In addi-
ingredient of successful multidimensional approaches to tion, children wrote to spelling dictation, as well as wrote
teaching decoding as illustrated by a study completed by sentences and stories, stretching and sounding out words
Berninger et al. (2003). Ninety-six second graders with to match sounds with letters; then they self-checked and
low reading achievement were randomly assigned to one read back the words they had written. There was definitely
of four treatment conditions. The instructional intervention a reciprocal relationship between reading and writing in
that combined word recognition and reading comprehension these successful interventions.
increased phonological decoding significantly more than
the treated control or word-recognition-only treatment and System-wide plan for maintenance of decoding growth
had the highest effect size. This suggests that combining when the intervention concluded. Although very few of
several approaches to decoding with reading comprehension the studies reviewed in this chapter reported a follow-up
instruction may be the ultimate combination. or maintenance plan, it is important to evaluate how well
an intervention prepared at-risk and disabled readers to
Presentation of a systematic and structured ap- continue their growth in reading after an intervention was
proach. Another ingredient of the most successful discontinued, as well as to evaluate what seemed to work
interventions was the use of a systematic and structured with which students. One such study (Blachman et al.,
approach to teaching sound-letter matches. When teaching 2004) followed-up second- and third-grade children who
phonics synthetically, phonemes with the greatest utility, as had poor word-level skills and were randomly assigned to
well as greatest sound difference, were taught initially, so an 8-month program of explicit instruction emphasizing
there would be the least opportunity for confusion and the phonologic and orthographic connections in words. Treat-
best opportunity for high utility. Similarly, when teaching ment children showed significantly greater word and non-
students to analogize, the most common spelling patterns word reading gains than controls and maintained gains at a
(rimes) were introduced early, with these spelling patterns 1-year follow-up. Of interest would be follow-up data with
generating many words students could decode and read in an even longer timeline. Snow and colleagues (2007), for
connected text. Additional structure was added when de- example, followed 3-year-olds into late adolescence. They
coding was systematically approached from both synthetic concluded that by the middle grades there are many more
and analogy perspectives so that students could actively pieces to the puzzle of learning to read, necessitating more
construct small-grain and large-grain knowledge about the far-reaching interventions than teaching reading. Follow-up
way the English language works, thus have more knowledge studies of students who have experienced an intervention
to apply to decoding a greater variety of words. seem crucial as a way to improve instruction.

Implementation of explicit instruction with modeling and Final Word For many decades practitioners and research-
scaffolding. Nothing was left to chance in the effective ers have been searching for one best method to use in
decoding approaches reviewed in this chapter. Teachers teaching children to read. Standard practice has been to
 Interventions to Develop Decoding Proficiencies 303

search the research literature, or conduct research, looking Bos, C., Mather, N., Dickson, S., Podhajski, B., & Chard, C., (2001). Per-
for evidence that one program is superior to all others, a ceptions and knowledge of pre-service and in-service educators about
early reading instruction. Annals of Dyslexia, 51, 97–120.
search that should have ended with the publication of the Chard, D. J., & Lian-Thompson, S. (2008). Introduction to the special
First Grade Reading Studies (Bond & Dykstra, 1967), but series on systemic, multitier instructional models. Journal of Learning
didn’t. In the search for one best method, we seem to forget Disabilities, 41, 99–100.
that children learn in different ways, perceive things in dif- Chhabra, V., & McCardle, P. (2004). Contributions to evidence-based
ferent ways, and bring different experiences, backgrounds, research. In P. McCardle & V. Chhabra (Eds.), The voice of evidence
in reading research (pp. 3–11). Baltimore, MD: Brookes.
and abilities to the classroom. Therefore, it should be no Clay, M. (1979). Reading: The patterning of complex behavior. Auckland,
surprise that any one approach to developing decoding pro- NZ: Heinemann.
ficiencies will work better for some children than for others Clay, M. (2005). An observation survey of early literacy achievement (2nd
(Snow & Juel, 2005). In view of the differences among ed.). Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.
children, there can be no one best approach to decoding for Cunningham, A. E. (1990). Explicit versus implicit instruction in phonemic
awareness. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 50, 429–444.
at-risk and struggling readers—only great teachers who are Cunningham, A. E., Perry, K. E., Stanovich, K. E., & Stanovich, P. J.
aware of and can implement the ingredients of successful (2004) Disciplinary knowledge of K-3 teachers and their knowledge
programs. This is exactly the conclusion of the research calibration in the domain of early literacy. Annals, of Dyslexia, 54,
reviewed in this chapter. 139–167.
Cunningham, P. M. (2005). Phonics they use: Words for reading and
writing (4th ed.). Boston: PearsonAllynBacon.
Acknowledgement Denton, C. A., Fletcher, J. M. Anthony, J. L., & Francis, D. (2006). An
evaluation of intensive intervention for students with persistent reading
The author gratefully acknowledges the input of the fol- difficulties. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 30, 447–466.
lowing colleagues on earlier drafts of this chapter: Sue Dickinson, D. K., & Neuman, S. B. (Eds.). (2006). Handbook of early
Arabia, Sherry Cress, Linnea Ehri, Emily Galloway, Lynn literacy research (Vol.2). New York: Guilford.
Gonzalez, Colleen O’Hara, Joyce Ostertag, Melinda Rahm, Dickinson, D. K., McCabe, A., & Essex, M. J. (2006). A window of op-
portunity we must open to all: The case for preschool with high-quality
Jenny Roca, and Theresa Scott. support for language and literacy. In D. K. Dickinson & S. B. Neuman
(Eds.), Handbook of early literacy research (Vol.2, pp. 11–28). New
York: Guilford.
References
Ehri, L. (1995). Phases of development in reading words. Journal of Research
Ackerman, P. L., & Beier, M. E. (2006). Methods for studying the structure in Reading, 18, 116–126.
of expertise: Psychometric approaches. In K. Ericsson, N. Charness, P. Ehri, L. C. (1998). Grapheme-phoneme knowledge is essential for learning to
Feltovich, & R. Hoffman (Eds.), The Cambridge handbook of expertise read words in English. In J. L. Metsala & L. C. Ehri (Eds.), Word recogni-
and expert performance (pp. 147–165). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge tion in beginning literacy (pp. 3–40). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
University Press. Ehri, L. C. (2005). Learning to read words: Theory, findings, and issues.
Afflerbach, P. (2007). Understanding and using reading assessment, K-12. Scientific Studies of Reading, 9, 167–188.
Newark, DE: International ReadingAssociation. Ehri, L. C., Satlow, E., & Gaskins, I. W. (2009). Grapho-phonemic enrich-
Afflerbach, P., Pearson, P. D., & Paris, S. G. (2008). Clarifying differences ment strengthens keyword analogy instruction for struggling readers.
between reading skills and reading strategies. The Reading Teacher, Reading and Writing Quarterly: Overcoming Learning Difficulties,
61, 364–374. 25, 162–191.
Allington, R. L. (2006). What really matters for struggling readers: De- Ehri, L. C., & Snowling, M. J., (2004). Developmental variation in word
signing research-based programs (2nd ed.). Boston: Pearson. recognition. In C. C. Stone, E. R. Silliman, B. J. Ehren, & K. Apel
Allington, R. L., & Johnston, P. (2001). What do we know about effective (Eds.), Handbook of language and literacy: Development and disorders
fourth-grade teachers and their classrooms? In C. M. Roller (Ed.), (pp. 433–460). New York: Guilford.
Learning to teach reading: Setting the research agenda (pp. 150–165). Elkonin, D. (1973). U.S.S.R. In J. Downing (Ed.), Comparative reading
Newark, DE: International Reading Association. (pp. 551–579). New York: Macmillan.
Allington, R. L., & Walmsley, S. A. (2007). No quick fix: Rethinking lit- Engelmann, S. (1980). Direct instruction. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice
eracy programs in America’s elementary schools (The RTI Edition). Hall.
New York: Teachers College Press. Frith, U. (1985). Beneath the surface of developmental dyslexia. In K.
Al Otaiba, S., & Fuchs, D. (2006). Who are the young children for whom Patterson, J. Marshall, & M. Coltheart (Eds.), Surface dyslexia: Neu-
best practices in reading are ineffective? An experimental and longitu- ropsychological and cognitive studies of phonological reading (pp.
dinal study. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 39, 414–431. 301–330). London: Erlbaum.
Bear, D. R., Invernizzi, M., Templeton, S., & Johnston, F. (2008). Words Foorman, B. R., Francis, D. J., Fletcher, J. M., Schatschneider, C., &
their way: Word study for phonics, vocabulary, and spelling instruction Mehta, P. (1998). The role of instruction in learning to read: Preventing
(4th ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson/Prentice Hall. reading failure in at-risk children. Journal of Educational Psychology,
Berninger, V.W., Vermeulen, K., Abbott, R. D., McCutchen, D., Cotton, 90, 37–55.
S., Cude, J., Dorn, S., & Sharon, T. (2003). Comparison of three Gaskins, I. W. (1984). There’s more to a reading problem than poor read-
approaches to supplementary reading instruction for low-achieving ing. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 17, 467–471.
second-grade readers. Language, Speech, and Hearing Services in Gaskins, I. W. (1998). There’s more to teaching at-risk and delayed readers
Schools, 34, 101–116. than good reading instruction. The Reading Teacher, 51, 534–547.
Blachman, B. A., Schatschneider, C., Fletcher, J. M., Francis, D. J., Clo- Gaskins, I. W. (1999). Problem solving—struggling readers: A multidi-
nan, S. M., Shaywitz, B. A., et al. (2004). Effects of intensive reading mensional reading program. The Reading Teacher, 53, 162–164.
remediation for second and third graders and a 1-year follow-up. Gaskins, I. W. (2004). Word detectives. Educational Leadership, 61,
Journal of Educational Psychology, 96, 444–461. 70–73.
Bond, G. L., & Dykstra, R. (1967). The cooperative research program Gaskins, I. W. (2005). Success with struggling readers: The Benchmark
in first-grade reading instruction. Reading Research Quarterly, 2, School approach. New York: Guilford.
5–142. Gaskins, I. W. (2008). Developing cognitive flexibility in word reading
304 Irene W. Gaskins

among beginning and struggling readers. In K. Cartwright (Ed.), Keogh, B. K. (2002). Research on reading and reading problems: Findings,
Literacy processes: Cognitive flexibility in learning and teaching (pp. limitations, and future directions. In K. Butler & E. Silliman (Eds.),
90–113). New York: Guilford. Speaking, reading, and writing in children with language learning
Gaskins, I. W., & Baron, J. (1985). Teaching poor readers to cope with disabilities: New paradigms in research and practice (pp. 27–44).
maladaptive cognitive styles: A training program. Journal of Learning Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
Disabilities, 18, 390–394. Klenk, L., & Kibby, M. W. (2000), Re-mediating reading difficulties:
Gaskins, I. W., Downer, M. A., Anderson, R. C., Cunningham, P. M., Appraising the past, reconciling the present, constructing the future.
Gaskins, R. W., Schommer, M., et al. (1988). A metacognitive ap- In M. Kamil, P. Mosenthal, P. Pearson, & R. Barr (Eds.), Handbook of
proach to phonics: Using what you know to decode what you don’t reading research (Vol. III, pp. 607–690). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
know. Remedial and Special Education, 9, 36–41. Lindamood, C. H., & Lindamood, P. C. (1984). Auditory discrimination
Gaskins, I. W., Downer, M., & the Teachers of Benchmark School. (1986). in depth. Austin, TX: PRO-ED.
The Benchmark word identification/vocabulary development program. Lindamood, C. H., & Lindamood, P. (1998). The Lindamood phoneme
Media, PA: Benchmark Press. sequencing program for reading, spelling, and speech. Austin, TX:
Gaskins, I.W., Ehri, L. C., Cress, C., O’Hara, C. & Donnelly, K. (1996– PRO-ED.
1997). Procedures for word learning: Making discoveries about words. Lovett, M. W., Barron, R. W., & Benson, N. J. (2003). Effective reme-
The Reading Teacher, 50, 312–328. diation of word identification and decoding difficulties in school-age
Gaskins, I. W., Ehri, L. C., Cress, C., O’Hara, C., & Donnelly, K. (1997). children with reading disabilities. In H. L. Swanson, K. R. Harris, &
Analyzing words and making discoveries about the alphabetic system: S. Graham (Eds.), Handbook of learning disabilities (pp. 273–292).
Activities for beginning readers. Language Arts, 74, 172–184. New York: Guilford.
Gaskins, I. W., & Elliot, T. T. (1991). Implementing cognitive strategy Lovett, M. W., Lacerenza, L., & Borden, S. (2000). Putting struggling
instruction across the school: The Benchmark manual for teachers. readers on the PHAST track: A program to integrate phonological and
Cambridge, MA: Brookline Books. strategy-based remedial reading instruction and maximize outcomes.
Gaskins, I. W., & Labbo, L. D. (2007) Diverse perspectives on helping Journal of Learning Disabilities, 33, 458–476.
young children build important foundational language and print skills. Lovett, M., Lacerenza, L., Borden, S., Frijters, J., Steinbach, K., & De-
Reading Research Quarterly, 42, 438–351. Palma, M. (2000). Components of effective remediation for develop-
Gaskins, R. W., Gaskins, I. W., Anderson, R. C., & Schommer, M. (1995). mental reading disabilities: combining phonological and strategy-based
The reciprocal relationship between research and development: An instruction to improve outcomes. Journal of Educational Psychology,
example involving a decoding strand for poor readers. Journal of 92, 263–283.
Reading Behavior, 27, 337–377. Mathes, P. G., Denton, C. A., Fletcher, J. M., Anthony, J. L., Francis, D.
Goswami, U. (2006). Orthography, phonology, and reading development: J., & Schatschneider, C. (2005). The effects of theoretically different
A cross-linguistic perspective. In R. Joshi & P. Aaron (Eds.), Handbook instruction and student characteristics on the skills of struggling read-
of orthography and literacy (pp. 463–480). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum. ers. Reading Research Quarterly, 40, 148–182.
Haager, D., & Mahdavi, J. (2007). In D. Haaager, J. Klingner, & S. Vaughn, McCandliss, B., Beck, I. L., Sandak, R., & Perfetti, C. (2003). Focusing
Evidence-based reading practices for response to intervention (pp. attention on decoding for children with poor reading skills: Design
245–263). Baltimore, MD: Brookes. and preliminary tests of Word Building intervention. Scientific Studies
Hammill, D. D., & Swanson, H. L. (2006). The National Reading Panel’s of Reading 7, 75–104.
meta-analysis of phonics instruction: Another point of view. The McCutchen, D., Harry, D. R., Cunningham, A. R., Cox, S., Sidman, S.,
Elementary School Journal, 107, 17–26. & Covill, A. E. (2002). Reading teachers’ knowledge of children’s
Harn, B. A., Linan-Thompson, S., & Roberts, G. (2008). Intensifying literature and English phonology, Annals of Dyslexia, 52, 207–228.
instruction: Does additional instructional time make a difference for McGill-Franzen, A. (2006). Kindergarten literacy: Matching assessment
the most at-risk first graders? Journal of Learning Disabilities, 41, and instruction. New York: Scholastic.
115–125. McGill-Franzen, A., Allington, R., Yokoi, I., & Brooks, G. (1999). Putting
Harris, T. L., & Hodges, R. E. (Eds.). (1995). The literacy dictionary: books in the room is necessary but not sufficient. Journal of educational
The vocabulary of reading and writing. Newark, DE: International Research, 93, 67–74.
Reading Association. McNaughton, S. (2008). Looking at school improvement through a Read-
Henderson, E. H. (1990). Teaching spelling. Boston: Houghton Mifflin. ing Recovery lens. Literacy Teaching and Learning, 12(2), 1–17.
Hoffman, J., & Pearson, P D. (2000). Reading teacher education in the Meichenbaum, D. (1977). Cognitive behavior modification: An integrative
next millennium: What your grandmother’s teacher didn’t know that approach. New York: Plenum.
you granddaughter’s teacher should. Reading Research Quarterly, Meltzer, L. (Ed.). (2007). Executive function in education: From theory
35, 28–44. to practice. New York: Guilford.
Iversen, S., & Tunmer, W. (1993). Phonological processing skills and Moats, L. C. (1995) Spelling: Development, disability, and instruction.
the Reading Recovery program. Journal of Educational Psychology, Baltimore, MD: York.
8, 112–126. Moats, L. C., & Foorman, B. R. (2003). Measuring teachers’ content
Juel, C. (2006). The impact of early school experiences on initial reading. knowledge of language and reading. Annals of Dyslexia, 53, 23–45.
In D. K. Dickinson & S. B. Neuman (Eds.), Handbook of early literacy Morris, D. (1999). The Howard Street tutoring manual: Teaching at-risk
research (Vol.2, (pp. 410–426). New York: Guilford. readers in the primary grades. New York: Guilford.
Juel, C., & Minden-Cupp, C. (2000). Learning to read words: Linguistic Morris, D. (2007). One-to-one reading intervention in the primary grades:
units and instructional strategies. Reading Research Quarterly, 35, An idea that must evolve to survive. In B. Taylor & J. Ysseldyke (Eds.),
458–492. Effective instruction for struggling readers: K-6 (pp. 19–36). New
Kamhi, A. G. (2005). Finding beauty in the ugly facts about reading York: Teachers College Press.
comprehension. In H. Catts & A. Kamhi (Eds.), The connections Morris, D., Tyner, B., & Perney, J. (2000). Early steps: Replicating the
between language and reading disabilities (pp. 201–212). Mahwah, effects of a first-grade reading intervention program. Journal of Edu-
NJ: Erlbaum. cational Psychology, 92, 681–693.
Kamps, D., Abbott, M., Greenwood, C., Wills, H., Veerkamp, M., & Morrison, F. J., Connor, C. M., & Bachman, H. J. (2006). The transition
Kaufman, J. (2008). Effects of small-group reading instruction and to school. In D. Dickinson & S. Neuman (Eds.), Handbook of early
curriculum differences for students most at risk in kindergarten: Two- literacy research (Vol. 2, pp. 375–394). New York: Guilford.
year results for secondadry- and tertiary-level interventions. Journal National Reading Panel. (2000). Report of the National Reading Panel:
of Learning Disabilities, 41, 101–114. Teaching children to read: An evidence-based assessment of the
 Interventions to Develop Decoding Proficiencies 305

scientific research literature on reading and its implications for read- Swanson, H. L. (2000). Are working memory deficits in readers with
ing instruction: Reports of the subgroups. Rockville, MD: NICHD learning disabilities hard to change? Journal of Learning Disabilities,
Clearinghouse. 33, 551–566.
Neuman, S. B. (2006). The knowledge gap: Implications for early educa- Swanson, H. L., & Saez, L. (2003) Memory difficulties in children and
tion. In D. Dickinson & S. Neuman (Eds.), Handbook of early literacy adults with learning disabilities. In H. Swanson, K. Harris, & S.
research (Vol. 2, pp. 29–40). New York: Guilford. Graham (Eds.), Handbook of learning disabilities (pp. 182–198).
No Child Left Behind Act of 2001 (NCLB), PubL.No. 107-110 (2002). New York: Guilford.
Retrieved from http://www.ed.gov/policy;elsec;leg;esea02/index Taylor, B. M., Anderson, R. C., Au, K. H., & Raphael, T. (2000). Discre-
Olson, R., & Byrne, B. (2005). Genetic and environmental influences tion in the translation of research to policy: A case from beginning
on reading and language ability and disability. In Catts & A. Kamhi reading. Educational Researcher, 29(6), 16–26.
(Eds.), The connections between language and reading disabilities Taylor, B. M., & Pearson, P. D. (Eds.). (2002). Teaching reading: Effective
(pp. 173–200). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum. schools, accomplished teachers. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
O’Shaughnessy, T. E., & Swanson, H. L. (2000). A comparison of two Taylor, B. M., Pearson, P. D., Clark, K., & Walpole, S. (2002). Effective
reading interventions for children with reading disabilities. Journal schools and accomplished teachers: Lessons about primary-grade
of Learning Disabilities, 33, 257–277. reading instruction in low-income schools. In B. M. Taylor & P. D.
Perfetti, C. (2007). Reading ability: Lexical quality to Comprehension. Pearson (Eds.), Teaching reading: Effective schools, accomplished
Scientific Studies of Reading, 11, 357–383. teachers (pp. 3–72). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
Pressley, M. (2006). Reading instruction that works: A case for balanced Taylor, B. M., Peterson, D. S., Marx, M., & Chein, M. (2007). Scaling up
reading (3rd ed.). New York: Guilford. a reading reform in high-poverty. In B. Taylor & J. Ysseldyke (Eds.),
Ramey, S. L., & Ramey, C. T. (2006). Early educational interventions: Prin- Effective instruction for struggling readers, K-6 (pp. 216–234). New
ciples of effective and sustained benefits from targeted early education York: Teachers College Press.
programs. In D. Dickinson & S. Neuman (Eds.), Handbook of early Torgesen, J. K. (2004). Lessons learned from research on interventions
literacy research (Vol. 2, pp. 445–459). New York: Guilford. for students who have difficulty learning to read. In P. McCardle &
RAND Reading Study Group. (2002). Reading for understanding: To- V. Chabra (Eds.), The voice of evidence in reading research (pp.
wards a R & D program in reading comprehension. Santa Monica, 355–382). Baltimore, MD: Brookes.
CA: Academic. Torgesen, J. K. (2005). Recent discoveries on remedial interventions for
Rasinski, T., & Oswald, R. (2005). Making and writing words: Construc- children with dyslexia. In M. Snowling & C. Hulme (Eds.), The science
tivist word learning in a second-grade classroom. Reading & Writing of reading: A handbook (pp. 521–537). Malden, MA: Blackwell.
Quarterly, 21, 151–163. Torgesen, J. K., Alexander, A. W., Wagner, R. K., Rashotte, C. A., Voeller,
Reutzel, D. R., & Cooter, R .B., Jr. (2009). The essentials of teaching K., & Conway, T. (2001). Intensive remedial instruction for children
children to read: The teacher makes the difference. (2nd ed.). Boston: with severe reading disabilities: Immediate and long-term outcomes
Pearson. from two instructional approaches. Journal of Learning Disabilities,
Santa, C., & Hoien, T. (1999). An assessment of Early Steps: A program 34, 33–58.
for early intervention of reading problems. Reading Research Quar- Valencia, S. W., & Riddle-Buly, M. R. (2004). Behind text scores: What
terly, 34, 54–79. struggling readers really need. The Reading Teacher, 57, 520–531.
Share, D. L. (1995). Phonological recoding and self-teaching: Sine qua Vaughn, S., & Klingner, J. (2007). Overview of the three-tier model of
non of reading acquisition. Cognition, 55, 151–218. reading intervention. In D. Haager, J. Klingner, & S. Vaughn (Eds.),
Sharp, A., Sinatra, G., & Reynolds, R. (2008). The development of chil- Evidence-based reading practices for response to intervention (pp.
dren’s orthographic knowledge: A micro-genetic perspective. Reading 3–10). Baltimore, MD: Brookes.
Research Quarterly, 43, 206–226. Vaughn, S., Wanzek, J., & Fletcher, J.M. (2007). Multiple tiers of inter-
Siegel, L. S. (2003). Basic cognitive processes and reading disabilities. vention: A framework for prevention and identification of students
In H. L. Swanson, K. R. Harris, & S. Graham (Eds.), Handbook of with reading/learning disabilities. In B. Taylor & J. Ysseldyke (Eds.),
learning disabilities (pp. 158–181). New York: Guilford. Effective instruction for struggling readers, K-6 (pp. 173–195). New
Snow, C. E., Burns, S., & Griffin, P. (Eds.). (1998). Preventing reading York: Teachers College Press.
difficulties in young children. Washington, DC: National Academy Vaughn, S., Wanzek, J., Woodruff, A., & Lian-Thompson, S. (2007). Preven-
Press. tion and early identification of students with reading disabilities. In D.
Snow, C. E., & Juel, C. (2005). Teaching children to read: What do we know Haaager, J. Klingner, & S. Vaughn, Evidence-based reading practices
about how to do it? In M. Snowling & C. Hulme (Eds.), The science of for response to intervention (pp. 11–27). Baltimore, MD: Brookes.
reading: A handbook (pp. 501–520). Malden, MA: Blackwell. Vellutino, F. R., & Scanlon, D. M. (2001). Emergent literacy skills, early
Snow, C. E., Porche, M. V., Tabors, P. O., & Harris, S. R. (2007). Is instruction, and individual differences as determinants of difficulties
Literacy enough? Pathways to academic success for adolescents. in learning to read. The case for early intervention. In S. Neuman &
Baltimore, MD: Brookes. D. Dickinson (Eds.), Handbook of early literacy research (Vol. 1, pp.
Snow, R. E., Corno, L., & Jackson, D. (1996). Individual differences in 295–321). New York: Guilford.
affective and conative functions. In D. Berliner & R. Calfee (Eds.), Vellutino, F. R., & Scanlon, D. M. (2002). The Interactive Strategies ap-
Handbook of educational psychology (pp. 243–310). New York: Simon proach to reading intervention. Contemporary Educational Psychol-
& Schuster Macmillan. ogy, 27, 573–635.
Stahl, S. A., Duffy-Hester, A. M., & Stahl, K. A. (1998). Everything Vellutino, F. R., Scanlon, D. M., Sipay, E. R., Small, S. G., Pratt, A.,
you wanted to know about phonics (but were afraid to ask). Reading Chen, R., et al. (1996). Cognitive profiles of difficult-to-remediate
Research Quarterly, 33, 338–355. and readily remediated poor readers: Early intervention as a vehicle
Stanovich, K. (1984). The interactive-compensatory model of reading. A for distinguishing between cognitive and experiential deficits as basic
confluence of developmental, experimental, and educational psychol- causes of specific reading disability. Journal of Educational Psychol-
ogy. Remedial and Special Education, 5, 11–19 ogy, 88, 601–638.
Stanovich, K. E. (1986). Matthew effects in reading: Some consequences of Walton, P. D., & Walton, L. M. (2002). Beginning reading by teaching in
individual differences in the acquisition of literacy. Reading Research rime analogy: Effects on phonological skills, letter-sound knowledge,
Quarterly, 21, 360–407. working memory, and word-reading strategies. Scientific Studies of
Strickland, D. (1998), Teaching phonics today: A primer for educators. Reading, 6, 79–115.
Newark, NE: International Reading Association. Wanzek, J., & Vaughn, S. (2008). Response to varying amounts of time
Strickland, D., & Snow, C. (2002). Preparing our teachers: Opportunities in reading intervention for students with low response to intervention.
for better reading instruction. Washington DC: Joseph Henry Press. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 41, 126–142.
306 Irene W. Gaskins

Wasik, B., & Hendrickson, J. (2004). Family literacy practices. In C. Ysseldyke, J. E., & Taylor, B. M. (2007). Understanding the factors that
Stone, E. Silliman, B. Ehren, & K. Apel (Eds.), Handbook of lan- allegedly contribute to students’ reading difficulties. In B. Taylor &
guage and literacy: Development and disorders (pp. 154–174). New J. Ysseldyke (Eds.), Effective instruction for struggling readers, K-6
York: Guilford. (pp. 1–18). New York: Teachers College Press.
Wigfield, A. (1997). Children’s motivations for reading and reading en- Ziegler, J. C., & Goswami, U. G. (2005). Reading acquisition, developmen-
gagement. In J. Guthrie & A. Wigfield (Eds.), Reading engagement tal dyslexia, and skilled reading across languages: A psycholinguistic
motivating readers through integrated instruction (pp. 14–33). Newark, grain size theory. Psychological Bulletin, 131, 3–29.
DE: International Reading Association. Zimmerman, B. J., & Schunk, D. H. (Eds.). (2001). Self-regulated learning
Wolf, M., Bowers, P. G., & Biddle, K. (2000). Naming-speed processes, and academic achievement. Austin, TX: Pro-Ed.
timing, and reading. A conceptual review. Journal of Learning Dis-
abilities, 33, 387–407.
 28
Interventions to Enhance Fluency and Rate of Reading
MELANIE R. KUHN
Boston University

In recent years, fluency instruction has come to be seen chapter will assist you in either rethinking fluency instruc-
as a central component in the primary and elementary tion and its role in the literacy curriculum or it will confirm
literacy curriculum (e.g., National Reading Panel, 2000), your understanding of the construct and how best to assist
one that assists students as they make the shift from stilted students in their efforts to become fluent readers.
and uneven oral reading to oral reading that is smooth and
expressive and one that contributes to skilled silent reading
Reading Fluency and Its Components
as well (e.g., Samuels, 2006). And, while fluency instruction
has an important place in the general literacy curriculum, One characteristic that differentiates many reading disabled
such instruction is especially important for students with students from their more skilled peers is their inability
reading disabilities since these learners are far more likely to read fluently. By this, I mean they are unable to read
to experience difficulty making this transition than are their passages smoothly or with appropriate expression. While
peers (e.g., Kuhn & Stahl, 2003). However, while identify- such difficulties might be a bit troubling if they primarily
ing ways in which we can help struggling readers become affected the way learners sound when they are reading
fluent is an essential part of this discussion, exploring the aloud, these difficulties are worthy of more serious con-
ways in which fluency contributes to reading develop- cern when you consider that most disfluent readers also
ment in general, and comprehension in particular, is also experience difficulties with their comprehension of texts
critical if we are to avoid creating fluency instruction—and (National Reading Panel, 2000). In fact, according to most
assessment—that emphasizes reading rate at the expense of researchers, the two facets of skilled reading are linked,
understanding. Such instruction not only limits our students’ with reading fluency seen either as a critical link between
understanding of fluency and its role in the reading process, decoding ability and comprehension (e.g., Chard, Pikulski,
it leads to a devaluation of instructional approaches that, & McDonagh, 2006) or with comprehension seen as an
when implemented properly, can make a significant contri- integral component of fluent reading itself (Samuels, 2006).
bution to the reading development of students experiencing These understandings develop from the role that fluency’s
reading difficulties. component parts—accuracy, automaticity, and prosody—
The goals of this chapter, therefore, are to discuss several play in skilled reading.
aspects of fluency and fluency instruction in relation to the
reading development of students with reading disabilities. Accuracy and Automaticity At the level of word identifi-
First, I explore the role that accuracy, automaticity and cation, skilled readers must accomplish two things in order
prosody play in reading fluency (e.g., Rasinski & Hoffman, to comprehend a text.1 First, they must be able to accurately
2003). Next, I consider the ways in which overemphasizing identify the vast majority of words they encounter in a text
certain aspects of the construct, through either instruction (e.g., Adams, 1990; Chall, 1996). This involves develop-
or assessment, can negatively influence students’ under- ing familiarity with the sound-symbol correspondences
standing of what constitutes fluent reading—as well as the that occur regularly in written English as well as with
purposes of reading more broadly (e.g., Samuels, 2007; those high frequency words that should be recognized as
Walker, Mokhtari, & Sargent, 2006). Finally, I address flu- a unit (e.g., the, and, it). Second, their word recognition
ency instruction in order to identify commonalities across must be automatic (LaBerge & Samuels, 1974; Logan,
effective approaches (e.g., Kuhn, 2009). Hopefully, this 1997). In other words, readers should not have to expend a

307
308 Melanie R. Kuhn

significant amount of effort on word identification; rather, classroom practice. When reflecting upon automaticity in
they should be able to recognize words immediately upon reading, Jay Samuels (1979, 2006) argues that it is important
encountering them. to consider the ways in which this construct is developed in
Such instantaneous word recognition is important be- other areas (Samuels, 1979); for example, when individuals
cause individuals have a limited ability to process informa- are learning to play tennis, it is necessary that they practice
tion (e.g., LaBerge & Samuels, 1974). In the case of reading, individual aspects of the game, say their backhand and their
this means that attention expended on word identification serve, to become adept at those moves. However, it is also
is attention that is unavailable for comprehension. If it is essential that they learn how to combine various components
the case that the reader has to spend significant amounts into a unified action if they are ever to shift from simply
of attention in order to identify most of the words they en- practicing to actually playing. Applying this understanding
counter, he will have difficulty constructing meaning from to reading, it is important that students learn how to recog-
the texts they are reading. If, on the other hand, a reader nize words quickly and accurately, and, in order to achieve
has established automatic word recognition, the amount this, they need significant amounts of practice.
of attention she needs to expend on word identification is As with tennis, some of this practice should take place
minimal, and, as a result, she will retain most of their at- in isolation, through decoding instruction and word work
tention for comprehension. that allows learners to establish familiarity with English
orthography, but, if learners are to develop automatic word
Pr osody The third component of fluent reading is prosody recognition when reading connected text, much of this prac-
(Erekson, 2003; Kuhn & Stahl, 2003). Prosody consists of tice needs to take place in context using both supported oral,
those elements of reading that, when taken together, com- as well as silent, reading. Without the later type of practice,
prise expressive reading (e.g., pitch, stress, and parsing). students may become quite capable of quickly identifying
It is the case that the accurate use of these elements allows words in isolation, but may not necessarily transfer that
readers to determine shades of meaning that might not im- ability to their actual reading. In fact, it is often the case that
mediately be apparent in written text. However, while some students experiencing difficulties applying their word rec-
aspects of oral expression are represented in text by punc- ognition knowledge to connected text find themselves faced
tuation (e.g., Truss, 2003), this is not always the case (Miller with increasing amounts of decoding instruction in isola-
& Schwanenflugel, 2006). For example, when a person ends tion, rather than increased opportunities for guided practice
a heated discussion with the words “fine,” the person they in context (e.g., Allington, 1977, 1983). Unfortunately, by
were engaged with usually realizes that the speaker does limiting struggling readers to this as their primary form of
not mean that the two have come to an amicable agreement. practice, we are actually minimizing, rather than increasing,
However, there is nothing available in a written version of the likelihood that they will become skilled readers.
such a conversation to convey this understanding. Instead, Next, as was mentioned in the previous section, the
the reader has to apply their knowledge of oral exchanges integration of prosody into students’ reading can also lead
to develop the correct sense of the interaction. to a more nuanced understanding of the text (e.g., Erekson,
While it is the case that the appropriate application of 2003). Further, by developing an awareness of the impor-
expressive features can affect the meaning constructed tance of appropriate expression and phrasing in students,
from a given text, it is unclear exactly how this process it is possible to prevent them from developing the belief
occurs. There are three distinct possibilities as regards the that fluent reading is simply fast reading and the faster the
relationship between prosody and comprehension. In the better (e.g., Walker et al., 2006). In fact, by emphasizing
first scenario, the application of prosodic elements to a text the importance of prosodic elements in text, learners are
allow for comprehension to occur. In the second case, com- prevented from viewing reading as a race and their compre-
prehension of written material needs to take place before hension is improved (Dowhower, 1991; Schreiber, 1991).
prosodic elements can be applied. And in the third and final Unfortunately, the overemphasis on oral reading rate may be
scenario (and the one that represents my own point of view), an unintended consequence of certain assessment tools that
an interactive relationship exists in which prosody both emphasize correct word per minute rates without reference
contributes to and is reflective of a reader’s comprehension. to expression or the need to vary reading rate according to
Given the importance of automaticity (which assumes a high the complexity of the text (e.g., Samuels, 2007; Walker et
level of accuracy) and prosody in constructing meaning al., 2006). Perhaps even more regrettably, this overemphasis
from text, the value of utilizing instructional approaches can also lead to a misuse of fluency-oriented instructional
that integrate both elements into fluency instruction begins approaches such as repeated readings. While it is critical that
to become apparent. learners develop automatic word recognition (see Table 28.1
for a guide to correct words per minute rates), it is equally
important that this not be the only goal. Instead, students
Automaticity and Prosody in Practice
should develop the understanding that fluency consists
In addition to thinking about automaticity and prosody of smooth, accurate, and expressive reading at a rate that
in terms of their role in fluent reading, it is also useful to replicates that of oral language (see Table 28.2 for a guide
consider how each of these elements can be integrated into to prosodic text features).
 Interventions to Enhance Fluency and Rate of Reading 309

TABLE 28.1 aloud. Spending approximately 5 minutes a day reading

Correct Words per Minute by Grade Level such a text aloud accomplishes several things. First, it cre-
Grade Fall Winter Spring ates a shared experience amongst the learners. Next, and
1 — 10–30 30–60 cwpm especially critical for struggling readers, it provides students
2 30–60 50–80 70-100 with the opportunity to hear what smooth, expressive read-
3 50–90 70–100 80–110
ing sounds like. Finally, by making selections from a range
of genres, it increases the likelihood that students will find
4 70–110 80–120 100–140
a text that is engaging.
5 80–120 100–140 110–150
The second principle, that students should have ex-
6 100–140 110–150 120–160 tensive opportunities to practice reading connected texts,
7 110–150 120–160 130–170 provides a caveat for the first principle. That is, as positive
8 120–160 130–170 140–180 as modeling is for students, it is important not to overuse
From Rasinski, T. V. (2004). Assessing Reading Fluency. Honolulu: Pacific it—a tendency that is especially prevalent when working
Resources for Education and Learning. Available at http://www.prel.org/products/ with reading disabled students. It is often the case that
re_/assessing-fluency.htm
teachers revert to reading aloud as a means of compensat-
ing for a text that is beyond their students’ instructional
Fluency Instruction level (there is a parallel tendency for teachers to present
While many readers become fluent as the result of the liter- the information from a difficult text in a lecture format for
acy instruction provided in a typical elementary classroom, the same reason; Shanahan, 2007). While this approach is
this is rarely the case for students with reading disabilities problematic for any student (it is essential that all students
(e.g., Kuhn & Schwanenflugel, 2006). Instead, such students have multiple opportunities to read challenging texts in a
require even greater opportunities to practice their reading supportive environment), it is the case that struggling read-
in a supported environment than do their peers who are able ers need even greater opportunities to read a range of texts
to develop their reading ability without noticeable difficulty. (including texts that are challenging for them) in such an
One way to provide reading disabled students with the in- environment if they are to become independent readers.
struction they need is by integrating four fluency-oriented By reverting exclusively, or even primarily, to lectures and
principles into oral reading instruction (Rasinski, 2003); read-alouds, students are denied the very opportunities they
these principles are modeling, opportunities for practice, the need to develop their own reading ability. However, while
provision of support and assistance, and the demonstration the provision of such opportunities make sense in theory,
of appropriate phrasing. While these elements are the basis it often seems difficult to accomplish in practice. Luckily,
of a range of fluency strategies that are effective for all learn- the approaches discussed later in the chapter should provide
ers, the integration of these principles into instruction for several options for creating just such expanded opportunities
students with reading disabilities is critical to their develop- for scaffolded oral reading and, whenever appropriate, for
ment as skilled readers (McKenna & Stahl, 2003). As such, I silent reading as well.
will discuss the role each plays in fluency instruction and its The third principle, that of providing students with sup-
particular usefulness for students with reading disabilities. A port or assistance for their reading, is especially critical
second way to provide learners with appropriate instruction for reading disabled students. While all students benefit
is to integrate specific fluency-oriented reading approaches
TABLE 28.2
into the curriculum. There are many instructional strategies
National Assessment of Educational Progress’s Oral
that have proven to be effective over the past three decades Reading Fluency Scale
(e.g., Kuhn, 2009; Rasinski, 2003), and I highlight three
Level 4 Reads primarily in larger, meaningful phrase groups.
instructional strands (unassisted repeated readings, assisted Although some regressions, repetitions and deviations
readings, and classroom approaches), along with ways that from text may be present, those do not appear to detract
recent research may serve to change some of our underlying from the overall structure of the story. Preservation of
assumptions regarding effective fluency practices, as part the author’s syntax is consistent. Some or most of the
story is read with expressive interpretation.
of a broader discussion of trends in this area.
Level 3 Reads primarily in three- or four-word phrase groups.
Some smaller groupings may be present. However, the
Principles of Fluency Instruction The first of Rasinski’s
majority of phrasing seems appropriate and preserves the
(2003) principles involves the modeling of expressive read- syntax of the author. Little or no expressive interpretation
ing. Not only is such modeling likely to instill a love of is present.
reading in students, it simultaneously provides them with Level 2 Reads primarily in two-word phrases with some three- or
a sense of what good oral reading should sound like. While four-word groupings. Some word-by-word reading may
reading to students is a common practice in the primary be present. Word groupings may seem awkward and
grades, it tends to be a fairly rare occurrence in later grades. unrelated to larger context of sentence or passage.
However, there are many texts, from poems to highly de- Level 1 Reads primarily word-by-word. Occasionally two-word
scriptive expository selections, such as speeches, that are or three-word phrases may occur, but these are infrequent
and/or they do not preserve meaningful syntax.
ideal for older students and lend themselves to being read
310 Melanie R. Kuhn

from reading in a supportive environment, students who holds the distinction of being the first approach designed
are experiencing difficulty consolidating what they know specifically to develop the automaticity of disfluent readers.
about word recognition into their reading of connected texts When developing the approach, Samuels (1979) envisioned
require additional assistance from a skilled reader. As such, it as a means of implementing the type of practice that is
it is essential that they regularly read in situations where commonly seen in the fields of music and athletics. As was
some form of support is available. This support can involve mentioned earlier, when athletes, for example, begin to take
the repeated reading of a single text, silently or aloud, until up their art or sport, they take part in the repeated practice of
the students have reached a predetermined level of mastery, both isolated components of their craft as well as connected
or it can incorporate the single reading of a range of chal- routines. At the time this approach was developed, typical
lenging or instructional level texts through the use of echo, classroom practice for struggling readers tended to over-rely
choral, or partner reading. Whichever approach is chosen, on decoding practice in isolation (Allington, 1977) and to
the scaffolding that these methods afford students will allow underemphasize the scaffolded practice of connected text.
them to develop as skilled readers. When learners did have the opportunity to read connected
The final principle involves an emphasis on appropri- text, it was often the case that they only took part in a single
ate phrasing. According to several qualitative scales (e.g., oral reading of the material and that this reading was broken
Allington & Brown cited in Allington 1983; NAEP, 1995; up into smaller sections as part of a round robin reading
Zutell & Rasinski, 1991), disfluent readers parse text in of the text. Unfortunately, it remains the case that, far too
ways that do not replicate oral language (e.g., word-by- often, learners face similar types of instruction today, either
word reading or inappropriate phrasing). As was mentioned in a modified form of round robin reading (e.g., popcorn,
earlier in this chapter, this is at least partially the result of popsicle, or combat reading; Ash & Kuhn, 2006) or in a
the limitations of punctuation to indicate phrasal boundaries lack of opportunities to actually read text (Hiebert, 2004).
(e.g., Miller & Schwanenflugel, 2006). Unfortunately, this And while such instruction may be problematic for many
tendency on the part of a disfluent reader has a negative readers, it is especially troubling for students identified with
impact on comprehension. One way to help students com- reading disabilities (Allington, 1977, 2005).
pensate for this inability is to model appropriate phrasing; Thinking about the differences that exist between
this can be especially helpful when leading an echo or choral practice designed to benefit athletes and musicians and
reading of a text. A second approach is to help students that designed to improve reading led Samuels (1979) to
determine where the phrasal boundaries should occur in consider an approach to reading instruction that paralleled
texts that they are reading by having them identify which the practice used in other fields and that he felt was likely
breaks sound like language and which ones don’t; so, for be more effective than the approaches that were commonly
example, in this excerpt from Tom Sawyer (Twain, 1986, being used. Based on this understanding, he postulated
p. 7), students should discuss which sounds better: “The that students might establish automaticity more easily
old/ lady pulled/ her spectacles/ down and/ looked if, instead of reading part of a passage once, they were
over/ them about/ the room” or “The old lady/ pulled given the opportunity to practice reading a given selec-
her spectacles down/ and looked over them/ about the tion repeatedly. Samuels not only felt that such repetition
room.” By holding discussions around appropriate phras- should lead to improvements with the practiced material,
ing, it becomes possible to develop students’ awareness but that such gains might transfer to the reading of other
of these elements and their importance in written text texts. And, in fact, repeated readings has been shown to be
(Dowhower, 1991). effective for struggling readers not only in terms of rate,
accuracy, and where measured, prosody on the targeted text
(e.g., Dowhower, 1994; Kuhn & Stahl, 2003), but also on
Instructional Strategies
unpracticed material as well.
While the above principles can be integrated into virtually The procedure itself is a simple one that is easy to use
any literacy curriculum, there are several strategies that in a one-on-one instructional setting. Since the repetition
have been designed specifically to increase students’ read- embedded in the procedure allows learners to increase
ing fluency. By discussing three strands of instruction that their automaticity, the approach is ideal for students whose
have proven to be effective in developing learners’ reading are accurate decoders, but whose reading rate falls below
fluency, as well as by looking at new understandings regard- the norms established for their grade. The strategy itself
ing effective approaches that are starting to emerge from involves the repeated reading of a challenging text (text
classroom-based research, it becomes possible to identify with an initial accuracy rate of 85% to 90%). As a student
certain trends in classroom-based practice. completes an initial reading of the text, it is the teacher’s
role to record the number of words that the learner reads
Unassisted Repeated Readings In terms of fluency per minute along with the number of miscues she or he
instruction, the repeated readings approach is probably makes on the passage. As the student rereads the text, the
the most frequently used strategy and is also likely to be number of words read per minute should increase while
the most widely researched fluency-oriented instructional the number of miscues made should decrease. The student
method (e.g., Samuels, 1979; Dowhower, 1994). It also should then practice re-reading the passage, either silently
 Interventions to Enhance Fluency and Rate of Reading 311

or aloud and either for a predetermined number of repeti- with audio recordings of a text, either silently or orally, to
tions, usually between three and five, or until she or he increase their fluency. The procedure was developed as a
reaches a predetermined target for both reading rate and way of assisting several third graders who were reluctant,
number of miscues. disfluent readers. Despite taking part in intensive phonics
While it is important to stress that the repeated readings instruction, these students were unable to apply their decod-
procedure has been effective at increasing the reading rate ing knowledge to the reading of connected text and were
of struggling readers (e.g., Dowhower, 1989; Joseph, 2007; reading well below grade level. Rather than provide these
Samuels, 1979), some educators have expressed concern learners with yet more decoding instruction, Chomsky
that the approach’s emphasis on automaticity may, in fact, thought the students would benefit from the opportunity to
detract learners from developing the understanding that read significant amounts of connected texts. She therefore
reading’s primary purpose is the construction of meaning. provided them with recordings of two dozen books ranging
However, a study designed to determine whether learn- in reading level from second to fifth grade. This provided the
ing disabled fifth through eighth graders could increase learners with accessible versions of the material, allowing
their comprehension of a passage while simultaneously them to practice their reading independently.
improving their reading rate through a repeated readings Since these students were struggling readers, the level
approach had positive results (O’Shea, Sindelar, & O’Shea, of the selections were challenging for them, however, the
1987). The study’s authors found that when students were procedure gave them a chance to apply their knowledge of
specifically asked to focus on the passage content, both word recognition to connected text—a step that had been
their comprehension of the passage and their reading rate missing in their instruction to date. Further, by simultane-
improved. However, when students were only asked to focus ously listening to and reading along with the tape, the
on rate, they only made gains in terms of their automatic- students were able to establish the connection between
ity. The implication is that, to ensure learners’ focus on written text and oral language. They did this by rereading
both rate and comprehension, they should be encouraged a particular text until they were able to render the material
to think about the passage as they are reading it and briefly fluently for the teacher. And, because it holds the students
discuss the selection after the first or second repetition. responsible for the material, the procedure ensures their
Similarly, while the primary purpose of the approach is active participation in the process and provides a level of
to move students away from word-by-word reading and accountability. Since the students who take part in this
toward automaticity, this does not mean that students procedure are experiencing reading difficulties, it may
should simply be encouraged to read the passage as fast take them a while before they are able to coordinate their
as possible. Instead, their goal should be to read at a rate reading with the recording. However, once they become
that falls within the guidelines established for their grade comfortable with the procedure, this should no longer be an
levels while incorporating the use of appropriate prosodic issue. And, it is important to note that while some students
elements. By having students focus on rate, meaning, and will develop this comfort by practicing orally (this is often
expression (see Tables 28.1 & 28.2), the likelihood that they the case with younger students who can be encouraged to
will use this approach as a stepping stone to skilled silent use whisper reading or pvc “phones” to minimize the level
reading increases. of noise in the classroom), others will prefer to practice
silently (a more likely scenario for older students). Further,
Assisted Readings While repeated readings is a highly research conducted on reading-while-listening procedures
successful strategy that is easy to implement in a one-on- (e.g., Rasinski & Hoffman, 2003) indicates that the ap-
one setting, most classroom teachers do not have the op- proach is not only an effective one for struggling readers,
portunity to work with individual students for significant it is a motivating and enjoyable one as well.
periods of time. As such, several effective alternatives to
this procedure have been developed; these include reading- Classroom Approaches A third strand of approaches (and
while-listening (Chomsky, 1976, 1978; Pluck, 2006), the last to be discussed in this chapter) involves incorporat-
closed-caption television (Koskinen, Wilson, & Jensema, ing fluency-oriented instruction into the broader literacy
1985), computer-assisted technology (e.g., Adams, 2003), curriculum through whole class or flexible grouping. There
and a modified version of the neurological impress method are several approaches that have been designed for such
(NIM; Hollingsworth, 1970, 1978). Each of these alternative a purpose. Some of these are supplemental, for example,
approaches makes use of a model of fluent reading—be it Reader’s Theater, the Fluency Development Lesson, and
an audio recording or the use of the text that accompanies Paired Repeated Reading (see Kuhn, 2009), while some
a television show—rather than relying solely on repetition can be used in conjunction with guided or shared reading
to serve as the scaffolding. As such, they may be more instruction, for example, the Oral Recitation Lesson (ORL;
readily integrated into a classroom center where a student Hoffman, 1987), Wide Fluency-Oriented Oral Reading
can work independently. (Wide FOOR; Kuhn, 2005), or Fluency-Oriented Reading
Rather than explore each version of assisted reading, Instruction (FORI; Stahl & Heubach, 2005). All of these
I will use reading-while-listening (Chomsky, 1976) as an classroom approaches are effective at improving students’
exemplar. In this approach, students are asked to read along reading fluency, and they appear to be especially beneficial
312 Melanie R. Kuhn

for students who are experiencing difficulty making the only multiple times, but also in multiple settings, students
transition to fluent reading (see Kuhn, 2009, or Rasinski, are likely to learn them more easily (e.g., Logan, 1997;
2003, for an in-depth discussion of these and other fluency- Mostow & Beck, 2005).
oriented reading approaches). Further, these approaches all After considering the above findings, I designed a
share a number of characteristics. research study that compared two forms of small group
To begin with, all of the procedures mentioned in the fluency instruction to determine the relative accuracy of
above paragraph incorporate support in the form of a model, the conclusions. The research consisted of two instructional
usually the teacher, who provides an expressive rendering approaches, one based upon repetition and one based upon
of a given text. As with the assisted reading approaches the wide reading of a larger number of texts for an equiva-
discussed in the previous section, rather than expecting lent amount of time. To control these groups for simple
struggling readers to determine each word as they encoun- exposure to text, I also included a group that listened to, but
ter it, the students are provided with scaffolding for their did not read, the selections used by the intervention groups
word recognition. This scaffolding takes the form of either along with a traditional control group. The intervention
an echo or choral reading of a text. Next, although these was designed for use with second grade struggling readers
strategies emphasize appropriate pacing, they do not stress who, according to both their teachers and the pre-test as-
reading rate at the expense of comprehension. Instead, sessments, had established basic word recognition abilities,
they focus on the construction of meaning both through but were experiencing difficulties applying this knowledge
a discussion of the selection and through the emphasis to connected text. The intervention consisted of small group
of appropriate prosodic elements. Third, they ensure that instruction (5–6 students per group) for 15- to 20-minute
students spend significantly greater amounts of class time periods three times a week.
engaged in the reading of connected text than is the case The goal of these sessions was to scaffold these strug-
with many instructional alternatives. However, while many gling second graders as they read a series of challenging
of these approaches incorporate repeated practice of a given texts, or texts that would normally be considered to be
text, there are some that instead rely on the Wide Reading beyond their instructional level. Given the students were
of multiple texts to accomplish this goal (e.g., Wide FOOR; reading below grade level, the texts I selected ranged
Kuhn, 2005). between a late first- and an early third-grade reading level
Wide Reading, in this context, refers to the scaffolded (e.g., Fountas & Pinnell, 1999). Since the goal of this evalu-
reading of a large number of challenging texts, as opposed ation was to explore the effectiveness of a repeated readings
to the independent reading of multiple texts that is usually procedure and a wide reading approach, the first procedure,
part and parcel of the reading habits of skilled readers. As Fluency-Oriented Oral Reading (FOOR), incorporated a
has been stressed in the discussion of fluency instruction modified repeated readings approach. This involved the
throughout this chapter, repetition has been viewed as a reading of a single trade book over the course of a three
critical element in helping disfluent readers make the shift to sessions. The second condition, Wide Fluency-Oriented
automatic, expressive reading. However, a recent review of Oral Reading (Wide FOOR), on the other hand, consisted
the research on fluency interventions (Kuhn & Stahl, 2003) of a single echo or choral reading of a different text at each
observed that, when comparing students using repetition session. As previously mentioned, a third group of students
with students who read equivalent amounts of scaffolded listened to, but did not read, all the stories that were used
text, both groups made equivalent gains. In this context, with the Wide FOOR group. Finally, there were 6 students
scaffolding of Wide Reading consists primarily of echo who did not take part in any literacy activities beyond those
or choral reading of challenging texts (texts that students that occurred in their classroom.
generally read with an initial accuracy level of between 85% While the approaches used in this research were simi-
and 90%), although paired or partner reading can serve the lar to many other fluency-oriented classroom approaches
same purpose depending on the length and difficulty of the insofar as they increased the amount of text that students
text (e.g., Kuhn, 2009). read aloud with scaffolding, the results were important
Further, it appears that Wide Reading is designed not for confirming the conclusions noted in the earlier review
only to provide learners with support in the reading of (Kuhn & Stahl, 2003). That is, both the FOOR and the Wide
challenging text, it also allows learners to encounter a FOOR groups made greater gains than the students in either
broad range of words in multiple settings as opposed to the listening-only condition or those in the control group
the same text multiple times. So, for example, it is likely in terms of their word recognition in isolation, the number
that students would see high frequency words and common of correct words read per minute in connected text, and
nouns such as warm and dog in the phrases the warm day their prosody. However, the Wide FOOR group also made
and the barking dog between three and five times as part of greater growth in terms of their comprehension. It certainly
a repeated readings exercise. During Wide Reading, on the seems possible that these differences resulted from the dif-
other hand, students are likely to come across these words fering nature of the tasks; so, for example, students in the
in multiple phrases, for example the warm day, warm mit- FOOR group might have felt that the implicit purpose of the
tens, and warm toast, during the same period of reading. repetition was to improve their word recognition, reading
And, it seems possible that, by encountering words not rate, and prosody, whereas the students in the Wide FOOR
 Interventions to Enhance Fluency and Rate of Reading 313

group may have considered the implicit purpose for read- that result from the scaffolding that occurs either as part of
ing multiple texts included not only these three elements, the repetition of texts (Laberge & Samuels, 1974) or from
but the construction of meaning as well. If this is the case, the supported reading of a wide range of materials (Kuhn,
it could explain why these differences were seen in the 2005) or to the prosodic components that result from the
outcome measures. students exposure to modeling (Dowhower, 1991; Schreiber,
Following from this, it is useful to note that, although 1991) or to a combination of these factors. Further, cer-
some embedded discussion occurred around both the stories tain elements appear to be consistently important in the
and the vocabulary, the sessions did not incorporate direct creation of effective fluency instruction, including the use
instruction in either of these areas. As such, it may be that of challenging, connected texts and the need to develop
the inclusion of a comprehension focus as part of the FOOR students’ reading rate in conjunction with their prosody
approach would lead to increases in those students’ compre- and comprehension.
hension scores as well. This could be as simple as embed- Although the fluency development of reading disabled
ding a range of questions into the reading of the story (see learners is certainly deserving of further investigation, I
Kay Stahl’s, 2008, use of questioning in the shared reading would consider any of the above approaches, along with
of Big Old Bones: A Dinosaur Tale (Carrick, 1992) for an the principles that underlie them, to be an effective means
outstanding example of this process) or it could involve the for helping these students make the transition to fluent
use of more formalized procedures such as the Directed reading. As such, they should be thought of as a tool for
Reading-Thinking Activitty (DR-TA; Stauffer & Cramer, incorporating oral reading instruction that will actually
1968) or reciprocal teaching (Palinscar & Brown, 1986) support learners in becoming skilled readers.
that have been developed specifically to increase students
engagement with texts. By integrating a comprehension ele-
Notes
ment into fluency-oriented instruction, it becomes less likely
that students will develop into word callers who recognize 1. While comprehension of text clearly involves far more than accurate
words automatically but who fail to construct meaning as and automatic word recognition, I am only focusing on these aspects
of reading at this point in the discussion.
they read (Schwanenflugel & Ruston, 2008)
When discussing the research around Wide Reading,
it is worth noting that additional studies based upon the References
reading of multiple texts have shown similar promise,
whether in an approach that replicates and extends the work Adams, M. J. (1990). Beginning to read: Thinking and learning about
print. Cambridge, MA: M.I.T. Press.
undertaken in the original FOOR study (Schwebel, 2007) Adams, M. J. (2003). The pedagogical goals of soliloquy learning. De-
or in different contexts, such as shared reading (Kuhn, veloping research-based resources for the balanced reading teacher.
Schwanenflugel, Morris, et al., 2006) or computer-aided Retrieved from http://www.balancedreading.com/soliloquy.html
instruction (Mostow & Beck, 2005). It is also the case that Allington, R. L. (1977). If they don’t read much, how they ever gonna get
good? Journal of Reading, 21, 57–61.
the exposure to multiple texts increases students’ access to
Allington, R. L. (1983). Fluency: The neglected reading goal. The Reading
a greater range of concepts and an expansive vocabulary Teacher, 36, 556–561.
than is the case with repeated readings (e.g., Kuhn, 2009). Allington, R.L. (2005). What really matters for struggling readers: Design-
Since students experiencing reading difficulties are less ing research-based programs, (2nd ed.). New York: Allyn & Bacon.
likely to read extensively than their more skilled peers, it is Ash, G. E., & Kuhn, M. R. (2006). Meaningful oral and silent reading in the
elementary and middle school classroom: Breaking the Round Robin
important to provide them with additional opportunities to
Reading addiction. In T. Rasinski, C. Blachowicz, & K. Lems (Eds.),
engage with print whenever possible. By assisting students Fluency instruction: Research-based best practices (pp. 155–172).
in the reading of multiple selections rather than just one, it New York: Guilford.
becomes possible to provide struggling readers with access Carrick, C. (1992). Big old bones: A dinosaur tale. Boston, MA: Clarion
to a broad range of ideas while simultaneously aiding their Books.
Chall, J. S. (1996). Stages of reading development (2nd ed.). Fort Worth,
fluency development.
TX: Harcourt-Brace.
Chard, D. J., Pikulski, J. J., & McDonagh, S. H. (2006). Fluency: The
link between decoding and comprehension for struggling readers. In
Conclusions
T. Rasinski, C. Blachowicz, & K. Lems (Eds.), Fluency instruction:
There are several possible reasons why the approaches Research-based best practices (pp. 39–61). New York: Guilford.
Chomsky, C. (1976). After decoding: What? Language Arts, 53,
discussed above are effective in assisting students who
288–296.
are experiencing reading difficulties become more fluent Chomsky, C. (1978). When you still can’t read in third grade? After
readers. It may be that the improvement results from the decoding, what? In S. J. Samuels (Ed.), What research has to say
sheer amount of reading students are required to complete about reading instruction, (pp. 13–30). Newark, DE: International
as part of these fluency-oriented instructional approaches Reading Association.
Dowhower, S. L. (1989). Repeated reading: Theory into practice. The
(Kuhn & Stahl, 2003). In other words, the strategies may
Reading Teacher, 42, 502–507.
simply increase the amount of time on task for students Dowhower, S. L. (1991). Speaking of prosody: Fluency’s unattended
when compared to a traditional reading curriculum. Alter- bedfellow. Theory into Practice, 30(3), 158–164.
natively, the improvement may be due to specific effects Dowhower, S. L. (1994). Repeated reading revisited: Research into
314 Melanie R. Kuhn

practice. Reading and Writing Quarterly: Overcoming Learning Dif- sion of learning disabled readers. Learning Disabilities Research, 2,
ficulties, 10(4), 343–358. 103–109.
Erekson, J. (2003, May). Prosody: The problem of expression in fluency. Palinscar, A. S., & Brown, A. L. (1986). Interactive teaching to promote
Paper presented at the annual meeting of the International Reading independent learning from text. Reading Teacher, 39, 771–777.
Association, Orlando, FL. Pluck, M. L. (2006). “Jonathon is 11 but reads like a struggling 7-year-
Fountas, I. C., & Pinnell, G. S. (1999). Matching books to readers: Using old”: Providing assistance for struggling readers with a tape-assisted
leveled books in guided reading, K-3. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann. reading program. In T. Rasinski, C. Blachowicz, & K. Lems (Eds.),
Hiebert, E. H. (2004, April). Teaching children to become fluent readers Fluency instruction: Research-based best practices (pp. 192–208).
– year 2. Discussant at the American Educational Research Associa- New York: Guilford.
tion, San Diego, CA. Rasinski, T. V. (2003). The fluent reader: Oral reading strategies for
Hoffman, J. (1987). Rethinking the role of oral reading in basal instruction. building word recognition, fluency, and comprehension. New York:
The Elementary School Journal, 87, 367–373. Scholastic.
Hollingsworth, P. M. (1970). An experiment with the impress method of Rasinski, T. V. (2004). Assessing Reading Fluency. Honolulu: Pacific
teaching reading. The Reading Teacher, 24(2), 112–114. Resources for Education and Learning. Retrieved from http://www.
Hollingsworth, P. M. (1978). An experimental approach to the impress prel.org/products/re_/assessing-fluency.htm
method of teaching reading. The Reading Teacher, 31, 624–626. Rasinski, T. V., & Hoffman, J. V (2003). Oral reading in the school cur-
Joseph, L. M. (2007). Getting the “most bang for your buck”: Comparison riculum. Reading Research Quarterly, 38, 510–522.
of the effectiveness and efficiency of phonic and whole word reading Samuels, J. (2006). Reading fluency: Its past, present, and future. In T.
techniques during repeated reading lessons. Journal of Applied School Rasinski, C. Balachowicz, & K. Lems (Eds.), Fluency instruction:
Psychology, 24, 69–90. research-based best practices (pp. 7–20). New York: Guilford.
Koskinen, P. S., Wilson, R. M., & Jensema, C. J. (1985). Closed-Captioned Samuels, S. J. (1979). The method of repeated readings. The Reading
Television: A new tool for reading instruction. Reading World, 24(4), Teacher, 32, 403–408.
1–7. Samuels, S. J. (2007). The DIBELS Tests: Is speed of barking at print
Kuhn, M. R. (2005). A comparative study of small group fluency instruc- what we mean by reading fluency? Reading Research Quarterly, 42,
tion. Reading Psychology, 26, 127–146. 563–566.
Kuhn, M. R. (2009). The hows and whys of reading fluency. Boston: Schreiber, P. A. (1991). Understanding prosody’s role in reading acquisi-
Allyn & Bacon. tion. Theory into Practice, 30(3), 158–164.
Kuhn, M. R., & Schwanenflugel, P. J. (2006). All oral reading practice is not Schwanenflugel, P. J., & Ruston, H. P. (2008). Becoming a fluent reader:
equal (or how can I integrate fluency instruction into my classroom?). From theory to practice. In M. R. Kuhn & P. J. Schwanenflugel (Eds.),
Literacy Teaching and Learning, 11, 1–20. Fluency in the classroom (pp. 1–16). New York: Guildford.
Kuhn, M. R., Schwanenflugel, P. J., Morris, R. D., Morrow, L. M., Woo, Schwebel, E. A. (2007). A comparative study of small group fluency
D., Meisinger, et al. (2006). Teaching children to become fluent and instruction — a replication and extension of Kuhn’s (2005) study
automatic readers. Journal of Literacy Research, 38, 357–387. (Unpublished master’s thesis). Kean University, Union, NJ.
Kuhn, M. R., & Stahl, S. (2003). Fluency: A review of developmental Shanahan, T. (2007). Differentiating instruction when embedding literacy.
and remedial strategies. The Journal of Educational Psychology, Invited speaker at the 39th Annual Conference on Reading and Writ-
95, 3–21. ing. Rutgers Centre for Effective School Practices. April 20. Somerset,
LaBerge, D., & Samuels, S. J. (1974). Toward a theory of automatic infor- New Jersey.
mation processing in reading. Cognitive Psychology, 6, 293–323. Stahl, K. A. D. (2008). Creating opportunities for comprehension within
Logan, G. D. (1997). Automaticity and reading: Perspectives from the fluency-oriented reading. In M. R. Kuhn & P. J. Schwanenflugel (Eds.),
instance theory of automaticity. Reading & Writing Quarterly: Over- Fluency in the classroom (pp. 55–74). New York: Guildford.
coming Learning Difficulties, 13, 123–146. Stahl, S. A., & Heubach, K. (2005). Fluency-oriented reading instruction.
McKenna, M. C., & Stahl, S. A. (2003). Assessment for reading instruc- Journal of Literacy Research, 37, 25–60.
tion. New York: Guilford. Stanovich, K. E. (1986). Matthew effects in reading: Some consequences of
Miller, J., & Schwanenflugel, P. J. (2006). Prosody of syntactically complex individual differences in the acquisition of literacy. Reading Research
sentences in the oral reading of young children. Journal of Educational Quarterly, 21, 360–407.
Psychology, 98, 839–853. Stauffer, R. G., & Cramer, R. (1968). Teaching critical reading at the
Mostow, J., & Beck, J. (2005, June). Micro-analysis of fluency gains in primary level. Reading Aids series. Newark, DE: International Read-
a reading tutor that listens. Paper presented at the Society for the ing Association.
Scientific Study of Reading, Toronto, Canada. Truss, L. (2003). Eats, shoots, and leaves: The zero tolerance approach
NAEP. (1995). Listening to Children Read Aloud, 15 [oral reading fluency to punctuation. New York: Gotham Books.
scale]. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education, National Twain, M. (1986). The adventures of Tom Sawyer. New York: Penguin
Center for Education Statistics. Classics.
National Reading Panel. (2000). Teaching children to read: An evidence- Walker, B. J., Mokhtari, K., & Sargent, S. (2006). Reading fluency: More
based assessment of the scientific research literature on reading and than fast and accurate reading. In T. Rasinski, C. Blachowicz, & K.
its implications for reading instruction. Reports of the subgroups. Lems (Eds.), Fluency instruction: Research-based best practices (pp.
Bethesda, MD: National Institutes of Health. Retrieved from http:// 86–105). New York: Guilford.
www.nichd.nih.gov/publications/nrp/ Zutell, J., & Rasinski, T. V. (1991). Training teachers to attend to their
O’Shea, L. J., Sindelar, P. T., & O’Shea, D. (1987). The effects of repeated students’ oral reading fluency. Theory into Practice, 30, 211–217.
readings and attentional cues on the reading fluency and comprehen-
 29
Interventions to Enhance Vocabulary Development
MICHAEL F. GRAVES
University of Minnesota

REBECCA SILVERMAN
University of Maryland

Research on vocabulary in the United States has a history of informed decisions about vocabulary instruction. These
over 100 years. The first archival study we are aware of was are Types of Vocabulary, What Constitutes a Word, Levels
conducted by E. A. Kirkpatrick and published in Science of Word Knowledge, The Number of Words in Contem-
in 1891. Beginning in the early 20th century, particularly porary American English, How Many Words Do Students
with the work of Thorndike, vocabulary became a prominent Learn, The Vocabularies of Linguistically Less Advantaged
topic of educational research (Clifford, 1978). Although in- Children, and The Frequency Distribution of English Vo-
terest in vocabulary research has waxed and waned over the cabulary.
years (Graves & Watts-Taffe, 2002), over 100 years of work
has produced a very substantial body of knowledge, much of Types of Vocabulary It is important to recognize that there
it quite solid. Although there are certainly many unanswered are several types of vocabulary. Vocabulary can be classified
questions about vocabulary and vocabulary instruction, the as receptive (words we understand when others use them)
fact is we know a great deal about teaching vocabulary. and productive (words we use ourselves). Vocabulary can
Much of what we know has been summarized in substantial also be classified as oral or written. Thus, each of us has four
reviews by Graves (1986), Beck and McKeown (1991), vocabularies: Words we understand when we hear them,
Blachowicz and Fisher (2000), and Baumann, Kaméenui, words we understand when we read them, words we use in
and Ash (2003), all of which are considerably longer than our speech, and words we use in our writing. The four vo-
this chapter. Consequently, this review is selective rather cabularies overlap but are not the same, and the relationships
than comprehensive. In it, we describe research findings between them change over time. Although some children
that are either specifically about instruction or that provide come to school with much smaller vocabularies than others,
background important to understanding instructional issues all children entering school have relatively large listening
and making instructional decisions. Some of the findings vocabularies but quite small (perhaps nonexistent) read-
come from studies that dealt specifically with students with ing vocabularies. Sometime during the upper-elementary
learning disabilities. Most of them, however, come from years, good readers’ reading vocabularies begin to outstrip
studies of students in general and apply to both students their listening vocabularies, and most literate adults have
without reading disabilities and those with disabilities. larger reading vocabularies than listening vocabularies.
The chapter is divided into two major sections. In the first Additionally, both children and adults have larger receptive
section, Foundational Considerations, we examine a num- vocabularies than productive ones. The primary emphasis in
ber of factors about words and word learning that inform this chapter will be on reading vocabulary; but we will also
instruction. In the second section, Vocabulary Instruction, give significant attention to listening vocabulary.
we take up specifics of teaching vocabulary. Finally, in a
brief Concluding Remarks section, we identify what we What Constitutes a Word? Philosophers, linguists, and
see as some of the most important questions that need to be educators have grappled with the question of what consti-
answered to further improve vocabulary instruction. tutes a word over a considerable period of time, and it is
certainly not our goal to provide a definitive answer to the
question here. Instead, we want to explain how the term
Foundational Considerations
word will be used in discussions of how many words exist in
Here we consider several matters about the vocabulary the English lexicon and many words students know or need
learning task that need to be understood in order make to learn. When written, words are groups of letters separated

315
316 Michael F. Graves and Rebecca Silverman

by white space. Thus, the is a word, apple another word, analogy, word play; the ability to recognize a synonym, to
predawn another, perpendicular another, and houseboat define, to use a word expressively” (pp. 825–826).
still another. Unfortunately, by this same definition, want, Nagy and Scott (2000) further underscore the complexity
wants, wanted, and wanting are also words. However, for of what it means to know a word when they discuss several
the most part, when we consider how many words students aspects of the complexity of word knowledge—incremen-
know or need to learn, we will use the term word to refer to tality, multidimensionality, polysemy, interrelatedness,
word families. By word families, we mean the basic word and heterogeneity. We learn word meanings incrementally,
and its inflected forms. Thus the forms want, wants, wanted, learning something about a word’s meaning the first time
and wanting constitute a single word. we meet it, something more the second time, and so on.
Another convention we will follow in talking about Word knowledge has many dimensions, including for ex-
vocabulary size is to count graphic forms with different ample those listed by Calfee and Drum (1986)—depth of
meanings as a single word. Thus, key referring to a door meaning, precision of meaning, and facile access. Many
key, key the musical term, and key meaning a small island words are polysemeous, that is, they have multiple mean-
are considered one word. Doing so definitely underesti- ings. Word meanings are interrelated in such a way that a
mates vocabulary size, but it is necessary because almost learner’s knowledge of one word—e.g., whale—is linked
all studies of vocabulary size count the number of graphic to his knowledge of other words—e.g., mammal. Finally,
forms in the language without considering whether or not word knowledge is heterogeneous in that what it means to
they represent different meanings. know a word is dependent on the type of word in question.
Knowing function words such as the or if is quite different
Levels of Word Knowledge To discuss the next topic in from knowing concrete nouns like ladder, and knowing
this chapter—how many words students know—as well as concrete nouns like ladder is quite different from knowing
the topics of upcoming sections—how to teach words—it abstract terms like democracy.
is also necessary to consider the various levels of word
knowledge a learner can achieve. A number of vocabulary The Number of Words in Contemporary American Eng-
scholars have considered this question, and they are all in lish In the most serious attempt to get a reliable estimate
agreement on one matter: Words can be known at various of how many words there are in contemporary American
levels. For example, Beck, McKeown, and Kucan (2002) English, Nagy and Anderson (1984) investigated the number
list five levels. Below is a slightly modified version of their of words in printed school English using as their source
levels. the American Heritage Word Frequency Book (Carroll,
Davies, & Richman, 1971). Based on careful study and a
• No knowledge. sophisticated calculations, Nagy and Anderson concluded
• General sense, such as knowing mendacious has a nega- that printed school English contains about 88,000 word
tive connotation. families. Subsequent to the original study, Anderson and
• Narrow, context-bound knowledge, such as knowing Nagy (1992) again considered the size of printed school
that a radiant bride is a beautifully smiling happy one, English and concluded that if proper nouns, multiple mean-
but being unable to describe an individual in a different ings of words, and idioms were included, their estimate
context as radiant. would increase to 180,000 word families. More recently,
• Having a basic knowledge of a word and being able to Zeno, Ivens, Millard, and Duvvuri (1995) produced the
use the word in a variety of appropriate situations. Word Frequency Guide, basically an updated version of
• Rich, decontextualized knowledge of a word’s mean- the Word Frequency Book based on a much larger corpus
ing, its relationship to other words, and its extension to of material used in kindergarten through college. Although
metaphorical uses, such as understanding what someone no one has yet calculated the number of word families in the
is doing when they are devouring a book. (p. 10) Word Frequency Guide, since the number of entries in the
Guide is considerably larger than the number in the Word
When we consider the matter of how many words stu- Frequency Book, it is reasonable to assume that an estimate
dents know, we are assuming knowledge at the fourth level, based on the Guide would be well over 180,000. It is worth
basic knowledge. But there is more to be said about what it specifically noting that many of these words are extremely
means to know a word. Some years ago, Cronbach (1942) rare and that no single student will encounter all of them,
noted that knowing a word involves the ability to select much less learn all of them.
situations in which it is appropriately applied, recall dif-
ferent meanings of the word, and recognize exactly in what How Many Words Do Students Learn? Estimates of the
situations the word does not apply. More recently, Calfee number of words in students’ reading vocabularies vary
and Drum (1986) noted that knowing a word well “involves markedly. They range from lows of 2,000 words for third
depth of meaning; precision of meaning; facile access (think graders and 7,800 words for 12th graders (Dupuy, 1974) to
of scrabble and crossword puzzle experts); the ability to highs of 26,000 words for first graders (Shibles, 1959) and
articulate one’s understanding; flexibility in the application over 200,000 words for college freshmen (Hartman, 1946).
of the knowledge of a word; the appreciation of metaphor, These extreme estimates can be dismissed or at least very
 Interventions to Enhance Vocabulary Development 317

strongly questioned because of such factors as the size of in grades two and three, but began to fall behind in Grade 4
the dictionary from which words were sampled, the defini- and continued to fall further behind in Grades 5 and 6, with
tion of what constitutes a word, the method of testing, the the strongest factor to show a decline being knowledge of
sampling procedures used, and such ad hoc requirements word meanings. More recently, Hart and Risley (1995; see
as that a word appear in a number of different dictionaries also 2003) showed that by the time they were three children
(Graves, 1986; Lorge & Chall, 1963). of welfare families knew less than half as many words as
The most unbiased estimate of the size of students’ read- those from professional families and that these differences
ing vocabularies comes, in our judgment, from work done persisted into third grade, the last year in which the children
by Nagy and Herman (1987; see also Stahl & Nagy, 2006, were tested. As Biemiller and Boote (2006) note, schools
chapter 3). Using data gathered from Nagy and Anderson’s currently do little to close the gap in oral vocabulary be-
1986 study, Nagy and Herman recalibrated earlier estimates tween linguistically more advantaged and linguistically less
and concluded that third graders’ reading vocabularies advantaged students.
average about 10,000 words, that 12th graders’ reading
vocabularies average about 40,000 words, and that school The Frequency Distribution of English Words In addi-
children therefore learn about 3,000 words each year. These tion to knowing something about how many words there
figures refer to word families as previously described, but are and how many words students are likely to learn, it
they do not include idioms, multiple meanings, or proper is important to know something about the distribution of
nouns, which would raise the figure considerably. Recent words by frequency—how many frequent words there are
estimates by experts are in the same range as Nagy and and how many infrequent ones. The English language in-
Herman’s estimate but somewhat higher. Snow and Kim cludes a small number of very frequent words, a somewhat
(2007), for example, recently suggested that high school larger number of somewhat frequent words, and a very
graduates need to know 75,000 words. large number of infrequent words. The 100 most frequent
All in all, our best estimate—based on the work of An- words account for about 50% of the words in a typical text.
derson and Nagy, 1992; Anglin, 1993; Miller and Wakefield, The 1,000 most frequent words account for about 70% of
1993; Nagy and Anderson, 1984; Nagy and Herman, 1987; the words in a typical text. And the 5,000 most frequent
and White, Graves, and Slater, 1990—is that average 12th words account for about 80% of the words in a typical
graders know something like 50,000 word families and text (Hiebert, 2005). If a student does not know these very
learn from 3,000 to 4,000 words each year. frequent words, she or he will be repeatedly stumbling
over the words in anything other than a book with severely
The Vocabularies of Linguistically Less Advantaged controlled vocabulary, something like a beginning basal or
Children The data on vocabulary size we have discussed a high-interest easy-reading book.
thus far are for average students. Unfortunately, a consider- It is also important to consider the frequency of words
able (although unknown) number of children of poverty, at the other end of the frequency continuum, infrequent
English learners, and students with learning disabilities and very infrequent words. Some 170,000 of the roughly
come to school with much smaller vocabularies. Based on 180,000 English words occur less than once per million
a review of research completed nearly 40 years ago, Car- running words, and some 160,000 of them occur less than
roll (1971) noted that “much of the failure of individuals to once per five million running words (Zeno et al., 1995).
understand speech or writing beyond an elementary level This means that in their general reading, students will come
is due to deficiencies in vocabulary knowledge” (p. 175). across these words very seldom. Selecting infrequent words
Somewhat more recently, Becker (1977) considered the to teach is a real challenge and something we discuss in the
finding that none of the nine programs in Project Follow next section of this review. What is important to recognize
Through—a federally funded project aimed at identifying here is that it is vital that teachers make sure that students
effective educational programs for disadvantaged youth— know the meanings of both frequent words and those lower
resulted in students scoring above expectations on tests of frequency words necessary for comprehending the various
word meaning and comprehension and attributed this failure selections they read.
to the fact that both these Follow Through projects and
schools more generally “fail to provide instruction in the
Vocabulary Instruction
building blocks crucial to intelligent functioning, namely,
words and their referents” (p. 533). More recently, White, Having discussed a number of factors important to making
Graves, and Slater (1990) investigated the vocabularies informed decisions about vocabulary instruction, we now dis-
of first- through fourth-grade students in two lower-SES cuss research and theory directly concerned with instruction.
schools and one higher-SES school; students in the lower- Topics here include Selecting Vocabulary To Teach, Writing
SES schools knew about 13,000 words while those in the Student-Friendly Definitions, Providing Rich and Varied
middle-class school knew about 19,000 words. At this same Language Experiences, Teaching Individual Words, Teaching
time, Chall, Jacobs, and Baldwin (1990; see also Chall & Word-Learning Strategies, Fostering Word Consciousness,
Jacobs, 2003) reported that the low-income children in their Vocabulary Instruction for English Learners, and Special
study did about as well in reading as the general population Considerations for Students with Reading Disabilities.
318 Michael F. Graves and Rebecca Silverman

Selecting Vocabulary to Teach Three sources can be use- context, structural analysis, or dictionary skills, then
ful for identifying words to teach—word lists, selections teaching it may be particularly useful.
students are reading or hearing their teachers read in school, • If the word is useful outside of the reading selection
and students themselves. currently being taught, this is another argument for
teaching it.
Word lists. Probably the most useful and certainly the • If students are able to use their context or structural-
most accessible list of high frequency words is Hiebert’s analysis skills to discover the word’s meaning, then it
Word Zones list, a list of the most frequent 4,000 word probably does not need to be taught.
families derived from Zeno et al. (1995) and grouped into
four zones: the first 300 most frequent, the next 500 most The students themselves. The third source of informa-
frequent, the next 1,200 most frequent, and the last 2,000 tion about what words students do and do not know is the
most frequent. The Word Zones list is available online at students themselves. As a way of sharpening their percep-
http://www.textproject.org/library/resources/. Most students tions of which words students are and are not likely to
come to school with all of these words already in their oral know, teachers can identify words in the above word lists
vocabularies and will learn to read them over the first several or in upcoming selections that they think will be difficult,
years of school. Other students, however, do not come to build multiple-choice or matching tests on these words,
school with all of these words in their oral vocabularies and and test students to find out whether or not the words are
will need help in getting them into to their oral vocabularies difficult for them. Of course, constructing such tests is time
and their reading vocabularies. If student do not know these consuming and certainly not something to be done for every
words, they are a definite priority. selection. However, after several experiences of identifying
Two additional lists of relatively frequent words have words that they think will be difficult and then checking
recently been developed by Biemiller (2009). These were students’ performance against their expectations, teachers
developed based on the data on students’ word knowledge general perceptions of which words are and are not likely
collected by Dale and O’Rourke (1981), testing Biemiller to cause their students problems will become increasingly
and his colleagues did (Biemiller & Slonim, 2001), and accurate.
their intuition. One list is for kindergarten–second grade In addition to testing students on potentially difficult
and contains about 2,000 words, while the other is for third words using multiple-choice or matching tests, teachers
through sixth grade and contains about 3,000 words. can take the opportunity to occasionally ask students which
words they know. One easy way to do this is to list poten-
Selections students are reading. The second source tially difficult words on the board and have students raise
important to use in identifying words to teach is the selec- their hands if they do not know a word. This approach is
tions students are reading or listening to. As noted above, quick, easy, and risk free for students; it also gives students
English consists of a small number of frequent words and some responsibility for their word learning. Moreover,
a very large number of infrequent words. Once students research (White, Slater, & Graves, 1989) indicates that
acquire a basic vocabulary of several thousand words, the students can be quite accurate in identifying words that
number of different words that might be taught is so large they do and do not know.
that using word lists to identify words to teach becomes
problematic. At this point, teachers need to use their best Writing Student-Friendly Definitions Many of the defini-
judgment to select vocabulary to teach from the material tions found in dictionaries and instructional materials are
students are reading and listening to. Very frequently, scan- quite poor (Miller & Gildea, 1987). Definitions too often
ning a selection will yield more potentially difficult words define simple words with more complex ones, follow a
than can feasibly be taught. format that is not helpful to young learners, and fail to
Two contrasting recommendations have been made for consider just what it is that a student who does not already
selecting a subset of difficult words to actually teach. Beck know the meaning of a word needs to learn. Recognizing
and her colleagues (2002) have suggested that precedence this problem, McKeown (1993) studied the effects of tra-
should be given to what they call Tier 2 words. Tier 2 ditional and revised definitions for fifth-grade students and
words are relatively high frequency words that are used by found the revised definitions considerably more effective.
mature language users, that students are likely to encounter More recently, based on this work and other considerations,
in the texts they read in upcoming years, and that are used Beck and her colleagues (2002) have described what they
across domains—for example, in English, and history, and call “student-friendly” definitions. Student-friendly defini-
science—and not just in a single domain such as health tions attempt to define harder words with easier ones and
or music. Graves (2009), on the other hand has suggested use phrasing students understand. Here is the definition of
criteria that focus on several factors, specifically these: dazzling provided by a typical dictionary and Beck and her
colleagues’ student-friendly definition:
• The word should be important to understanding the
selection in which it appears. Dictionary Definition: bright enough to deprive someone
• If teaching the word is useful in furthering students’ of sight temporarily
 Interventions to Enhance Vocabulary Development 319

Student-Friendly Definition: If something is dazzling, al., 1994; Wasik, Bond, & Hindman, 2006). Several char-
that means that it’s so bright that you can hardly acteristics identified throughout this research literature are
look at it. summarized in De Temple and Snow (2003) and Graves
(2006). These are reviewed below.
The following guidelines for writing student-friendly First, read alouds should be interactive. During book
definitions are provided in Graves (2009): reading, adults should ask children questions, highlight
words children are unlikely to know, and scaffold children’s
• Keep both the phrasing and the words simple. Use lan- understanding of the words and the text. They should also
guage students understand. encourage children to respond to questions, elaborate on
• Often, student-friendly definitions are not comprehen- their responses, and ask questions of their own. Second,
sive or fully precise. A single definition cannot capture read aloud books should be read repeatedly. Repeated read-
all of a word’s meaning. ings provide review and reinforcement of the content and
• Often, student-friendly definitions are complete sen- words that children have heard in previous readings. Third,
tences. throughout read alouds, adults should focus on a relatively
• Often, a sample sentence using the word is a helpful small number of words so that children can internalize the
addition to a simple definition. meanings of these words without being overwhelmed by
too many new words at once. Fourth, adults should read
Two recent dictionaries—the Collins COBUILD Stu- books to children with fluency and appropriate intonation
dent Dictionary (HarperCollins Publishers, 2005) and the and expression. Children are more likely to be engaged and
Longman Student Dictionary of American English (Pearson attentive when book reading is animated and lively. Fifth,
Education Limited, 2006)—provide numerous examples. adults should choose books for read alouds that are enjoy-
able for children and that include interesting and challeng-
Providing Rich and Varied Language Experiences In ing words. Finally, read alouds should include analytic and
order to build rich vocabularies, children at all grade levels non-immediate talk. In other words, adults should engage
need to be exposed to a wide range of words through lis- children in discussions that encourage children to reflect
tening, speaking, reading, and writing. In the early grades, on the content of the book and make connections that go
before children can read texts with advanced vocabulary beyond the content of the book. For example, adults could
on their own, listening and speaking provide the primary ask children to make predictions as they read the book,
means of introducing children to new words. Research discuss their reactions to the book, and relate events in the
suggests that both the quantity and quality of the words book to their personal experiences.
children encounter through listening and speaking can make Beyond the early grades, children continue to learn words
a difference in children’s early vocabulary knowledge. In through listening and speaking, but the role of reading and
the seminal study by Hart and Risley (1995, 2003), chil- writing in vocabulary development becomes increasingly
dren of professional families heard 30 million more words important. Children’s vocabulary development is associated
from birth to age 3 than did children from welfare families. with amount of text they read (Cunningham & Stanovich,
By age 3, children from professional families knew twice 1991, 2003; Stanovich & Cunningham, 1992, 1993).
as many words as their peers from welfare families. This Children learn words incidentally when they read (Nagy,
research provides evidence that children’s vocabulary is Anderson, & Herman, 1987; Nagy, Herman, & Anderson,
related to the number of words they hear on a daily ba- 1985). Therefore, the more they read, the more opportuni-
sis. Furthermore, Weizman and Snow (2001) found that ties they have to learn new words (Anderson, Wilson, &
children’s vocabulary in kindergarten and second grade Fielding, 1988; Elley, 1996). Ways to encourage children
was related to the level of sophistication of words children to read both in and out of school include having a well-
heard in the home at age 5. This study suggests that children stocked classroom library, a structured in-class independent
benefit from hearing sophisticated words in their environ- reading time, and a program to reward reading outside of
ment. Accordingly, teachers should make a deliberate effort school. For example, teachers can require children to keep
to include new and challenging words in their interactions a log of the amount of reading they do outside of school
with children. and give children certificates or privileges for logging a
Because children’s literature often includes many new certain amount of reading.
and challenging words that children may not hear in their Though there is little research on the topic, facilitating
everyday conversations with adults and peers, read alouds in word learning through writing instruction and writing activi-
which adults read storybooks to children can be an optimal ties is likely to benefit children’s vocabulary development.
way to build children’s vocabulary. There is an extensive Studies have shown a relationship between vocabulary and
body of research on characteristics of effective read alouds writing (Coker, 2006; Duin & Graves, 1987; Juel, 1988), but
(e.g., Beck & McKeown, 2007; Biemiller & Boote, 2006; the nature of this relationship has not been fully explored
Dickinson & Smith, 1994; Hargrave & Sénéchal, 2000; (Shanahan, 2006). Instruction on purpose, audience, and
Penno, Wilkinson, & Moore, 2002; Reese & Cox, 1999; word choice in writing may facilitate children’s word learn-
Silverman, 2007a; Whitehurst et al., 1988; Whitehurst et ing by focusing their attention on how words are used in
320 Michael F. Graves and Rebecca Silverman

the texts they read and how the words that they use affect only treatment, a definition-plus-context treatment, and no
the clarity and quality of their own writing. instruction. He found that children in both the definition-
only and definition-plus-context treatment outperformed
Teaching Individual Words While it is impossible to children who received no instruction on measures of vo-
teach every word children need to know, it is important cabulary and comprehension, but children in the definition-
to teach them some of the words they will encounter in plus-context treatment scored even better on these measures
texts in and out of school. Teaching individual words pro- than did children in the definition-only treatment.
vides children with a foundation of words with which to Instruction that incorporates activating prior knowledge
understand and learn new words from what they read. It and comparing and contrasting words in addition to provid-
also signals to children that words are interesting and im- ing definitions and contextual information is more powerful
portant, and, thereby, fosters their motivation to learn new than instruction that includes only definitions and contextual
words. There are many ways to effectively teach individual information. Engaging children in thinking critically about
words. Different teaching methods may be used to teach words leads them toward an even deeper understanding of
different kinds of words, to meet different objectives, or to the meaning of words and how various words are related.
reach students with different learning styles (Graves, 2006, Two instructional methods that encourage critical thinking
2008, 2009). These methods may range from relatively about words are semantic mapping and semantic feature
thin to more in depth. However, research suggests that the analysis. In semantic mapping, children graphically repre-
extent of vocabulary instruction corresponds to the level sent associations (e.g., attributes, examples, and synonyms)
of vocabulary learning. This body of research leads to a of words. In semantic feature analysis, students use a chart
series of generalizations about teaching individual words. to represent the relationships between words and concepts.
These generalizations are listed below, with those regard- Bos and Anders (1990), working with learning disabled
ing relatively shallow instruction first and those involving junior high school students, compared semantic mapping,
deeper instruction coming later. semantic feature analysis, and definition instruction. They
Minimal vocabulary instruction that includes only defi- found that children who received semantic mapping and
nitional information is better than no instruction. Research semantic feature analysis instruction outperformed students
suggests that children can acquire basic knowledge of words who received definition instruction on short and long term
through “thin instruction.” Thin instruction may include vocabulary and comprehension measures.
giving children a list of words and asking them to look up Intensive and robust instruction is more powerful than
the definitions of these words without any further instruc- instruction that is less intensive and robust. Research by
tion. For example, Parker (1984) compared the effect of a Beck and McKeown and their colleagues (Beck, Perfetti, &
dictionary definition treatment with a no instruction treat- McKeown, 1982; McKeown, Beck, Omanson, & Perfetti,
ment with children in sixth through eighth grades and found 1983; McKeown, Beck, Omanson, & Pople, 1985) provides
that children in the dictionary definition treatment knew strong support for intensive and robust instruction that
more words than those in the control group. In another set involves students in extensive and varied experiences with
of studies, Pany and her colleagues (1978, 1982), working words. In a series of studies with fourth-grade students, they
with learning disabled students in grades four through six, have found positive effects of “frequent, rich, and extended
found that children performed better on vocabulary tasks instruction” (Beck et al., 2002, p. 72). This instruction, in
when they were given word meanings than when they were which individual words receive 15–30 minutes of attention
exposed to words either in or out of context without being over the course of a week, includes multiple opportunities
given word meanings. However, Pany and her colleagues did for children to learn definitions of words, discuss word
not find pre- to post-test improvements on comprehension meanings, and apply their word knowledge in various
measures for children who were given word meanings. Only contexts both in and out of the classroom. The studies by
children who were given word meanings and were provided Beck and McKeown show that children who receive “fre-
with added practice of word meanings showed growth on quent, rich, and extended instruction” outperform children
these measures. Therefore, thin instruction such as just giv- who do not receive such instruction on vocabulary and
ing children definitions of words results in shallow word comprehension measures; children who experience more
learning. Children do not acquire the in-depth understanding encounters with words demonstrate greater word learn-
of words they need to facilitate comprehension from this ing and comprehension than their peers who experience
instruction. Furthermore, it is unlikely that they will be able fewer encounters with words; and children who use words
to use words that they learn through “thin instruction” in outside of the classroom learn them more fully than those
their own speech and writing. who do not.
Instruction that combines definitional and contextual In a recent set of studies, Beck and McKeown (2007)
information is more powerful than instruction that includes extended their work in fourth grade to kindergarten and first
only definitional information.. Knowing the meaning of a grade. They investigated the effects of what they call rich
word and how it is used in context provides children with instruction on children’s word learning. Rich instruction oc-
greater depth of knowledge. Stahl (1983), working with curred following read alouds and included contextualizing
fifth-grade students, compared the effects of a definition- words in the context of the read-aloud story, explaining the
 Interventions to Enhance Vocabulary Development 321

meaning of the words, providing children with examples (a) definition, (b) synonym, (c) antonym, (d) example, and
of the words in other contexts, guiding children to make (e) general (i.e., the author provides a general clue about the
judgments about the appropriateness of words, encouraging meaning of a word). As in the former study, students were
children to generate their own examples of words, having taught to use these types of context clues through explicit
children repeat words so that they get a clear phonological instruction and gradual release of responsibility. Baumann
representation of the word, and reviewing and reinforc- et al. (2003) found that children who received contextual
ing word learning. Children who received rich instruction and morphemic analysis instruction performed better than
learned more words than children who did not receive such the children who received textbook vocabulary instruction
instruction, and children who received instruction that in- on a delayed, but not on an immediate, post-test measure
cluded still more time spent on words and more encounters of inferring morphemically and contextually decipherable
with those words learned more words than children who word meanings.
spent less time on rich instruction. The Baumann et al. (2002, 2003) studies exemplify the
fact that research on teaching context clues is not unequivo-
Teaching Word-Learning Strategies As mentioned, it cal. The positive effects of context clue instruction are
is impossible to teach every word children need to know. inconsistent. Other studies have found varied results. For
However, teaching word-learning strategies in addition example, Patberg and Stibbe (1985) did not find positive
to teaching individual words enables children to acquire effects of context clue instruction, and, similar to Baumann
knowledge of many words independently as they read. et al. (2003), Nash and Snowling (2006) found positive ef-
There are three primary word-learning strategies: using fects of context clue instruction on delayed post-tests but
context clues, using word parts, and using the dictionary. not on immediate post-tests of using context clues to infer
These will be discussed below. word meanings. The effects of context clue instruction may
depend on factors associated with instruction, texts and
Context clues. There is a substantial body of research words, or child characteristics that need to be explored in
that demonstrates the positive effects of teaching the use of further research. Furthermore, it needs to be understood that
context clues on children’s word learning (e.g., Baumann, words are learned from context over the course of multiple
Edwards, Boland, Olejnik, & Kame’enui, 2003; Baumann encounters with words (Jenkins, Stein, & Wysocki, 1984;
et al., 2002; Buikema & Graves, 1993; Carnine, Kameenui, Jenkins & Wysocki, 1985) and that different kinds of con-
& Coyle, 1984; Patberg, Graves, & Stibbe, 1984). In a text clues may be more or less helpful in inferring words
meta-analysis of 21 studies that investigated instruction in meanings (Beck, McKeown, & McCaslin, 1983).
using context clues to derive word meaning, Fukkink and Word Parts. The research on teaching students to use
de Glopper (1999) found a medium effect size of .43. word parts is more consistent than that on teaching them to
Two studies by Baumann and his colleagues (Baumann use context clues. For example, studies by Graves and Ham-
et al., 2003; Baumann et al., 2002) have provided recent mond (1980), Nicol, Graves, and Slater (1984), Wysocki
evidence of the effect of teaching context clues. In both and Jenkins (1987), and White, Sowell, and Yanagihara
studies, morphemic and context analysis were taught. In (1989) have clearly demonstrated the efficacy of teaching
the first study (Baumann et al., 2002), fifth graders were prefixes and/or suffixes. The recent work by Baumann et
assigned to one of three word-learning strategy conditions al. (2002, 2003) discussed above adds to this research base.
(i.e., morphemic analysis-only, context-only, or context In the 2002 study, Baumann et al. found that children in
and morphemic analysis) or an instructed control condi- the morphemic-analysis condition performed better than
tion (i.e., students received instruction that did not include children in the instructed control condition on immediate
strategy instruction). In the word-learning strategy condi- and delayed post-tests of words targeted in instruction and
tions, children were explicitly taught to use the strategies on words not targeted in instruction. In the 2003 study,
through verbal explanation, modeling, guided practice, Baumann et al. taught children to use a four-step word part
and independent practice. Baumann et al. (2002) found a strategy that included (a) looking for known root words, (b)
positive effect of the context-only condition on immediate looking for known prefixes, (c) looking for known suffixes,
and delayed tests of words targeted in instruction, but only and (d) putting prefixes, root words, and suffixes together
a limited effect on tests of words that were not targeted to derive the meanings of words. Baumann et al. (2003)
in instruction. also taught children eight specific affixes or affix families.
In the second study by Baumann and his colleagues Because morphemic and contextual analysis were taught
(2003), fifth-grade students were assigned to either a together in this intervention, the independent contribution
textbook vocabulary condition, in which students received of teaching the word part strategy is unclear. However,
explicit instruction on vocabulary from their textbook, or a considering that the approach used in the 2002 study was
morphemic-context condition, in which students learned to similar to the one used in the 2003 study, the potential
use morphemic and contextual analysis word-learning strat- of using this approach to foster children’s word-learning
egies. Adapting the work of Johnson and Pearson (1978) and seems promising.
Dale and O’Rourke (1986), Baumann et al. (2003) identified Besides prefixes and derivational suffixes, other word
five types of context clues to teach children. These include parts that can be taught include inflections (e.g., the –s in
322 Michael F. Graves and Rebecca Silverman

books and the –ed in learned) and Latin and Greek roots Combining word-learning strategies. In the Baumann
(e.g., tele in telephone and television means “far” and photo et al. (2002) study discussed above, there was little dif-
in photograph and photosynthesis means “light”). Research ference between the morphemic-only, context-only, and
suggests that children’s awareness of these various word morphemic-context instructional conditions. Baumann et
parts is developmental. Children typically acquire knowl- al. concluded that “students were generally just as effec-
edge of inflectional endings at an early age and without tive at inferring word meanings when the morphemic and
specific instruction (Berko, 1958; Clark, 1993). They contextual analysis instruction was provided in combina-
then acquire knowledge of prefixes and suffixes between tion as when the instruction was provided separately” (p.
fourth grade and high school (Anglin, 1993; Carlisle, 151). In fact, as is the case with comprehension strategies
2000; Nagy, Diakidoy, & Anderson, 1993). As mentioned (Pressley, 2006), it may well be that using multiple word-
above, instruction on prefixes and suffixes tends to yield learning strategies in tandem is more productive than using
positive effects on children’s word learning. It is not until only one word-learning strategy alone.
college that students demonstrate a natural inclination to
use Greek and Latin roots to derive word meaning (Kaye Fostering Word Consciousness As defined in Graves and
& Sternberg, 1983). There is little research on the effects Watts (2002), word consciousness is “an interest in and
of instruction on Greek and Latin roots, and, considering awareness of words and their meanings (p. 144).” Approach-
the vast number and low frequency of these roots, it may es to fostering word consciousness include modeling, recog-
be that instruction on these roots has limited potential at nizing, and encouraging adept word choice; promoting word
least until the secondary grades. play; providing rich and expressive instruction on words
and their meanings; engaging students in investigations of
Dictionary skills. Research by Miller and Gildea (1987) word use and word meanings; and teaching students about
showed that children often misunderstand dictionary defini- words (Graves, 2006). Word consciousness is a relatively
tions. This could be because dictionary definitions are often new concept. Therefore, there is little evidence that directly
abstract and/or convoluted. As mentioned previously, there demonstrates the effect of promoting word consciousness
has been some research on the effect of modifying defini- on word learning. However, there is a substantial body of
tions so that they are more comprehensible. McKeown work that supports the theory that word consciousness may
(1993) found that students’ comprehension of dictionary be an important part of vocabulary instruction.
definitions improves when the definitions are more transpar- Cultivating children’s excitement about word learning
ent. However, Scott and Nagy (1997) found very little im- resonates with the extensive research literature on motiva-
provement from modifying definitions Therefore, providing tion. The relationship between reading and motivation to
students with dictionaries that include more student-friendly read is becoming well-established (e.g., Guthrie et al.,
definitions could support their independent word-learning, 2007; Guthrie & Wigfield, 1999, 2000; Wigfield & Eccles,
but there is certainly no guarantee of this. 2002; National Research Council, 2004; Pressley et al.,
There has been little, if any, research on teaching chil- 2002). This research suggests that children’s motivation
dren dictionary skills and strategies to use dictionaries on to read has a positive effect on their growth in reading
their own. What research there is has shown a relationship comprehension. While there is no specific research on the
between using a dictionary and reading. For example, in relationship between vocabulary and motivation, it is likely
research with children between the ages of 7 and 11, Beech that children’s motivation to learn word meanings has a
(2004) found a relationship between the speed and accuracy similar positive effect on their vocabulary development. If
with which children look up words and children’s literacy children are motivated to attend to, reflect on, and inquire
ability. For another example, in research with college stu- about unknown words, they are likely to learn more words
dents learning a foreign language, Knight (1994) found that as they hear them in their environment and read them in
students who used the dictionary more scored higher on their texts.
measures of reading comprehension than those who used Fostering children’s awareness of words also aligns
only context to figure out word meanings. Knight (1994) with recent research on the importance of metalinguistic
also found that dictionary use may be more important for awareness. Metalinguistic awareness is the ability to reflect
students with lower levels of vocabulary than for students on language and includes awareness of the morphological,
with higher levels of vocabulary, perhaps because students syntactical, and semantic properties of words. The rela-
with higher levels of vocabulary have more word knowl- tionship between morphological awareness and reading
edge to use when deriving word meaning from context. comprehension has been established in research by Nagy
Therefore, given that there is some indication that using and his colleagues (Nagy, Berninger, & Abbott, 2006; Nagy,
a dictionary and reading are related, it seems worthwhile Berninger, Abbott, Vaughan, & Vermeulen, 2003) and by
for teachers to provide instruction on dictionary skills and Deacon and Kirby (2004), who found that morphological
strategies. These skills and strategies might include how awareness is a significant predictor of reading compre-
to look up words, how to interpret dictionary definitions, hension. Furthermore, the relationship between syntactic
and how to choose the appropriate definition among those awareness and reading comprehension has been shown by
provided for a given context. Nation, Clarke, Marshall, and Durand (2004), who found
 Interventions to Enhance Vocabulary Development 323

that weaknesses in syntactic awareness may contribute to each of these interventions included word consciousness
difficulty in reading comprehension. Finally, research by activities within a multifaceted vocabulary program.
Oullette (2006) suggests that semantic awareness, includ-
ing awareness of synonyms and the semantic features and Vocabulary Instruction for English Learners For the
categories associated with words, is related to comprehen- most part, vocabulary instruction that is effective with
sion. Though there is little research on the effects of teach- monolingual English speakers is effective with English
ing children to be more aware of morphology, syntax, and learners (August, Carlo, Dressler, & Snow, 2005). For exam-
semantics, it is likely that instruction that promotes such ple, working with preschool children, Collins (2005) found
metalinguistic awareness will enable children to learn more that, just like native English speakers, English learners
words and to learn more about words they encounter. benefit from clear explanations of words during read alouds.
Studies investigating the effects of vocabulary interven- For another example, Silverman (2007b) compared the
tions that include a focus on word consciousness provide vocabulary growth of native English speakers and English
some evidence of the potential of instruction aimed at de- learners in kindergarten who received the same research-
veloping word consciousness in children. For example, as based vocabulary intervention. The intervention, termed the
described in Scott and Nagy (2004), one intervention called Multidimensional Vocabulary Program (MVP), included
The Gift of Words engaged fifth- and sixth-grade children research-based practices such as introducing words through
in reading high-quality literature, identifying interesting read alouds, providing definitions and explanations of words
words, discussing how words are used by talented authors, in rich contexts, and engaging children in comparing and
and experimenting with new and interesting words in their contrasting words. It also included instructional strategies
own writing. The positive effects of this intervention were considered particularly important for English learners such
seen in children’s interest in words and in their writing. as having children act out words, showing children pictures
Word consciousness was also part of an intervention and real objects visually representing words, and having
evaluated by McKeown, Beck, Omanson, and Pople (1985). children pronounce words clearly on multiple occasions
Working with fourth graders, these researchers compared (Gertsen, Gersten, & Baker, 2000; Gersten & Geva, 2003;
three instructional conditions: (a) traditional vocabulary Roberts & Neal, 2004). Silverman (2007b) found that, com-
instruction, in which children were taught definitions and pared to native English speakers, English learners learned
synonyms of words; (b) rich instruction, in which children the same number of target words and grew more in their
explored various aspects of word meaning; and (c) ex- general vocabulary knowledge. This suggests that instruc-
tended/rich instruction, in which children not only explored tion can address the needs of all learners and, at the same
various aspects of words but also were encouraged to be time, accelerate the growth of English learners so they can
aware of words outside of the classroom. In extended/rich catch up to their peers in vocabulary.
instruction, “students could earn points toward becoming Carlo et al. (2004) found similar results in their study
a ‘word wizard’ by bringing evidence that they had seen, with fifth-grade native English speakers and Spanish-speak-
heard, or used target words independently” (p. 527). McK- ing English learners. In this study, teachers implemented
eown et al. found that children who were in the extended/ a program called the Vocabulary Improvement Program
rich instructional condition performed better than children (VIP). In this program, individual words and strategies for
in the other conditions on measures of fluency of word ac- using context, morphology, knowledge of multiple mean-
cess and story comprehension. ings, and cognates to infer word meanings were taught
A final example of an intervention that promotes word explicitly. The program was founded on four principles:
consciousness is the “Vocabulary Visits” approach imple- (a) teachers should introduce new words in meaningful
mented by Blachowicz and Obrochta (2005, 2007). In contexts, (b) teachers should expose children to new words
Vocabulary Visits, first-grade teachers took children on a in a variety of contexts, (c) teachers should focus on many
virtual field trip in which, without leaving the classroom, aspects of words including spelling, pronunciation, mor-
they introduced children to thematic topics such as weather phology, syntax, and semantics, and (d) teachers should
and animal habitats. They encouraged children to engage in provide native Spanish speakers with access to the text’s
extensive discussions of these topics, generate words that meaning through Spanish. Findings showed that the positive
are related to these topics, and use these words in their own effects of the intervention on vocabulary and comprehension
writing about the topics. The teachers prompted students’ measures were as large for English learners as for native
thinking about the topics and words related to the topics English speakers.
by asking questions, reading books, and showing posters Both of these interventions employed instructional strat-
with interesting visuals to stimulate discussion. Student egies thought to be especially helpful to English learners.
growth was assessed by a pre- and post-intervention activity Specifically, as supported by the report of the National Lit-
in which they made a list of words they know related to a eracy Panel (August & Shanahan, 2006), the interventions
particular topic. Students were able to write significantly provided clear and explicit instruction on vocabulary words
more words at post-test than at pre-test. and word learning strategies. August et al. (2005) recom-
Each of these interventions nurtured children’s aware- mend three additional instructional strategies for English
ness of words and motivation to learn words. However, learners. First, teachers should teach children to recognize
324 Michael F. Graves and Rebecca Silverman

and use cognates if their native language shares cognates students engage in independent, game-like activities that
with English. If children can transfer knowledge of words allow them to practice relating words to their meaning and
in their native language to words in English, they will have using words in various contexts.
many fewer English words to learn. Second, teachers should In addition, there are a few other important consider-
teach children basic words in English. Children need a ations for promoting the vocabulary of students with read-
foundation of basic words to comprehend what they hear ing disabilities (Bryant et al., 2003; Jitendra et al., 2004).
and read and so that they can use their knowledge of basic Students with reading disabilities often have difficulty
words to learn more advanced words. Third, teachers should remembering a large amount of information. Therefore, the
provide children with ample review and reinforcement of number of words that are introduced and taught at one time
words they are learning. In general, review and reinforce- should be relatively small, and instruction must be broken
ment is needed to internalize word meanings, and, for Eng- down into more manageable chunks. Furthermore, students
lish learners who may have less exposure to English words with reading disabilities take longer to process informa-
compared to their peers, review and reinforcement may be tion and have more difficulty generalizing learning to new
even more important. In addition to these recommendations, contexts. Thus, instruction should provide them with extra
as Goldenberg (2008) has noted, teachers should teach time and added opportunities to practice using words that
academic vocabulary to English learners so that they can they are learning in various contexts. Finally, students with
access the content of instruction in school. reading disabilities need more individualized instruction.
Small group, peer-assisted, or individualized instruction
Special Considerations for Students with Reading Dis- should be used to provide children with reading disabilities
abilities As with English learners, instruction that is ef- focused attention on word learning.
fective with children who do not have reading disabilities
is effective with children who do (Bryant, Goodwin, Bry-
Concluding Remarks
ant, & Higgins, 2003). However, there are some important
considerations to keep in mind when working on improving This then is our selective review of the literature most
the vocabulary of children with reading disabilities (Baker, relevant to creating vocabulary programs and vocabulary
Simmons, & Kame’enui, 1998). First, because of their instruction that will enhance vocabulary development in
limited reading ability, children with reading disabilities both learning disabled children and in other children. In
do not engage in wide reading. Therefore, they have fewer this concluding section, again selective, we identify what
opportunities to learn words from reading and develop and we see as some of the most important research needed to
practice independent word-learning strategies in reading as further improve vocabulary instruction.
compared to their peers. Second, due to the language-based The number one priority, we believe, is a better under-
nature of many reading disabilities, children with these dis- standing of the vocabulary learning task students face. We
abilities often have more difficulty processing, retaining, need to know what words make up the corpus that contem-
and transferring information they have learned about words. porary students will encounter in various texts and situations
Consequently, children with reading disabilities often have and the knowledge of these words in various age, linguistic,
limited vocabulary knowledge compared to their peers. To ethnic, and socioeconomic groups. The first step in this ef-
address the vocabulary needs of children with reading dis- fort is a large, meaning-based set of frequency counts based
abilities, there are several specific strategies that have been on stratified random samples of written and oral American
identified (Bryant et al., 2003; Jitendra, Edwards, Sacks, & English. Such counts would be similar to those of Carrol et
Jacobson, 2004). These are outlined below. al. (1971) and Zeno et al. (1995) but based on a much larger
Instruction for students with reading disabilities should corpus, sampling a variety of domains, differentiating words
provide direct and explicit instruction on individual words by meanings, and with word families tallied. Following the
(Jitendra et al., 2004; Swanson, Hoskyn, & Lee, 1999). In initial development of this corpus (which would ideally be
addition, instruction should be interactive and require deep a long-term effort that is periodically updated) would come
processing of words rather than just superficial learning studies of various groups of students’ and adults’ knowledge
of words and their meanings (Bryant et al., 2003). For ex- of the words in the corpus. Only when this task is completed
ample, three instructional methods that are both interactive will we know what it is that various kinds of learners need
and facilitate deep processing include semantic mapping to learn as they face various literacy tasks.
and semantic feature analysis (Bos & Anders, 1990) and A second priority is the development of better vocabulary
computer-assisted instruction (Horton, Lovitt, & Givens, assessment. Assessment is a topic that Pearson, Hiebert, and
1988; Johnson, Gersten, & Carnine, 1987). These methods Kamil (2007) recently very cogently addressed in some de-
have all been shown to have positive effects on the word tail and that we consequently did not address in our limited
learning of children with reading disabilities. As discussed space. But it is definitely a high priority for research.
earlier, semantic mapping and semantic feature analysis Our remaining priorities come from categories of instruc-
instruction involves teaching children to graphically rep- tion we have considered in organizing this review: providing
resent associations and relationships between and among rich and varied language experiences, teaching individual
words. With well designed computer-assisted instruction, words, teaching word-learning strategies, fostering word
 Interventions to Enhance Vocabulary Development 325

consciousness, vocabulary instruction for English learn- August, D., Carlo, M., Dressler, C., & Snow, C. (2005). The critical role
ers, and special considerations for students with reading of vocabulary development for English language learners. Learning
Disabilities Research and Practice, 20, 50–57.
disabilities. Baker, S. K., Simmons, D. C., & Kame’enui, E. J., (1998). Vocabulary
What seems particularly needed in the area of provid- acquisition: Research bases. In D. C. Simmons & E. J. Kame’enui
ing rich and varied language experiences is research on (Eds.), What reading research tells us about children with diverse
long-term programs of read alouds, the most widely recom- learning needs (pp. 183–218). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
mended instruction for helping primary grade children who Baumann, J. F., Edwards, E. C., Boland E., Olejnik, S., & Kame’enui, E.
J. (2003). Vocabulary tricks. Effects of instruction in morphology and
enter school with very small vocabularies catch up with their context on fifth grade students’ ability to derive and infer word mean-
peers. While studies of read-aloud programs have generally ing. American Educational Research Journal, 40, 447–494.
showed positive results, no study has lasted even a full year, Baumann, J. F., Edwards, E. C., Font, G., Tereshinski, C. A., Kame’enui, E.
and it will take multiple years to bring some children up to J., & Olejnik, S. (2002). Teaching morphemic and contextual analysis
the level of their peers. to fifth-grade students. Reading Research Quarterly, 37, 150–176.
Baumann, J. F., Kaméenui, E. J., & Ash, G. E. (2003). Research on vocabu-
What seems particularly needed in the area of teaching lary instructing: n Voltaire redux. In J. Flood, D. Lapp, J. R. Squire, &
individual words is research on less robust instruction. We J. M. Jensen (Eds.), Handbook on research on teaching the English
know a great deal about how to create truly robust vocabu- language arts (2nd ed., pp. 752–785). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
lary instruction. Unfortunately, such instruction is very time Beck, I. L., & McKeown, M. G. (1991). Conditions of vocabulary acquisi-
consuming, and it is impossible to provide such instruction tion. In P. D. Pearson (Ed.), The handbook of reading research, Vol. 2
(pp. 789–814). New York: Longman.
for anything like all of the words students need to learn. Beck, I. L., McKeown, M. G., & Kucan, L. (2002). Bringing words to life:
Picking a single need in the area of teaching word- Robust vocabulary instruction. New York: Guilford.
learning strategies is very difficult, but if we were to choose Beck, I. L., McKeown, M. G., McCaslin, E. S. (1983). Vocabulary de-
just one it would be for more research on teaching context velopment: All contexts are not created equal. Elementary School
clues. As Sternberg forcefully noted some years ago, “Most Journal, 83(3), 177–181.
Beck, I. L., Perfetti, C. A., & McKeown, M. G. (1982). The effects of
words are learned from context” (1987, p. 89). Yet as our long-term vocabulary instruction on lexical access and reading com-
review shows results of studies of teaching students to use prehension. Journal of Educational Psychology, 74, 506–521.
context clues are mixed, and even positive studies produce Beck, I., & McKeown, M. (2007). Increasing young low-income children’s
only modest gains. oral vocabulary repertoires through rich and focused instruction.
In the area of fostering word conscious, an area which has Elementary School Journal, 107(3), 251–271.
Becker, W. C. (1977). Teaching reading and language to the disadvan-
theoretical support and various sorts of indirect empirical taged—What we have learned from field research. Harvard Educa-
support and support from studies in which fostering word tional Review, 47, 511–543.
consciousness is confounded with other types of vocabulary Beech, J. R. (2004). Using a dictionary: Its influence on children’s reading,
instruction, we need empirical studies that isolate the unique spelling, and phonology. Reading Psychology, 25(1), 19–36.
contribution of work on word consciousness. Berko, J. (1958). The child’s learning of English morphology. Word, 14,
150–177.
Finally, in the areas of vocabulary instruction for Eng- Biemiller, A. (2009). Words worth teaching. Columbus, OH: McGraw-
lish learners and special considerations for students with Hill.
learning disabilities, there is good evidence that vocabulary Biemiller, A., & Boote, C. (2006). An effective method for building mean-
instruction that is effective with other students is generally ing vocabulary in primary grades. Journal of Educational Psychology,
effective with these special populations. There is also gen- 98, 44–62.
Biemiller, A., & Slonim, N. (2001). Estimating root word and normative
eral agreement that different kinds of English learners and vocabulary growth in normative and advanced populations. Evidence
different kinds of learning disabled students can profit from for a common sequence of vocabulary acquisition. Journal of Educa-
special instruction. What we need to know is which kinds of tional Psychology, 93, 498–520.
students can profit from what kinds of special instruction. Blachowicz, C., & Fisher, P. (2000). Vocabulary. In R. Barr, M. L. Kamil, P.
All in all, we have come a long way in our knowledge of Mosenthal, & P. D. Pearson (Eds.), The handbook of reading research,
Vol. III (pp. 604–632).New York: Longman.
effective vocabulary instruction, but we have much further Blachowicz, C., & Obrochta, C. (2005). Vocabulary visits: Virtual field trips
to go to truly understand how to promote the vocabulary of for content vocabulary development. Reading Teacher, 59, 262–268.
children at risk for experiencing difficulty in reading. Blachowicz, C., & Obrochta, C. (2007). “Tweeking practice”: Modify-
ing read-alouds to enhance content vocabulary learning in grade 1.
In J. Worthy, B. Maloch, J. V. Hoffman, D. L. Schallert, & C. M.
References Fairbanks (Eds.), 56th Yearbook of the National Reading Conference
Anderson, R. C., & Nagy, W. E. (1992). The vocabulary conundrum. (pp. 111–121). Oak Creek, WI: NRC
American Educator (Winter), 14–18, 44–47. Bos, C. S., & Anders, P. L. (1990). Effects of interactive vocabulary
Anderson, R. C., Wilson, P. T., & Fielding, L.G. (1988). Growth in reading instruction on the vocabulary learning and reading comprehension of
and how children spend their time outside of school. Reading Research junior-high learning disabled students. Learning Disability Quarterly,
Quarterly, 23, 285–303. 13, 31–42.
Anglin, J. M. (1993). Vocabulary development: A morphological analysis. Bryant, D. P., Goodwin, M., Bryant, B. R., & Higgins, K. (2003). Vocabu-
Monographs of the Society for Research in Child Development, Serial lary instruction for students with learning disabilities: A review of the
No. 238, 58. research. Learning Disability Quarterly, 26(2), 117–128.
August, D., & Shanahan, T. (Eds.). (2006). Developing literacy In second- Buikema, J. A., & Graves, M. F. (1993). Teaching students to use context
language learners: Report of the National Literacy Panel on Language- cues to infer word meanings. Journal of Reading, 36, 450–457.
Minority Children and Youth. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum. Calfee, R. C., & Drum, P. A. (1986). Research on teaching reading. In
326 Michael F. Graves and Rebecca Silverman

M.D. Wittrock (Ed.), Handbook of research on teaching (3rd ed., pp. Elley, W. B. (1996). Using book floods to raise literacy levels in developing
804–849). New York: Macmillan. countries. In V. Greaney (Ed.), Promoting reading in developing coun-
Carlisle, J. F. (2000). Awareness of the structure and meaning of mor- tries (pp. 148–162). Newark, DE: International Reading Association.
phologically complex words: Impact on reading. Reading & Writing, Fukkink, R. G., & de Glopper, K. (1999). Effects of instruction in deriving
12(3), 169–190. word meanings from context: A meta-analysis. Review of Educational
Carlo, M. S., August, D., McGlaughlin, B., Snow, C. E., Dressler, C., Research, 68, 450–469.
Lippman, D. N., et al. (2004). Closing the gap: Addressing the vocabu- Gersten, R., & Baker, S. (2000). What we know about effective instruc-
lary needs of English-language learners in bilingual and mainstream tional practices for English-language learners. Exceptional Children,
classes. Reading Research Quarterly, 39, 188–215. 66(4), 454–470.
Carnine, D., Kameenui, E. J., & Coyle, G. (1984). Utilization of contextual Gersten, R., & Geva, E. (2003). Teaching reading to early language learn-
information in determining the meaning of unfamiliar words in context. ers. Educational Leadership, 60(7), 44–49.
Reading Research Quarterly, 19, 188–202. Goldenberg, C. (2008, Summer). Teaching English language learners:
Carroll, J. B, Davies, P., & Richman, B. (1971). The American Heritage What the research does and does not say. American Educator, 32(2),
word frequency book. New York: Houghton Mifflin. 8–23, 42–44
Carroll, J. B. (1971). Learning from verbal discourse in educational Graves, M. F. (1986). Vocabulary learning and instruction. In E. Z. Roth-
media. A review of the literature. Princeton, NJ: Educational Testing kopf (Ed.), Review of research in education (Vol. 13, pp. 49–90).
Service. Washington, DC: American Educational Research Association.
Chall, J. S., & Jacobs, V. A. (2003). The classic study on poor children’s Graves, M. F. (2006). The vocabulary book: Learning and instruction.
fourth-grade slump. American Educator, 27(1), 14–15, 44. New York: Teachers College Press, International Reading Association,
Chall, J. S., Jacobs, V. A., & Baldwin, L. E. (1990). The reading crisis: National Council of Teachers of English.
Why poor children fall behind. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Graves, M. F. (2008). Teaching individual words. In A. E. Farstrup & S.
Press. J. Samuels (Eds.), What research has to say about the teaching of
Clark, E. V. (1993). The lexicon in acquisition. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge vocabulary. Newark, DE: International Reading Association.
University Press. Graves, M. F. (2009). Teaching individual words: One size does not fit
Clifford, G . J. (1978). Words for schools: The applications in education of all. New York: Teachers College Press and International Reading
the vocabulary researches of Edward L. Thorndike. In P. Suppes (Ed.), Association.
Impact of research on education: Some case studies (pp. 107–198). Graves, M. F., & Hammond, H. K. (1980). A validated procedure for
Washington, DC: National Academy of Education. teaching prefixes and its effect on students’ ability to assign meaning
Coker, D. (2006). Impact of first-grade factors on the growth and outcomes to novel words. In M. L. Kamil & A. J. Moe (Eds.), Perspectives on
of urban schoolchildren’s primary-grade writing. Journal of Educa- reading research and instruction (pp. 135–141). Washington, DC:
tional Psychology, 98, 471–488. National Reading Conference.
Collins COBUILD new student’s dictionary. (2005, 3rd ed.). Glasglow, Graves, M. F., & Watts-Taffe, S. M. (2002). The place of word conscious-
Scotland: HarperCollins. ness in a research-based vocabulary program. In S. J. Samuels & A.
Collins, M. (2005). ESL preschoolers’ English vocabulary acquisition from E. Farstrup (Eds.), What research has to say about reading instruc-
storybook reading. Reading Research Quarterly, 40, 406–408. tion (3rd ed., pp. 140–165). Newark, DE: International Reading
Cronbach, L. J. (1942). An analysis of techniques for diagnostic vocabulary Association.
testing. Journal of Educational Research, 36, 206–217. Guthrie, J. T., & Wigfield, A. (1999). How motivation fits into a science
Cunningham, A. E., & Stanovich, K. E. (1991). Tracking the unique of reading. Scientific Studies of Reading, 3(3), 199–205.
effects of print exposure in children: Associations with vocabulary, Guthrie, J. T., & Wigfield, A. (2000). Effects of integrated instruction
general knowledge, and spelling. Journal of Educational Psychology, on motivation and strategy use in reading. Journal of Educational
83, 264–274. Psychology, 92(2), 331–41.
Cunningham, A. E., & Stanovich, K. E. (2003). Reading matters: How Guthrie, J. T. Hoa, A., Laurel W., Wigfield, A., Tonks, S. M., Humenick, N.
reading English influences cognition. In J. Flood, D. Lapp, J. R. Squire, M., & Littles, E. (2007). Reading motivation and reading comprehen-
& J. M. Jensen (Eds.), Handbook of teaching the English language sion growth in the later elementary years. Contemporary Educational
arts (2nd ed., pp. 666–675). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum. Psychology, 32(3), 282–313.
Dale, E., & O’Rourke, J. (1981). The living word vocabulary. Chicago: Hargrave, A., & Sénéchal, M. (2000). A book reading intervention with
World Book-Childcraft International. preschool children who have limited vocabularies: The benefits of
Dale, E., & O’Rourke, J. (1986). Vocabulary building: A process approach. regular reading and dialogic reading. Early Childhood Research
Columbus, OH: Zaner-Bloser. Quarterly, 15(1), 75–90.
De Temple, J., & Snow, C. E. (2003). Learning words from books. In A. Hart, B., & Risley, T. R. (2003, Spring). The early catastrophe: The 30
van Kleeck & S. A. Stahl (Eds.), On reading books to children: Parents million word gap. American Educator, 27 (1), 4–9.
and teachers Center for Improvement of Early Reading Achievement Hart, B., & Risley, T. R. (1995). Meaningful differences in the everyday
(pp. 16–36). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum. experiences of young American children. Baltimore, MD: Brookes.
Deacon, S. H., & Kirby, J. (2004). Morphological awareness: Just Hartman, G. W. (1946). Further evidence of the unexpected large size
“more phonological”? The roles of morphological and phonological of recognition vocabularies among college students. Journal of Edu-
awareness in reading development. Applied Psycholinguistics, 25, cational Psychology, 37, 436–439.
223–238. Hiebert, E. H. (2005). In pursuit of an effective, efficient vocabulary
Dickinson, D., & Smith, M. (1994). Long-term effects of preschool teach- program. In E. H. Hiebert & M. Kamil (Eds.), Teaching and learning
ers’ book readings on low-income children’s vocabulary and story vocabulary: Bringing research to practice (pp. 243–263). Mahwah,
comprehension. Reading Research Quarterly, 29(2), 104–122. NJ: Erlbaum.
Duin, A. H., & Graves, M. F. (1987). The effects of intensive vocabulary Horton, S. V., Lovitt, T. C., & Givens, A. (1988). A computer-based vo-
instruction on expository writing. Reading Research Quarterly, 22, cabulary program for three categories of student. British Journal of
311–330. Educational Technology, 19(2), 131–143.
Dupuy, H. (1974). The rationale, development, and standardization of a Jenkins J. R., Stein, M. L., & Wysocki, K. (1984). Learning vocabu-
basic word vocabulary test (DHEW Publications N0. HRA74-1334). lary through reading. American Educational Research Journal, 21,
Washington, DC: U. S. Government Printing Office. 767–787.
Elley, W. B. (1989). Vocabulary acquisition from listening to stories. Jenkins, J. R., & Wysocki, K. (1985). Deriving word meanings from
Reading Research Quarterly, 24, 174–187. context, Unpublished manuscript, University of Washington, Seattle.
 Interventions to Enhance Vocabulary Development 327

Jitendra, A. K., Edwards, L. L., Sacks, G., & Jacobson, L.A. (2004). What National Research Council. (2004). Engaging schools: Fostering high
research says about vocabulary instruction for students with learning school students’ motivation to learn. Washington, DC: National
disabilities. Exceptional Children, 70(3), 299–322. Academies Press.
Johnson, D. D., & Pearson. P. D. (1978). Teaching reading vocabulary . Nicol, J. A., Graves, M. F., & Slater, W. H. (1984). Building vocabulary
New York: Holt, Rinehart & Winston. through prefix instruction. Unpublished manuscript, University of
Johnson, G., Gersten, R., & Carnine, D. (1987). Effects of instructional Minnesota, Minneapolis.
design variables on vocabulary acquisition of LD students: A study Oullette, G. P. (2006). What’s meaning got to do with it: The role of
of computer-assisted instruction. Journal of Learning Disabilities, vocabulary in word reading and reading comprehension. Journal of
20(4), 412–438. Educational Psychology, 98, 554–566.
Juel, C. (1988). Learning to read and write: A longitudinal study of 54 Pany, D., & Jenkins, J. R. (1978). Learning word meanings: A com-
children from first through fourth grades. Journal of Educational parison of instructional procedures. Learning Disability Quarterly,
Psychology, 80, 437–447. 1, 21–32.
Kaye, D. B., & Sternberg, R. J. (1983). The development of lexical de- Pany, D., Jenkins, J. R., & Schreck, J. (1982). Vocabulary instruction:
composition ability. Unpublished manuscript. Effects on word knowledge and comprehension. Learning Disability
Kirkpatrick, E. A. (1891). The number of words in an ordinary vocabulary. Quarterly, 5, 202–215.
Science, 18, 107–108. Parker, S. L. (1984). A comparison of four types of initial vocabulary
Knight, S. (2004). Dictionary: The tool of last result in foreign language instruction (Unpublished master’s thesis). University of Minnesota,
reading? A new perspective. Modern Language Journal, 78(3), Minneapolis.
285–299. Patberg, J. P., & Stibbe, M. A. (1985, December). The effects of contextual
Longman student dictionary of American English. (2006). London: Pearson analysis instruction on vocabulary learning. Paper presented at the an-
Education Limited. nual meeting of the National Reading Conference, San Diego, CA.
Lorge, I., & Chall, J. (1963). Estimating the size of vocabularies of Patberg, J. P., Graves, M. F., & Stibbe, M. A. (1984). Effects of active
children and adults: An analysis of methodological issues. Journal of teaching and practice in facilitating students’ use of context clues. In
Experimental Education, 32, 147–157. J. A. Niles & L. A. Harris (Eds.),Changing perspectives in research in
McKeown, M. G. (1993). Creating Effective Definitions for Young Word reading/language processing and instruction (pp. 146–151). Rochester,
Learners. Reading Research Quarterly, 28, 16–31. NY: National Reading Conference.
McKeown, M. G., Beck, I. L., Omanson, R. C. & Perfetti, C. A. (1983). The Pearson, P. D., Hiebert, E. H., & Kamil, M. (2007). Vocabulary assess-
effects of long-term vocabulary instruction on reading comprehension: ment: What we know and what we need to learn. Reading Research
A replication. Journal of Reading Behavior, 15, 3–18. Quarterly, 42, 282–296.
McKeown, M. G., Beck, I. L., Omanson, R. C., & Pople, M. T. (1985). Penno, J. F., Wilkinson, I. A. G., & Moore, D. W. (2002). Vocabulary
Some effects of the nature and frequency of vocabulary instruction acquisition from teacher explanation and repeated listening to sto-
on the knowledge and use of words. Reading Research Quarterly, ries: Do they overcome the Matthew effect? Journal of Educational
20, 522–535. Psychology, 94, 23–33.
Miller, G. A., & Gildea, P. M. (1987). How children learn words. Scientific Pressley, M. (2006). Reading instruction that works (3rd ed.). New York:
American, 257(3), 94–99. Guilford.
Miller, G. A., & Wakefield, P. C. (1993). Commentary on Anglin’s analysis Pressley, M., Dolezal, S. E., Raphael, L. M., Mohan, L., Roehrig, A.
of vocabulary growth. In J. M Anglin, Vocabulary development: A D., & Bogner, K. (2002). Motivating primary-grade students. New
morphological analysis. Monographs of the Society for Research in York: Guilford.
Child Development, 59(10), 167–175. Reese, E., & Cox, A., (1999). Quality of adult book reading affects chil-
Nagy, W. E., & Anderson, R. C. (1984). How many words are there in dren’s emergent literacy. Developmental Psychology, 35(1), 20–28.
printed school English? Reading Research Quarterly, 19, 304–330. Roberts, T. & Neal, H. (2004). Relationships among preschool English
Nagy, W. E., Anderson, R. C., & Herman, P. A. (1987). Learning word language learners’ oral proficiency in English, instructional experience
meanings from context during normal reading. American Educational and literacy development. Contemporary Educational Psychology,
Research Journal, 24, 237–270. 29, 283–311.
Nagy, W. E., Berninger, V. W., Abbott, R. D. (2006). Contributions of Scott, J. A, & Nagy, W. E. (1997). Understanding the definitions of unfa-
morphology beyond phonology to literacy outcomes of upper elemen- miliar verbs. Reading Research Quarterly, 32(2), 184–200.
tary and middle school students. Journal of Educational Psychology, Shanahan, T. (2006). Relations among oral language, reading, and writing
98, 134–147. development. In C. A. MacArthur, S. Graham, & J. Fitzgerald (Eds.),
Nagy, W .E., Berninger, V., Abbot, R., Vaughan, K., & Vermeulen, K. Handbook of writing research (pp. 171–186). New York: Guilford.
(2003). Relationship of morphology and other language skills to Shibles, B. H. (1959). How many words does the first grade child know?
literacy skills in at-risk second-grade readers and at-risk fourth grade Elementary English, 31, 42–47.
writers. Journal of Educational Psychology, 95, 730–742. Silverman, R. (2007a.) Vocabulary development of English-language and
Nagy, W. E., Diakidoy, I. N., & Anderson, R. C. (1993). The acquisition English-only learners in kindergarten. Elementary School Journal,
of morphology: Learning the contributions of suffixes to the meanings 107, 365–383.
of derivatives. Journal of Reading Behavior, 25, 155–170. Silverman, R. (2007b.) A comparison of three methods of vocabulary
Nagy, W. E., & Herman, P. A. (1987). Breadth and depth of vocabulary instruction during read-alouds in kindergarten. Elementary School
knowledge: Implications for acquisition and instruction. In M. G. Journal, 108, 97–113.
McKeown & M. E. Curtis (Eds.), The nature of vocabulary acquisition Snow, C. E., & Kim, Y. (2007). Large problem spaces: The challenge of
(pp. 19–35). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum. vocabulary for English language learners. In R. K. Wagner, A. E. Muse,
Nagy, W. E., Herman, P. A., & Anderson, R. C. (1985). Learning words & K. R. Tasnnenbaum (Eds.), Vocabulary acquisition: Implications for
from context. Reading Research Quarterly, 20, 233–253. reading comprehension (123–139). New York: Guilford.
Nagy, W. E., & Scott, J. A. (2000). Vocabulary processes. In M. Kamil, Stahl, S. A. (1983). Differential word knowledge and reading comprehen-
P. Mosenthal, P. D. Pearson, & R. Barr (Eds.), Handbook of reading sion. Journal of Reading Behavior, 15(4), 33–50.
research (Vol. 3, pp. 269–284). New York: Longman. Stahl, S. A., & Nagy, W. (2006). Teaching word meanings. Mahway, NJ:
Nash, H., & Snowling, M. (2006). Teaching new words to children with Erlbaum.
poor existing vocabulary knowledge: A controlled evaluation of the Stanovich, K. E., & Cunningham, A. E. (1992). Studying the consequences
definition and context methods. International Journal of Language of literacy within a literate society: The cognitive correlates of print
and Communication Disorders, 41(3), 335–354. exposure. Memory and Cognition, 20, 51–68.
328 Michael F. Graves and Rebecca Silverman

Stanovich, K. E., & Cunningham, A. E. (1993). Where does knowledge literacy research and instruction (pp. 391–398). Chicago: National
come from? Associations between print exposure and information Reading Conference.
acquisition. Journal of Educational Psychology, 85, 211–229. White, T. G., Sowell, J., & Yanagihara, A. (1989). Teaching elementary
Sternberg, R. J. (1987). Most vocabulary is learned from context. In M. G. students to use word-part clues. The Reading Teacher, 42, 302–308.
McKeown & M. E. Curtis (Eds.), The nature of vocabulary acquisition Whitehurst, G. J., Arnold, D. S., Epstein, J. N., Angell, A.L., Smith, M.,
(pp. 89–105). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum. & Fischel, J. E. (1994). A picture book reading intervention in day
Swanson, H. L., Hoskyn, M., & Lee, C. (1999). Intervention for students care and home for children from low-income families. Developmental
with learning disabilities. New York: Guilford. Psychology, 30, 697–689.
Wasik, B., Bond, M., & Hindman, A. (2006). The effects of a language Whitehurst, G. J., Falcon, F., Lonigan, C. J., Fischel, J. E., DeBaryshe,
and literacy intervention on Head Start children and teachers. Journal D. B., Valdez-Menchaca, M. C., et al. (1988). Accelerating language
of Educational Psychology, 98, 63–74. development through picture book reading. Developmental Psychol-
Weizman, Z., & Snow, C. (2001). Lexical output as related to children’s ogy, 24, 552–559.
vocabulary acquisition: Effects of sophisticated exposure and support Wigfield, A., & Eccles, J.S., (2002). Expectancy—value theory of
for meaning. Developmental Psychology, 37, 265–279. achievement motivation. Contemporary Educational Psychology,
White, T. G., Graves, M. F., & Slater, W. H. (1990). Growth of reading 25(1), 68–81.
vocabulary in diverse elementary schools: Decoding and word mean- Wysocki, K., & Jenkins, J. R. (1987), Deriving word meanings through
ing. Journal of Educational Psychology, 82, 281–290. morphological generalization. Reading Research Quarterly, 22,
White, T. G., Slater, W. H., & Graves, M .F. (1989). Yes/no method of 66–81.
vocabulary assessment: Valid for whom and useful for what? In S. Zeno, S. M., Ivens, S. H., Millard, R. T., & Duvvuri, R. (1995). The
McCormick & J. Zutell (Eds.), Cognitive and social perspectives for educator’s word frequency guide. Brewster, NY: Touchstone Applied
Science Associates.
 30
Interventions to Enhance Narrative Comprehension
JANICE F. ALMASI
University of Kentucky

BARBARA MARTIN PALMER

Mount Saint Mary’s University

ANGIE MADDEN AND SUSAN HART

University of Kentucky

While several research syntheses have examined the types RRSG defined comprehension as “the process of simul-
of instruction that facilitate struggling readers’ compre- taneously extracting and constructing meaning through
hension, others have examined the reading differences interaction and involvement with written language” (Snow
between low-achieving students with and without learning & Sweet, 2003, p. 10). In so doing they acknowledged that
disabilities, but have not focused exclusively on reading comprehension involves the ability to decode and identify
comprehension (e.g., Fuchs, Fuchs, Mathes, & Lipsey, words as well as the ability to connect prior knowledge with
2000). Others have examined research related to compre- text to build new meanings. This perspective recognizes
hension, including reviews of oral reading fluency (e.g., the importance of decoding to reading comprehension,
Rasinski & Hoffman, 2003) and those focused on narrative but notes that decoding is insufficient by itself to facilitate
and expository text (e.g., Edmonds et al., 2009; Gersten, understanding (Pressley, 2000; Snow & Sweet, 2003).
Fuchs, Williams, & Baker, 2001; Mastropieri & Scruggs, In 2002, the U. S. Department of Education, Institute
1997; Mastropieri, Scruggs, Bakken, & Whedon, 1996), but of Education Sciences established the What Works Clear-
none have focused exclusively on interventions for strug- inghouse (WWC) as a means of providing educators with
gling readers to enhance narrative comprehension. resources to make informed decisions about practice based
The goal of this chapter is to synthesize findings of on research evidence on the effectiveness of interventions.
research from 1987–2007 in which instructional interven- The WWC defined reading comprehension as the “under-
tions were used to improve struggling readers’ narrative standing of the meaning of a passage and the context in
comprehension. To accomplish this task, we first define the which the words occur” (U. S. Department of Education,
parameters of our synthesis by including our perspectives 2007, ¶ 12). Like the RRSG definition, this definition
on reading comprehension, struggling readers, character- recognized the role of decoding and meaningful context
istics of narrative representation and comprehension, and to comprehension. However, it also included the ability to
interventions. translate text into speech by emphasizing the role of un-
derstanding spoken language. “All struggling readers have
difficulty with either language comprehension or decoding
Defining Reading Comprehension
or both” (U. S. Department of Education, 2007, ¶ 12). Thus,
As critical as comprehension is to the reading process, this definition includes a focus not only on print literacy,
trend analyses of reading research showed a decline in but also on language.
published research on comprehension throughout the 1990s More recently, the National Assessment Governing
(Gaffney & Anderson, 2000). A resurgence of interest in Board (NAGB, 2007), the policy-making body for the
comprehension occurred when the U. S. Department of National Assessment for Educational Progress (NAEP),
Education, Office of Educational Research and Improve- redesigned the framework of NAEP for 2009. The group
ment convened the RAND Reading Study Group (RRSG) defined reading as “an active and complex process that
in 1999 (RAND, 2006). RRSG was comprised of esteemed involves: understanding written text; developing and inter-
reading researchers. The group’s goal was to propose a preting meaning; and using meaning as appropriate to type
national reading research agenda in the area of reading of text, purpose, and situation” (NAGB, 2007, p. 2). These
comprehension (Snow & Sweet, 2003). It began its work ideas draw upon the notion that comprehension is central
by examining current research and theory to define reading to the reading process and involves not just gaining a literal
comprehension. understanding of text by recalling and locating details in the

329
330 Janice F. Almasi, Barbara Martin Palmer, Angie Madden, and Susan Hart

text, but also integrating the knowledge gained from text transform the social spaces in which they lived. However,
with one’s own knowledge of other texts and background the social space they inhabit, and their literacy practices, are
knowledge in order to make more complex inferences. As not valued or privileged in schools. Thus, these adolescents
well, the notion of “using meaning” refers to using the and the literacy practices they value are marginalized by
ideas gained from text to meet particular needs in particular traditional school cultures. In essence, as Alvermann and
situations. Like the RRSG definition, the NAGB definition Eakle (2003) have noted, “… traditional school culture is
focuses more on print literacy, suggesting the complexity making struggling readers out of some youth, especially
of the comprehension process and the importance of higher those who have turned their backs on a version of reading
level thinking to that process. and writing commonly referred to as school literacy” (p.
The latter view is grounded in reader response theory 19). Thus, our use of the term struggling reader includes
(e.g., Fish, 1980; Marshall, 2000; Rosenblatt, 1978), which those who struggle to read for many reasons, whether the
further defines comprehension as an event in which the struggle is related to cognitive, social, affective, societal,
reader, text, and context are in transaction with one another. or institutional issues.
Meaning does not reside within the reader as a result of As well, our examination of research considered the
decoding print and making inferences, rather meaning age of study participants in that we examined studies that
resides in the event (Rosenblatt, 1978). The event consists included readers at elementary, middle, and high school
of the reader, text, and context as active co-participants in levels. By our definition, however, studies had to include
the meaning making process. That is, there is a recursivity participants who were reading below grade level.
to the event in which the reader, text, and context shape
and are shaped by one another. We used these three ele-
Characteristics of Text: Narrative Representation and
ments to define and delimit the remaining parameters of
Comprehension
this chapter.
Text is a medium of expression and communication. From
this perspective, text consists of both linguistic and semiotic
Characteristics of Struggling Readers
forms (e.g., Hartman, 1995). While both types of text are
Trend analyses of the National Assessment of Educational essential forms of communication and require an active
Progress (NAEP) data show average reading scores have reader to comprehend them, this chapter’s primary focus is
changed little during the past two decades (Campbell, on studies using linguistic forms of narrative text.
Hombo, & Mazzeo, 2000). Although fourth graders’ aver- Graesser, Golding, and Long (1991) defined narratives
age reading scale scores were slightly higher in 2005 than as “event-based experiences” (p. 174) that can either be
in 1992, and the percentage of students performing at or stored in memory, transmitted orally or in writing to an
above proficient levels increased during that time, reading audience, and organized as knowledge structures that can
scores were not significantly different in 2005 than scores be anticipated. Key to this definition is the notion of com-
in 1992 (Perie, Grigg, & Donahue, 2005). Although these munication and interaction between speaker/writer and
data suggest reading achievement has shown little growth, listener/reader. Ochs (1997), like reader response theorists,
researchers have become increasingly concerned not only took these ideas a step further by suggesting that narrative
with examining interventions for struggling readers, but is essentially a “co-authorship” (p.185) in which readers
also with issues of race, class, gender, and dialect (Gaffney and interlocutors jointly influence its production, and that
& Anderson, 2000) that keep underserved populations such production has the potential to transform individuals
in the U.S. from achieving at the same rate as majority and relationships.
populations (Perie et al., 2005). Thus, the characteristics Narrative texts have a particular structure that generally
of a struggling reader encompass a variety of reader char- consists of setting, characters, initiating events, problem or
acteristics that go beyond reading ability and diagnosed goal, events aimed at resolving the problem or attaining the
learning disabilities, to include examinations of institu- goal, and a resolution (Mandler & Johnson, 1977). Wolf
tional and instructional circumstances that may inhibit, (2004) further defined narrative by not only including story
marginalize, or preclude individuals from achieving at grammar elements, but also theme, point of view, style, and
similar rates. While there are studies of such institutional tone. Bloome (2003), on the other hand, has argued that
and instructional circumstances in elementary schools, for all texts can be considered narrative, even those typically
illustrative purposes we provide an example of instances classified as “expository,” because all texts have a tempo-
in which the curriculum in middle and upper grades is not ral history that reflects past events and future events. It is
aligned with adolescents’ life experiences. These studies incumbent upon the reader to critically examine the text
offer evidence that instruction is often not responsive to the to identify the underlying events that may not be readily
cultural, gender, racial, and linguistic differences existing apparent in the structure of the text.
among students. Moje (2000), for example, showed how Historically, story grammar (e.g., Mandler & Johnson,
five gang-affiliated youth (who would be identified as “at 1977; Stein & Glenn, 1979) was the first theory of narra-
risk” for reading failure in traditional school literacies) tive representation. Rooted in cognitive psychology, story
used sophisticated literacy practices to communicate and grammar provided the first formal method of analyzing
 Interventions to Enhance Narrative Comprehension 331

stories into their constituent parts (Graesser et al., 1991). (1972) defined narrative as one method of communicating
Story grammar assigns a hierarchical episodic structure to temporal events. The overall structure of a fully formed
the information contained in a text based on the hypoth- narrative, as described by Labov (1972), includes an ab-
esis that superordinate information is more important, and stract, in which the narrator begins with a clause or two
possibly more accessible, than subordinate information that summarizes the whole story. The abstract is followed
(Graesser et al., 1991). Work by Mandler and Johnson by the orientation in which the time, place, people, and the
(1977) and Stein and Glenn (1979) established that stories activities, or their situation are described. The orientation
generally consist of a beginning in which the protagonist leads to a complicating action, which is often delayed by
is introduced in a setting, followed by an initiating event to evaluation. The action builds in an orderly series of events
which the protagonist responds by establishing a problem and is often suspended at the high point to emphasize its
or goal. The protagonist then attempts to achieve the goal, importance. While the action is suspended, the high point is
which ultimately leads to a resolution. Mandler and Johnson evaluated in a sustained manner. The evaluation serves as a
(1977) contended that having a schema for narrative struc- means by which the narrator explains the point of the nar-
ture directs attention to particular aspects of incoming in- rative, or why it was being told. The evaluation occurs just
formation, helps readers keep track of what they have read, prior to the resolution, which is often followed by a coda, in
and indicates when a given part of a story is complete or which the narrator returns the listener back to the present.
incomplete so it can be stored or held in memory until more Labov’s (1972) characterization of the structure of personal
material is encountered. Short and Ryan (1984) found that narratives has at times been referred to as the “classic” nar-
learning about narrative structure helps students’ memory rative pattern (Peterson & McCabe, 1983). In their study
and recall of text. Thus, comprehension, from this perspec- of the structure of the narratives of 96 white children,
tive is limited primarily to literal recall. Another drawback Peterson and McCabe (1983) identified six other patterns
of story grammar is that it is limited to stories in the oral in addition to the classic pattern described by Labov. These
tradition (Graesser et al., 1991). Graesser and colleagues patterns included: (a) Ending-at-the-high point, in which
(1991) further noted that tests of story grammar generally the narrative builds to the high point and is dwelled upon
determined how well it could predict the importance of as in the classic pattern, but then ends without a resolution.
statements in the text. Those studies suggested that most (b) Leap-frogging, in which the narrative jumps from one
predictions of story grammar could be explained by content event to the other, leaving the listener to infer major events
features such as world knowledge of planning, motives, that are omitted. (c) Chronological, in which the narrative
social action, and causality rather than the structural aspect is just a simple description of successive events. (d) Im-
of story grammar. poverished, in which the narrative contains few sentences
Other theories of narrative representation such as Tra- and does not have a recognizable pattern, or consists of
basso’s causal network theory and Graesser’s conceptual only two successive events. (e) Disoriented, in which the
graph structures rely on networks rather than hierarchical narrator is confused or offers events that are disoriented.
tree structures used in story grammars, to capture the The final category was for miscellaneous patterns that did
properties of narrative (Graesser et al., 1991). In contrast not fit into any of the other categories.
with story grammars, causal network theory was applied After analyzing children’s narratives using story gram-
to a broad range of narratives with the goal of determining mar and high point analysis, Peterson and McCabe (1983)
the causal links in the text’s structure. Using this method of concluded that no one type of analysis is superior. They
representing narrative enables one to examine how causal noted that while high point analysis is able to provide an
inferences are represented in text, which provides more understanding of how narratives revolve around an im-
explicit links to the processes underlying higher levels of portant event and emphasizes that event using emotional
comprehension. Assumptions underlying causal network information, it is unable to account for narratives containing
theory include a dependence on background world knowl- multiple high points, does not have a sophisticated means
edge and the notion that the model for text is continually for analyzing the structure of evaluation, is not able to ac-
updated and refined during comprehension. Evidence has count for psychological or physical causality, and is unable
suggested that causal network theory is capable of predict- to account for events that are not represented by an inde-
ing the importance of statements in some narratives and that pendent clause. Story grammar analysis, on the other hand,
it plays a role in question-answering and question-asking is able to represent the cognitive aspect of human actions
tasks (Graesser et al., 1991). well. It is also able to capture causality effectively and the
High point analysis offers another perspective on nar- complexity of narrative in terms of motivations, goal struc-
rative representation (Labov, 1972; Peterson & McCabe, tures, and episodes embedded within one another. However,
1983). In contrast with the episodic structure of narrative Peterson and McCabe (1983) noted that, unlike high point
text described in story grammar analysis, Labov (1972) analysis, it provides no insight regarding the evaluation of
described the structure of narrative syntax as individuals the experience and it does not account for language use.
communicated personal narratives during casual speech. Thus, it presents a rather Eurocentric, episodic perception
Whereas story grammar analysis uses propositions as the of the manner in which narrative is structured and does not
unit of analysis, high point analysis uses clauses. Labov account for other ways of telling stories.
332 Janice F. Almasi, Barbara Martin Palmer, Angie Madden, and Susan Hart

Many researchers have examined the unique cultural coded propositionally or by forming mental models. At the
and linguistic variations that exist in narrative production. propositional level, Kintsch and his colleagues found that
Au (1980) examined participation structures and the use of propositions are important in comprehending language,
“talk story” as a speech event among Hawaiian children. and that propositions provide an accurate representation of
Likewise, Scollon and Scollon (1981) described the nature the structure of text. When readers want to remember the
of Athabaskan oral narrative and contrasted it with English text verbatim, propositional encoding prevails. However,
speakers to understand the nature of interethnic communica- propositional knowledge does not adequately account for
tion patterns. Similar studies have examined distinct pat- memory and recall of text which is influenced heavily by
terns of narrative production that reflect cultural differences prior knowledge and schemata (McNamara et al., 1991).
(e.g., Bloome, Champion, Katz, Morton, & Muldrow, 2001; Mental model theories (e.g., Johnson-Laird, 1983; van Dijk
Bloome, Katz, & Champion, 2003; Champion, Seymour, & Kintsch, 1983) suggest that readers construct a mental
& Camarata, 1995; Gee, 1989a, 1989b; Heath, 1982, 1983; model of the text as they read that is similar in structure to
Hymes, 1982; Minami, 2002). These cultural differences the events and situations in the text. These mental models
suggest that the ways in which children share narratives are highly accessible and are updated as new information
at home in a culturally congruent context, may vary from presents itself in the text (Glenberg, Meyer & Lindem,
the manner in which teachers, who tend to place value on 1987; Morrow, Greenspan, & Bower, 1987). Thus, this
traditional episodic narrative structures, expect narratives view of comprehension suggests that readers must be able
to be shared in a school context. This may lead to cultural to identify and encode not only propositions, but also the
biases against non-linear, or alternative ways of performing structural aspects of a text (e.g., episodic structure, story
narratives in schools. It is clear then, from the discussion grammar elements, causal relations) and determine the
above, that the manner in which narrative is structured and relations between them to create a coherent representation
performed is a matter of debate. of the text in memory (van den Broek, Tzeng, Risden,
Similarly, the manner in which readers construct mean- Trabasso, & Basche, 2001).
ing from text is also a contested construct. Goldman and Bloome (2003) made distinctions between the notion
Rakestraw (2000) noted that readers rely on text-driven and of narrative as text and narrative as event and practice.
knowledge-driven processing. Text-driven processing refers When viewed as text, many aspects of narrative can be
to using structural cues (e.g., linguistic cues, graphic cues) examined through research. For example, Bloome (2003)
to see how text elements are related and organized. Lin- has suggested that a narrative’s structure and content can be
guistic cues such as temporal (before, after, while), additive examined as in Goldman and Rakestraw’s (2000) perspec-
(and, in addition, also), causal (because, so, consequently), tive regarding narrative comprehension. However, Bloome
or adversative (but, although, however) connectives pro- also argues that the manner in which the narrative mediates
vide information that helps readers see how sentences and social relationships and identities, and the cognitive and
clauses relate to one another. Linguistic cues can also signal linguistic processes one uses to make sense of a narrative
the overall rhetorical structure or genre of the text. should also be examined.
During knowledge-driven processing, readers use Bloome (2003) and Bloome et al. (2003) have suggested
their knowledge and expectations about how words, sen- that schools tend to emphasize the importance of narrative
tences, paragraphs, and different genres are structured as text by focusing on a child’s ability to retell the narrative
and organized to help them construct meaning (Goldman (either orally or in writing). This practice tends to separate
& Rakestraw, 2000). When that structure is violated, the narrative from the narrator or writer, thereby objectify-
comprehension is diminished (Goldman & Rakestraw, ing the narrative and isolating it from the social relationships
2000). Research has shown that when readers are made that surround it. They argue that narrative is not simply
aware of various text structures (e.g., episodic structure about producing a text, but about the storytelling event.
of narrative text) comprehension is facilitated (Goldman That is, narrative as event and practice is equally important
& Rakestraw, 2000; Pearson & Fielding, 1991). Students’ as narrative as text. The performative aspect of narrative
knowledge and awareness of different text structures and suggests that narrative cannot exist outside the culture of
genres develop with time and experience (Goldman & the storytelling event. In a sense, Bloome’s notion of nar-
Rakestraw, 2000). When readers are able to use the cues rative parallels Rosenblatt’s (1978) notion of reading as a
provided by the text in terms of structure and organization, transactional event. Thus, children’s narrative development
they are better able to make connections between ideas in must not only provide opportunity for them to reproduce
the text. However, when text is too structured or overly the structural components of the narrative, but also account
explicit, conceptual coherence may be hindered (Goldman for the cultural and sociolinguistic aspects of the storytell-
& Rakestraw, 2000). ing performance. In schools, tension exists between these
Mental model theories of comprehension contend two perspectives in terms of evaluation. When evaluation
that readers process text at two levels: a propositional focuses primarily on evaluating narrative as text (e.g., deter-
level and a mental modeling level (McNamara, Miller, & mining the degree to which the structure of a child’s narra-
Bransford, 1991). Situational contexts, reading material, tive retelling matches the structure of the original narrative
the reader, and the task determine whether the text is en- text, or describing the structure of a child’s narrative), the
 Interventions to Enhance Narrative Comprehension 333

evaluation pulls the text out of its performative context. This the “space” that surrounds each instructional activity or in-
practice denies the existence of, and importance of, cultural, tervention is co-constructed by the teacher and the students
linguistic, and social relationships to narrative. Bloome et and has particular actors in particular roles, and is governed
al. (2003) have argued that decontextualizing narrative is a by particular social norms and organizational structures
means of legitimizing the dominance of particular language (Holland et al., 1998; Lave & Wenger, 1991).
practices. In the United States, such practice would serve to Some have argued persuasively (e.g., Donahue & Foster,
reify the language practices of white, middle-class citizens 2004) that studies of social cognition and social information
and marginalize the language practices of non-dominant processing may provide insight into the manner in which
cultures. Thus, it is essential to evaluate narratives within struggling readers approach text. They contend there are
the context in which they occur (Bloome et al., 2001). When inherent theoretical linkages between the manner in which
considering classroom interventions to enhance narrative a struggling reader uses prior knowledge of social expe-
comprehension, it is important not only to consider those riences, social cues, social rules, and social schemas to
that enhance the structure of narrative (e.g., retelling), but comprehend real-life situations (e.g., semiotic texts) and the
also those that enhance the manner in which narrative is manner in which they use prior knowledge of lived experi-
produced and those that examine the contexts in which ences, linguistic cues, structural rules, and textual schemata
narrative is produced. to comprehend written texts (e.g., linguistic texts).
Thus, from a transactional perspective, the goal of this
chapter is to synthesize the findings of research in which
Characteristics of Interventions
varying instructional and social/contextual interventions
Context is the setting in which the reading event occurs. were examined to determine their impact on struggling
Thus, in a classroom, the context includes the instructional readers’ narrative comprehension.
practices and interventions the teacher uses to provide in-
struction. Intervention is viewed as a deliberate attempt to
Review of Research
influence the instructional outcome. In terms of struggling
readers’ narrative comprehension, intervention is viewed as Our review of the literature found that interventions de-
a planned instructional activity designed to facilitate suc- signed to enhance narrative comprehension fell into three
cessful reading comprehension. In their review of research distinct categories: (a) Interventions aimed at directly
on comprehension instruction, Pearson and Fielding (1991) improving comprehension, (b) Interventions aimed at in-
noted that interventions designed to improve comprehen- directly improving comprehension by enhancing fluency,
sion of narrative text fell into two categories: interventions and (c) Programmatic interventions aimed at improving
that build or activate prior knowledge (of story structure, comprehension among other things. Each category also
of topics and themes), and interventions that focus on the represents particular theoretical and historical trends in
kinds of questions asked during and after reading (e.g., literacy research over the past 20 years. Thus, we provide
inferential questions, prediction questions, questions on theoretical and historical information to contextualize each
important ideas, multiple interpretations of text). More type of intervention.
recently, Duke, Pressley, and Hilden’s (2004) review of
research on comprehension difficulties suggested that suc- Interventions Aimed at Directly Improving Comprehen-
cessful comprehension relies on several factors including: sion Top-down (e.g., Smith, 1978), interactive (e.g.,
ability to decode text (e.g., interventions that facilitate Rumelhart, 2004), and interactive-compensatory models of
phonemic awareness, phonics, and fluency), oral-language reading (e.g., Stanovich, 1980) provided similar perspec-
skill, dialect, awareness and use of comprehension strate- tives of the reading process throughout the 1980s. Accord-
gies, and engagement and motivation with reading. Thus, ing to these perspectives, reading was theorized not just to
more recent instructional interventions are often designed be influenced by visual input from the text as in bottom-up
to facilitate at least one of these factors. For example, in- information processing theories (e.g., Gough, 1984) or
terventions that target the ability to decode text might focus Automatic Information Processing Models (e.g., Samuels,
on phonemic awareness, phonics, or fluency. Interventions 2004), but also from higher-level thinking (Rumelhart,
aimed at oral language skills might foster syntactical use or 2004; Stanovich, 1980; Tracey & Morrow, 2006). As well,
retelling. An example of interventions focused on dialect reading was thought to be non-linear. As a result, researchers
would include those that are culturally and linguistically began to consider teaching comprehension more as strategic
responsive or those that include culturally and linguisti- processes rather than as skills to be acquired. This led to
cally diverse texts. developing interventions aimed first at teaching single strat-
The instructional context, however, is also situated local- egies to enhance literal and inferential comprehension and
ly, socioculturally, and sociohistorically (Marshall, 2000). eventually to teaching strategic processing as self-regulated
This suggests that context not only includes instructional sets of strategies used flexibly as needed.
activities, but also that these activities “are organized around
different sets of situated understandings and expectations” Interventions that Teach Single Strategies for Comprehen-
(Holland, Skinner, Lachiotte, & Cain, 1998, p. 57). Thus, sion Throughout much of the 1980s and 1990s, strategies
334 Janice F. Almasi, Barbara Martin Palmer, Angie Madden, and Susan Hart

were taught individually in an effort to provide struggling near and far transfer; however, when attempting to use the
readers with specific instruction to assist comprehension. same procedure with second and third graders, the problem
Those strategies included imagery, comprehension moni- of far transfer recurred (Williams et al., 2002).
toring, story grammar, theme, and summarization. Borkowski, Weyhing, and Carr (1988) also sought to gain
As early as Levin’s (1973) study, research has shown long-term transfer by combining summarization strategy in-
that for younger students and those who may need organi- struction with attributional training that fostered persistence
zational strategies, visual imagery successfully enhances and effort. Results showed that learning domain-specific
reading comprehension. Like that early study, Flaro’s attributional beliefs helped struggling readers persevere so
(1987) study of learning disabled fourth and fifth graders’ they could summarize and make inferences better; however,
use of visual imagery showed significant increases on read- their long-standing antecedent attributional beliefs were un-
ing comprehension. Using a more rigorous reading-level altered. Mastropieri et al. (2001) also had success teaching
matched design with upper-primary “reading disabled” learning disabled seventh graders in a 5-week peer tutoring
students and average third graders, Chan, Cole, and Morris program to use summarization strategies; however, transfer
(1990) also found that visualization supported by pictorial was not measured.
displays was significantly more successful at improving These studies suggest that teaching struggling readers
reading comprehension than either a visualization only or specific strategies such as visualization, comprehension
read-reread control condition. However, this success did monitoring, story grammar, theme, and summarization
not generalize over time. does improve short-term comprehension; however, sustain-
Comprehension monitoring has also been a single ing and transferring these effects to other contexts proved
strategy intervention that has yielded success. Baumann, more difficult.
Seifert-Kessell, and Jones (1992) found that interventions
that involve active cognitive processing and metacognition Interventions that Teach Flexible Use of a Variety of
while reading were significantly more successful at promot- Strategies In an effort to seek long-term transfer, some
ing average and below average fourth graders’ comprehen- interventions moved away from teaching isolated strategies
sion, comprehension monitoring, and error detection than to teaching readers to build a repertoire of the most potent
the more traditional Directed Reading Activity. comprehension strategies (i.e., visualization, comprehen-
Several studies used either a single subject or multiple sion monitoring, activating background knowledge, sum-
baseline design to examine the impact of story gram- marizing, identifying text structure, questioning oneself)
mar instruction on comprehension and recall of textual and apply the associated declarative, procedural, and
information. While Newby, Caldwell, and Recht (1989) conditional knowledge independently. One of the earli-
found mixed results for children with dysphonetic dyslexia est interventions was reciprocal teaching (Palincsar & A.
(i.e., difficulty using phonetic analysis) and children with Brown, 1984). More recently, Westra and Moore (1995)
dyseidetic dyslexia (i.e., difficulty with whole word iden- found that an extended reciprocal teaching program had a
tification), others have shown significant improvement in significant impact on below average high school students’
the recall of story grammar elements from baseline to inter- reading comprehension that was sustained 6 months later,
vention (Boulineau, Fore, Hagan-Burke, & Burke, 2004), suggesting that transfer had occurred.
daily comprehension between baseline and all subsequent Others have developed interventions focused on teach-
phases (Idol, 1987; Idol & Croll, 1987), and standardized ing struggling readers how to use a variety of comprehen-
test performance on reading comprehension subtests, sion strategies in a flexible manner. Dole, K. Brown, and
listening comprehension, and length of story retellings Trathen (1996) found that providing fifth- and sixth-grade
(Idol & Croll, 1987). For students with mild disabilities struggling readers with procedural and conditional knowl-
and those who are low performing, these studies show that edge in a 5-week strategies intervention supported their im-
story grammar instruction has positive short-term effects mediate comprehension of text in ways that were superior
on comprehension. to traditional basal instruction and instruction focused on
While these studies examined plot-level comprehen- story content. However, transfer remained problematic. In
sion, Williams and her colleagues were interested in a year-long investigation, R. Brown, Pressley, Van Meter,
moving students to more complex understanding of text. and Schuder (1996) found that Transactional Strategies
An initial study (Williams, Brown, Silverstein, & deCani, Instruction (TSI) had a significant long-term impact on low-
1994) showed the effectiveness of their theme identifica- achieving second graders’ comprehension on the Stanford
tion program at helping normally achieving and learning Achievement Test. Likewise, TSI students reported using
disabled fifth and sixth graders understand the concept of more comprehension and word-level strategies and applied
theme, identify instructed themes (i.e., near transfer), and more strategies than comparison group students.
identify uninstructed themes (i.e., far transfer). Williams Studies suggest that when students are taught what a
(2002) found that near transfer was attained, but far transfer particular strategy is (i.e., declarative knowledge), how to
proved difficult for learning disabled seventh and eighth use it while reading (i.e., procedural knowledge), and when
graders. Wilder and Williams (2001) adapted the program and why it should be used (i.e., conditional knowledge)
to promote far transfer and found it was effective in terms of short-term comprehension improves (Dole et al., 1996),
 Interventions to Enhance Narrative Comprehension 335

and some showed longer-term effects (Brown et al., 1996; tive text. Findings from analyses of complex, inferential
Westra & Moore, 1995). Without instruction related to essay questions revealed that students in the experimental
procedural and conditional knowledge, interventions were condition scored significantly higher than students in the
not as successful (e.g., Proctor, Dalton, & Grisham, 2007). control group. These findings suggest that culturally sen-
Thus, the type of scaffolding and the context in which sitive interventions that incorporate discussion and higher
strategies instruction occurs may be essential for improved level thinking promote comprehension and interpretation
comprehension and transfer. of narrative text. While these studies found success in ma-
nipulating the learning environment for struggling readers
Interventions that Manipulate the Text or Social Environ- by including social interaction and culturally relevant in-
ment While many researchers aimed to determine the struction, others have found that the learning environment
impact of a particular instructional intervention on com- can also be successfully manipulated by considering the
prehension as a result of the focus on sociocultural theory texts used with struggling readers. Boyd (2002) found that
in the 1990s (Gaffney & Anderson, 2000), some began to ninth-grade struggling readers identified more with texts
examine and manipulate the texts and contexts involved in similar to their own ethnicity, and they were capable of
comprehension instruction to determine their impact. engaging in higher-level thinking, producing sophisticated
Schmidt (1989) examined the effect of type of question- and thought-provoking responses, and critically evaluating
ing and placement of questioning on sixth through ninth texts. Similarly, Rickford’s (2001) study of sixth and sev-
graders’ comprehension and found that learning disabled enth graders also examined the effect of culturally relevant
students had difficulty answering higher-level comprehen- narratives on the reading enjoyment and comprehension of
sion questions, searching for and finding needed informa- ethnically diverse students and found that these struggling
tion in text, and working independently. Van den Branden readers were capable of higher-level thought and actually
(2000) argued that comprehension is enhanced in natural, performed better on higher-order comprehension questions
authentic reading as learners negotiate the meaning of a than on literal comprehension questions.
text through social interaction. By examining the conditions These studies suggest that teachers may be able to scaf-
under which negotiation of meaning promoted comprehen- fold struggling readers’ comprehension not only through
sion, and the extent to which pre-modifying texts had an modeling and explicit instruction aimed at enhancing
impact on first- and second-language learners’ reading com- comprehension, but also by manipulating the learning en-
prehension, she found that for all students, and particularly vironment so that it includes culturally relevant texts with
those with lower levels of language proficiency, collectively which students are able to identify. As well, these studies
negotiating the meaning of text improves comprehension. suggest that less proficient readers are not less proficient
For these students, the opportunity to work with peers to thinkers. When provided with culturally relevant texts, and
recognize and resolve their own comprehension problems when given the opportunity to participate in higher-level
provided more assistance with comprehension than modify- discourse, struggling readers are able to think beyond a
ing texts to make them easier to understand. These findings literal level and show strong comprehension. These findings
supported those of Almasi (1995), who found that when further suggest that instructional scaffolding need not be
average and below average readers participated in peer limited to instructional methods. Instead, the texts and con-
discussions of text they were better able to recognize and texts must also be considered. As well, including questions
resolve their own comprehension problems than students that moved beyond literal levels to include higher-order
in teacher-led conditions. thinking was crucial to fostering comprehension.
Likewise, Goatley, Brock, and Raphael’s (1995) study
of diverse learners’ participation in student-led discussions Interventions Aimed at Indirectly Improving Comprehen-
of text revealed that culturally and linguistically diverse sion by Enhancing Fluency In contrast with its previous
students and struggling readers were capable of negotiat- focus on comprehension, in the late 1980s the U. S. De-
ing and maintaining topics of discussion and constructing partment of Education’s Office of Educational Research
meaning by using a variety of strategies to gather infor- and Improvement (OERI) began targeting phonics and
mation from sources as they collaboratively constructed early reading in its Requests for Proposals. In response,
interpretations of text. the Center for the Study of Reading at the University of
Lee (1995) examined the use of signifying (a form Illinois at Champaign-Urbana proposed a comprehensive
of talk using figurative language to inform, persuade, or review of phonics and early reading instruction in their 1986
criticize in African American communities) as a scaffold proposal to OERI (Pearson, 1990). The resultant volume,
for helping low-performing African American high school Beginning to Read (Adams, 1990) became a landmark text.
students interpret text. The intervention included: small The resulting focus on phonics, fluency, and early reading
group discussion, student-generated questions, verbalizing led the field to focus more on these areas, and a decline in
cognitive processes, justifying sources used in interpreta- published research on comprehension ensued throughout
tions, and elaborating points of view. They learned to ap- the 1990s (Gaffney & Anderson, 2000). A decade later
ply strategies similar to those expert readers use to make two other reports had a similar impact on the field of read-
inferences while interpreting figurative language in narra- ing. The National Research Council commissioned Snow,
336 Janice F. Almasi, Barbara Martin Palmer, Angie Madden, and Susan Hart

Burns, and Griffin’s (1998) volume, Preventing Reading Kourea, Cartledge, and Musti-Rao (2007) found opposing
Difficulties in Young Children, and in 1997, at the request results. Trained students made significant gains on sight
of the U.S. Congress, the National Institute of Child Health word recognition, but not on fluency or comprehension.
and Human Development (NICHD) gathered a panel of 14 Studies focused on the effectiveness of phonics or decod-
individuals to assess what research has concluded about ing programs on comprehension also had mixed results. Al
reading. The Report of the National Reading Panel (NRP, Otaiba’s (2005) investigation of traditional phonics instruc-
2000), like its predecessors, had an enormous impact on tion for English Language Learners who were beginning
reading research and instruction that led to substantially readers showed significant growth in terms of word attack,
more studies that examined the relationship between fluency passage comprehension, and sound identification on the
and comprehension. Woodcock Reading Mastery Test-Revised, however, those
Fluency’s relationship to comprehension is the subject analyses were of raw scores. Standard score analysis only
of much debate, and its direct connection to interventions showed significant growth on word attack. In contrast,
aimed at improving narrative comprehension is also a mat- White’s (2005) study of a word family phonics intervention
ter of debate. Automaticity theory (e.g., Samuels, 2004) for 280 second graders found the program was successful in
posits that in order for readers to become fluent, they must increasing the reading comprehension of low and average
initially devote their cognitive resources to decoding and achieving students.
word recognition (Samuels, 2004; Tan & Nicholson, 1997). Lenz and Hughes (1990) found that a word identification
After practice and learning, these processes eventually strategy, involving breaking words into parts, reduced the
become automatic and the reader can devote attention to oral reading errors and improved the comprehension ability
comprehending, rather than decoding, the text. If readers of 12 seventh- through ninth-grade students with learning
devote all of their cognitive attention to decoding, they disabilities. However, some students showed inconsistent
will have none left for comprehension (Tan & Nicholson, gains in comprehension.
1997). This is known as the “bottleneck hypothesis” in the Torgesen et al. (2001) compared a sight word program
literature. and a phonics program for increasing the comprehension of
The weak form of the bottleneck hypothesis posits 60 second through fourth graders with learning disabilities.
that automatic decoding is a necessary component of Findings showed that both programs were equally effective
comprehension, but not the only one (Fleisher, Jenkins, & for improving the reading comprehension of students with
Pany, 1979). Readers must possess a variety of processes learning disabilities. Thus, there is inconsistent evidence
and skills in order to comprehend a text. The strong form regarding the effect of word identification interventions on
(Fleisher, Jenkins, & Pany, 1979) of the bottleneck hypoth- comprehension of narrative text.
esis argues that decoding skills alone are enough to lead to
high levels of comprehension. Repeated reading interventions. Several studies fo-
cused on enhancing automaticity through repeated reading
Studies Investigating the Strong Form of the Bottleneck and, like Rasinski and Hoffman’s (2003) review, found
Hypothesis Studies investigating fluency practices asso- mixed results. Rashotte and Torgesen (1985) found that
ciated with the “strong form” of the bottleneck hypothesis repeated reading was not more effective than non-repetitive
fell into four broad categories of instructional interventions: reading for increasing reading speed and comprehension
fluency, word identification, repeated reading, and assisted of students with learning disabilities in Grades 3 through
reading. 6. However, Homan, Klesius, and Hite (1993) found that
repeated reading and non-repetitive reading were both effec-
Fluency interventions. Allinder, Dunse, Brunken, tive means for improving the comprehension of struggling
and Obermiller-Krolikowski’s (2001) study of 50 seventh readers in the sixth grade.
graders (14 with learning disabilities) compared the effec- A study conducted by Taylor, Wade, and Yekovich
tiveness of fluency strategy instruction (e.g., reading with (1985), as well as the Rashotte and Torgesen (1985) study
inflection, self-monitoring for accuracy, and reading at an discussed above, looked at the influence of the character-
appropriate rate) to no fluency strategy instruction, where istics of the passage on repeated reading. The Taylor et al.
students were told to do their best. Students in both groups (1985) study, conducted with 45 good and poor fifth-grade
made significant gains in comprehension from pretest readers, examined the effects of phrasing the text and found
to posttest; however, there was no significant difference that phrasing did not have a significant effect on comprehen-
between groups. sion. The Rashotte and Torgesen (1985) study looked at the
effects of word overlap between passages and concluded
Word identification interventions. Studies related to that word commonality between passages did not signifi-
word identification’s impact on comprehension focused cantly contribute to comprehension gains.
on sight word and decoding training. Tan and Nicholson
(1997) found that, on comprehension measures, elemen- Peer- or teacher-assisted interventions. Peer-assisted
tary students who were trained to recognize sight words studies analyzed the effects of repeated reading and/or sus-
significantly outperformed those who were not. However, tained reading in peer dyads and had mixed results. Eldredge
 Interventions to Enhance Narrative Comprehension 337

and Quinn (1988) found that sustained reading in peer first through sixth graders, included phonemic awareness,
dyads, as part of a balanced literacy program, improved the phonics, and reading and writing instruction and found
reading fluency and comprehension of second grade strug- significant differences between the treatment and control
gling readers. However, Mathes and Fuchs (1993) found that groups on measures of fluency, spelling, and comprehen-
sustained reading in peer dyads was more successful than sion. Jenkins, Peyton, Sanders, and Vadasy (2004) exam-
traditional reading instruction in increasing the reading flu- ined the effects of one-to-one tutoring, involving fluency,
ency, but not the reading comprehension of fourth- through reading, and spelling instruction, on 121 struggling first
sixth-grade students with learning disabilities. graders’ reading achievement when randomly assigned to
The teacher-assisted reading studies analyzed the effects either a more decodable or less decodable text condition or
of teacher feedback and teacher-guided repeated reading in a control group. Overall, both tutored groups had signifi-
small groups or peer dyads of third- or fourth-grade strug- cantly greater scores than the control group in the areas of
gling readers or students with learning disabilities (Shany decoding, word reading, passage reading, and comprehen-
& Biemiller, 1995; Eldredge, 1990; Pany & McCoy, 1988). sion measures; although there was no significant difference
The results of these studies suggested that teacher-assisted between treatment groups.
reading and corrective feedback were effective practices for
improving the reading comprehension of struggling readers Studies Investigating Strong and Weak Forms of the
and students with learning disabilities. Bottleneck Hypothesis Studies examining strong and
weak forms of the bottleneck hypothesis compared decod-
Studies Investigating the Weak Form of the Bottleneck ing-based practices to meaning-based practices. Results
Hypothesis Given that the weak form of the bottleneck indicated that comprehension improved with cueing for
hypothesis contends that fluency is a necessary but insuf- comprehension over cueing for fluency for fifth- through
ficient element by itself for improving comprehension, eighth-grade students with learning disabilities (O’Shea,
interventions examining the weak form tended to have Sindelar, & O’Shea, 1987), meaning-based feedback
multiple components and all tended to be at least moder- on oral reading miscues improved comprehension over
ately successful. Therrien, Wickstrom, and Jones (2006) decoding-based feedback for second- through fifth-grade
investigated the effects of a repeated reading intervention students with language learning disabilities (Crowe, 2005,
combined with answering comprehension questions and 2003), inference training improved comprehension over
found that such instruction improved the fluency and rapid decoding for struggling readers in the second grade
comprehension of fourth- through eighth-grade students (Yuill & Oakhill, 1988), the repeated readings that charac-
with or at risk for learning disabilities. Another study terize Shared Book Experience improved comprehension
compared two oral reading instructional routines—Shared significantly more than round robin reading for second
Book Experience (SBE) and Oral Recitation Lesson (ORL; graders (Eldredge, Reutzel, & Hollingsworth, 1995), and
Reutzel, Hollingsworth, & Eldredge, 1994). The SBE in- the paraphrasing strategy was more beneficial than repeated
tervention develops comprehension indirectly by repeated reading or repeated reading combined with the paraphras-
reading of whole texts in large and small groups, discus- ing strategy for fifth- through seventh-grade students with
sion, and interpretive activities. An ORL of text segments learning disabilities (Ellis & Graves, 1990).
teach decoding, fluency, and comprehension as separate In summary, the interventions aligned with the weak
skills-based components. After 4 months second graders, form of the bottleneck hypothesis all showed positive re-
including below average readers, scored similarly on the sults over programs aligned with the strong form. Results
reading comprehension subtest of the Iowa Test of Basic of most of the studies investigating the strong form of the
Skills. However, students in the SBE intervention scored bottleneck hypothesis showed that fluency-only interven-
significantly higher on implicit comprehension questions tions were often successful in improving the reading com-
than students in the ORL intervention suggesting that the prehension of struggling readers or students with learning
inferences one makes while reading whole texts may be disabilities in comparison to a control group or other strong
more beneficial for implicit comprehension than reading form interventions. However, results of studies investigat-
smaller units of text. ing weak and strong forms of the bottleneck hypothesis
Blachman and colleagues (2004) found that a program typically compared the two types of instruction and indi-
integrating phonics instruction with the reading of phoneti- cated that weak form interventions were more successful
cally controlled text resulted in comprehension gains for than strong form interventions. In alignment with this,
second and third grade students at the end of the program. even researchers investigating strong form interventions
Comprehension was measured using the Gray Oral Read- frequently recommended that fluency instruction take place
ing Test—Third Edition, suggesting that instruction using within a balanced literacy program. Therefore, in terms
decodable texts fostered transfer to passage comprehension; of implications, it appears that fluency instruction should
however, findings were not sustained 1 year later. take place in conjunction with comprehension activities in
Programs involving phonics, reading, and writing a balanced literacy program in order to improve the read-
instruction had relative success. Rashotte, MacPhee, and ing comprehension of struggling readers or students with
Torgesen’s (2001) Spell Read program for struggling learning disabilities.
338 Janice F. Almasi, Barbara Martin Palmer, Angie Madden, and Susan Hart

Programmatic Interventions gains at all grade levels (6th, 7th, 8th, and 10th), but the
study did not have a control group for comparison.
More recent studies have attempted to enhance compre- Evaluations have shown that Direct Instruction and
hension by using programmatic interventions that were Success for All were less effective than the aforementioned
comprehensive and balanced, rather than focused solely programs in improving comprehension. Mac Iver and
on comprehension or fluency. Within these comprehensive Kemper’s (2002) study of the effect of Direct Instruction
literacy programs, narrative comprehension is one of many on younger students showed only marginal comprehension
reader proficiencies targeted. Thus, the underlying notion is gains on standardized tests (CTBS-4). Similarly, Shippen,
that struggling readers will be better equipped to succeed Houchins, Calhoon, Furlow, and Sartor (2006) reported no
when multiple aspects of their difficulties are addressed significant differences in comprehension for Success for
simultaneously. All and Direct Instruction in their study of at-risk urban
Another perspective on programmatic interventions middle school students. Thus, findings from programmatic
suggests that one way to help struggling readers is to pro- interventions produced inconsistent results in terms of
vide more one-on-one assistance. Thus, many programs comprehension.
evaluated the effectiveness of one-on-one tutoring under
a variety of circumstances. A final way in which schools One-to-One Tutoring Programs Programmatic inter-
have sought to assist struggling readers is by expanding the ventions that enhanced access to literacy instruction by
amount of instructional time spent in literacy. Programs providing one-to-one tutoring as a supplement to regular
designed from this perspective evaluated the effectiveness literacy instruction generally relied on tutoring sessions of
of providing additional literacy instruction by adding to 15–40 minutes, two to four times per week. The tutoring
the school day. Thus, studies of programmatic interven- routines generally consisted of read aloud, shared reading,
tions were categorized into three areas: (a) Comprehensive echo reading, phonemic awareness and phonics activities,
Programmatic Interventions, (b) One-to-one Tutoring and comprehension or story grammar activities. In general,
Programs, and (c) Programmatic Interventions that Expand those tutoring interventions that used more highly trained
Instructional Time. teachers as tutors were more successful at enhancing com-
prehension than those interventions using volunteers with
Comprehensive Programmatic Interventions Several little training or paid non-teachers as tutors.
studies examined interventions designed to improve overall Interventions that use highly trained teachers (Peer-
classroom literacy instruction for at-risk learners. These Assisted Learning Strategies, Early Steps, and Partners-in-
programs were all conducted within the normal parameters Reading) have all found statistically significant differences
of the school day and, in general, the effectiveness of these for low achieving students on standardized measures of
comprehensive programs was mixed. comprehension (Mathes, Howard, Allen, & Fuchs, 1998;
After 2 years of instruction in the same program, Right- Miller, 2003; Santa & Høien, 1999).
myer, McIntyre, and Petrosko’s (2006) evaluation found that Other studies have found similar results with highly
low-performing primary-grade students in the Together We trained tutors. McCarthy, Newby, and Recht (1995) devel-
Can program achieved significantly greater results on mea- oped an Early Intervention Program (EIP) that included
sures of comprehension (Flynt-Cooter Informal Reading components similar to the aforementioned tutoring pro-
Inventory) than those in two other programs (Breakthrough grams; however, their evaluation relied on free recall and
to Literacy and Four Blocks). However, there was no sig- open-ended comprehension questions rather than standard-
nificant difference in performance between Together We ized measures to determine that first grade EIP students
Can and the other two programs (Early Success and SRA made significantly greater gains than those in the control
Reading). In a study of middle school students, Morocco, group on both measures. In the third grade follow-up study,
Hindin, Mata-Aguilar, and Clark-Chiarelli (2001) reported the EIP children were equivalent to a comparison group of
that Supported Literacy, an instructional program in which average-achieving classmates in reading comprehension
students engage in authentic reading and writing tasks and and word recognition in context. Thus, all tutoring programs
are supported by strategic thinking and conversations with with highly trained tutors realized statistically significant
peers, helped seventh and eighth graders with disabilities differences on both standardized and classroom-based mea-
perform similarly to normally achieving and honors students sures of comprehension. The exception is Reading Recov-
in a comprehension and writing activity. ery, another one-to-one tutoring intervention using highly
Moats (2004) evaluated the effectiveness of the LAN- trained teachers. Schwartz (2005) found no statistically
GUAGE! program (Greene, 1995), which is a structured, significant findings for the effect of Reading Recovery on
systematic program that explicitly teaches: phonological, reading comprehension using the Degrees of Reading Power
semantic, syntactic, pragmatic, and discourse processing test. Pinnell, Lyons, DeFord, Bryk, and Seltzer (1994)
skills to struggling adolescents. Moats (2004) used pre-post reported statistically significant findings on the Woodcock
comparisons on a comprehension subtest (a cloze test) of Reading Mastery Test-Revised and the Gates-MacGinitie
the Multilevel Academic Survey Test (MAST) with large Reading Test for general reading achievement. However,
classes of poor readers and reported statistically significant composite scores were used in these analyses rather than
 Interventions to Enhance Narrative Comprehension 339

subtest scores, making it difficult to determine the effect within the literacy classroom or by adding instructional time
of the intervention specifically on passage comprehension at the end of the school day.
(WRMT-R) and reading comprehension (GMRT). Those supplemental interventions that expand instruc-
Those tutoring programs that used volunteers with little tional time within the literacy classroom have been suc-
training or paid non-teacher tutors were much less success- cessful at improving comprehension. Mathes et al. (2005)
ful in terms of enhancing struggling readers’ comprehen- compared two intense supplemental interventions for first
sion. A single-subject multiple baseline design showed that graders, Proactive Reading and Responsive Reading. Stu-
all of the four first grade struggling readers in Hitchcock, dents who received supplemental instruction in the Respon-
Prater, and Dowrick’s (2004) intervention (staffed by com- sive or Proactive interventions scored higher on measures
munity tutors) were able to meet or exceed the criterion for of reading and reading-related skills than students who
oral reading fluency, and three students were able to meet received only enhanced classroom instruction.
the criterion for reading comprehension. Once video self- Mefferd and Pettegrew (1997) adapted the assisted
monitoring was added to the tutoring, all students attained reading approach (Richek & McTague, 1988) for use in an
the criterion in reading comprehension and these skills were intermediate-level special education classroom for devel-
maintained over time. opmentally handicapped students and found that the three
Allor and McCathren’s (2004) low-cost, highly struc- students advanced their reading by at least one level. Posttest
tured tutoring program, implemented by college students scores for two of the three students revealed fewer word
with very little training, showed significant differences on reading errors in context along with higher comprehension
at-risk first graders’ phonemic awareness and nonsense scores at the more advanced levels.
word reading; however, findings were not as promising for As for interventions that expanded instruction by extend-
comprehension—only one of the two cohorts of children ing the school day, Leslie and Allen’s (1999) evaluation of
experienced significant increases in passage comprehen- the Literacy Project examined the impact of a university-
sion. based after school program staffed by elementary teacher
Likewise, Baker, Gersten, and Keating (2000) paired education students on struggling elementary readers. Find-
low-performing readers together and randomly assigned ings showed that growth in reading comprehension was
each pair to either the Start Making a Reader Today significantly correlated with story grammar instruction
(SMART) condition (that used low-cost volunteer tutors) and parent participation. When compared to a comparison
or a comparison condition. Results showed students in the group receiving instruction with basal readers, choral or
SMART condition had significantly higher word compre- round robin reading, discussion, and journal writing, the
hension, oral reading fluency, and word identification (e.g., Literacy Project group grew more in comprehension and
vocabulary) scores than students in the comparison group reading rate.
and students in an average achieving group. However, there Allington (2002) reminded us that meeting struggling
was no impact on passage comprehension. readers’ needs requires a comprehensive and sustained
Santoro, Jitendra, Starosta, and Sacks (2006) and Ji- intervention effort. Although limited in number, findings
tendra, Edwards, Starosta, Sacks, Jacobson, and Choutka from these studies suggest that additional instructional time
(2004) evaluated the effectiveness of Read Well (Sprick, is one way of creating and sustaining an intervention that
Howard, & Fidanque, 1998–2000) through three multiple- does make a difference for struggling readers.
probe-across-participant design studies and found fewer
than half of the seven learning disabled children demonstrat-
Summary and Conclusions
ed improved comprehension following the intervention.
Likewise, Vadasy, Sanders, Peyton, and Jenkins’ (2002) Over the past 20 years there have been many interventions
longitudinal study of the impact of a second year of tutoring that attempted to assist struggling readers’ narrative com-
by paid non-teacher volunteers found significant differences prehension. Those that have focused directly on improv-
on standardized measures of word identification and word ing comprehension by teaching comprehension strategies
attack, but not on passage comprehension. either in isolation (e.g., visualization, comprehension
These findings suggest that, even in a one-on-one tutor- monitoring, story grammar, theme, and summarization)
ing setting, comprehension is a complex and difficult con- or as a comprehensive set have been relatively successful,
struct to impact. Like Wasik and Slavin’s (1993) review of particularly in terms of short-term comprehension. How-
Early Intervention Programs, ours found that highly trained ever, interventions that help students transfer their use of
tutors and teachers who implement a comprehensive, multi- comprehension strategies to multiple contexts have proven
faceted program are essential for struggling readers to make difficult. Those interventions that included modeling and
substantive gains in comprehension of narrative text. explicit process-oriented instruction related to the declara-
tive, procedural, and conditional knowledge associated with
Programmatic Interventions that Expand Instructional strategy use were much more successful at fostering trans-
Time Several interventions were designed with the notion fer. Interventions that manipulated the learning environment
that more instructional time will yield growth. Instructional by including culturally responsive instruction, culturally
time was expanded by either including additional instruction relevant texts and the opportunity for students to engage
340 Janice F. Almasi, Barbara Martin Palmer, Angie Madden, and Susan Hart

in higher-level dialogic conversations about narrative texts instruction was process-oriented and taught children how
through peer discussion were also promising in terms of to comprehend. Likewise, interventions that provided space
fostering higher levels of comprehension. for students to engage in dialogic peer discussions of text
In contrast, interventions that indirectly influenced provided a different space for students to participate actively
comprehension by enhancing fluency were inconsistent. in meaning construction. These contexts required students
Interventions focused solely on fluency and word identifi- to engage in social and cognitive processes in which they
cation (e.g., the strong form of the bottleneck hypothesis) asked thoughtful, meaningful questions and brought up
generally did not have an impact on comprehension of nar- issues they felt would help them understand the text bet-
rative text. However, those programs and interventions that ter. This process requires students to actively think about
were more comprehensive and included fluency, phonics, the text, identify those aspects that do not make sense, and
and comprehension instruction were generally more suc- work collaboratively to understand the text. These are the
cessful at influencing comprehension. As well, interventions same self-regulatory processes involved in comprehension
that provided supplemental instruction by either adding strategies instruction—recognizing and resolving compre-
instructional time within the literacy classroom or outside hension difficulties. Thus, providing instructional spaces
the school day were successful. This review has reaffirmed and contexts in which students can actively participate in
that teaching struggling readers to comprehend narrative meaning construction fosters similar growth as instructional
text is a complex, challenging task. Evaluations of tutoring interventions that feature more explicit instruction.
interventions reaffirmed Wasik and Slavin’s (1993) findings Those interventions that were less successful for strug-
that programs must be comprehensive and multifaceted, and gling readers included comprehension activities, but did not
tutors must be highly trained professionals. Volunteers with teach children how to become better comprehenders. Those
little to no background in literacy pedagogy and paid non- interventions that did not include comprehension instruction
teachers simply are not an effective or tenable solution for or comprehension activities at all had inconsistent results
helping those children most in need of expert assistance. and were generally less effective.
Overall, our findings, which focused exclusively on
struggling readers of narrative text and included research
Future Research
from both experimental and qualitative paradigms, are
similar to those of Edmonds et al.’s (2009), which found Much of the research reviewed here focused more on
that interventions focused on comprehension (ES = 1.23) comprehension of narrative text rather than narrative
or multiple components (ES = 0.72) had large effects on comprehension. The primary difference is that narrative
reading comprehension that were significantly different comprehension is more focused on how readers learn to
from zero, and interventions using fluency (ES = –0.03) or interpret and understand particular aspects of narrative
word identification (ES = 0.34) to enhance comprehension such as story grammar elements and theme. A fair amount
had small effect sizes that were not significantly different of research has been conducted on narrative comprehen-
from zero. Although Edmonds et al.’s (2009) study included sion; however, much of that research has been done with
interventions focused on both narrative and expository texts, undergraduate college students (e.g., Rapp & Gerrig, 2002),
they found that interventions for narrative text had much who were not the focus of this review. As well, much of that
higher effect sizes (ES = 1.30) than those using expository body of research either has not been done with struggling
text (ES = 0.53). Thus, our review mirrors findings from readers (e.g., Paris & Paris, 2007), or does not actually
other recent reviews. involve an intervention. Instead, those studies examined
instructional issues that influence comprehension such as
the effect of placement of questions while reading or after
Implications
reading on narrative comprehension (e.g., van den Broek
While narrative comprehension is challenging for strug- et al., 2001). Thus, future research is needed in which this
gling readers, the implications for classroom instruction body of research on narrative comprehension is used to
are straightforward. To be successful at enhancing compre- design interventions for struggling readers in K–12 settings.
hension, interventions for struggling readers must include As well, this research must go beyond recall and memory
process-oriented, rather than skills-oriented instruction. of literal aspects of the text to examine how struggling
Across all interventions, whether they were directly or readers can become higher-level thinkers who are able to
indirectly aimed at enhancing comprehension, those that make deep inferences and engage in critical and evaluative
earnestly attempted to help children learn how to actively thinking about narrative.
participate in the reading process were most successful. As well, new technologies and new literacies have
Successful interventions taught children: (a) a handful of spawned new interventions. The benefits of new technolo-
very powerful strategies including: visualization, sum- gies have not been fully realized in the research literature
marization, monitoring comprehension, and recognizing on narrative comprehension yet. Proctor, Dalton, and
story grammar elements and themes; (b) how to recognize Grisham (2007) provided a glimpse of what such interven-
and resolve comprehension difficulties; and (c) when, tions might look like in their examination of fourth-grade
where, and why to use particular strategies. In short, the struggling readers’ ability to read narrative passages and
 Interventions to Enhance Narrative Comprehension 341

informal hypertexts that embedded pre-reading vocabulary tives and ideologies of language in classrooms. Reading & Writing
instruction, comprehension strategy support while read- Quarterly, 19, 205–223.
Borkowski, J. G., Weyhing, R. S., & Carr, M. (1988). Effects of attribu-
ing (summarization, prediction, clarification, questioning, tional retraining on strategy-based reading comprehension in learning-
or visualization), and a post-reading digital retelling in a disabled students. Journal of Educational Psychology, 80(1), 46–53.
Universal Literacy Environment (ULE). Unfortunately, Boulineau, T., Fore, C., Hagan-Burke, S., & Burke, M. D. (2004). Use
findings showed no significant growth from pretest to of story-mapping to increase the story-grammar text comprehension
posttest in terms of vocabulary or comprehension. Digital of elementary students with learning disabilities, Learning Disability
Quarterly, 27(2), 105–121.
environments provide a great deal of potential; however, at Boyd, F. B. (2002). Conditions, concessions, and the many tender mercies
this point the research on interventions related to narrative of learning through multicultural literature. Reading Research and
comprehension is in its infancy. Instruction, 42(1), 58–92.
Brown, R., Pressley, M., Van Meter, P., & Schuder, T. (1996). A quasi-
experimental validation of Transactional Strategies Instruction with
Authors’ Note low-achieving second-grade readers. Journal of Educational Psychol-
ogy, 88(1), 18–37.
We would like to acknowledge the efforts of Lori Conroy, Campbell, J. R., Hombo, C. M., & Mazzeo, J. (2000, August). NAEP
Carole Cooper, Jessie Merchant, and Laura Simon. Their trends in academic progress: Three decades of student performance.
assistance was invaluable to our work on this review. Washington, DC: U. S. Department of Education, Office of Educa-
tional Research and Improvement/National Center for Education
Statistics.
References Champion, T., Seymour, H., & Camarata, S. (1995). Narrative discourse
of African American children. Journal of Narrative and Life History,
Adams, M. J. (1990). Beginning to read: Thinking and learning about 5(4), 333–352.
print. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press. Chan, L. K. S., Cole, P. G., & Morris, J. N. (1990). Effects of instruction
Allinder, R. M., Dunse, L, Brunken C. D., & Obermiller-Krolikowski, H. J. in the use of a visual-imagery strategy on the reading-comprehension
(2001). Improving fluency in at-risk readers and students with learning competence of disabled and average readers. Learning Disabilities
disabilities. Remedial and Special Education, 22(1), 48–54. Quarterly, 13(1), 2–11.
Allington, R. L. (2002). Research on reading/learning disability interven- Crowe, L. K. (2003). Comparison of two reading feedback strategies in
tions. In A. E. Farstrup & S. J. Samuels (Eds.), What research says improving the oral and written language performance of children with
about reading instruction (pp. 261–290). Newark, DE: International language-learning disabilities. American Journal of Speech Language
Reading Association. Pathology, 12(1), 16–27.
Allor, J., & McCathren, R. (2004). The efficacy of an early literacy tutor- Crowe, L. K. (2005). Comparison of two oral reading feedback strategies
ing program implemented by college students. Learning Disabilities in improving Reading comprehension of school-age children with low
Research & Practice, 19, 116–129. reading ability. Remedial and Special Education, 26(1), 32–42.
Al Otaiba, S. (2005). How effective is code-based reading tutoring in Dole, J. A., Brown, K. J., & Trathen, W. (1996). The effects of strategy
English for English learners and preservice teacher-tutors? Remedial instruction on the comprehension performance of at-risk students.
and Special Education, 26(4), 245–254. Reading Research Quarterly, 31(9), 62–88.
Almasi, J. F. (1995). The nature of fourth graders’ sociocognitive conflicts Donahue, M., & Foster, S. K. (2004). Social cognition, conversation, and
in peer-led and teacher-led discussions of literature. Reading Research reading comprehension: How to read a comedy of manners. In C. A.
Quarterly, 30(3), 314–351. Stone, E. R. Silliman, B. J. Ehren, & K. Apel (Eds.), Handbook of
Alvermann, D. E., & Eakle, A. J. (2003). Comprehension instruction: language and literacy (pp. 363–379). New York: Guilford.
Adolescents and their multiple literacies. In A. P. Sweet & C. E. Duke, N., Pressley, M., & Hilden, K. (2004). Difficulties with reading
Snow (Eds.), Rethinking reading comprehension (pp. 12–29). New comprehension. In C. A. Stone, E. R. Silliman, B. J. Ehren, & K.
York: Guilford. Apel (Eds.), Handbook of language and literacy (pp. 501–520). New
Au, K. (1980). Participation structures in a reading lesson with Hawai- York: Guilford.
ian children: Analysis of a culturally appropriate instructional event. Edmonds, M. S., Vaughn, S., Wexler, J., Reutebuch, C., Cable, A., Tackett,
Anthropology and Education Quarterly, 11(2), 91–115. K. K., et al. (2009). A synthesis of reading interventions and effects on
Baker, S., Gersten, R., & Keating, T. (2000). When less may be more: reading comprehension outcomes for older struggling readers. Review
A two-year longitudinal evaluation of a volunteer tutoring program of Educational Research, 79(1), 262–300.
requiring minimal training. Reading Research Quarterly, 35(4), Eldredge, J. L. (1990). Increasing the performance of poor readers in the
494–519. third grade with a group-assisted strategy. Journal of Educational
Baumann, J. F., Seifert-Kessell, N., & Jones, L. A. (1992). Effect of think- Research, 84(2), 69–77.
aloud instruction on elementary students’ comprehension monitoring Eldredge, J. L. & Quinn, D. W. (1988). Increasing reading performance
abilities. Journal of Reading Behavior, 24(2), 143–172. of low-achieving second graders with dyad reading groups. Journal
Blachman, B. A., Schatschneider, C., Fletcher, J. M., Francis, D. J., Clo- of Educational Research, 82(1), 40–46.
nan, S. M., Shaywitz, B. E., et al. (2004). Effects of intensive reading Eldredge, J. L., Reutzel, D. R., & Hollingsworth, P. M. (1995). Comparing
remediation for second and third graders and a 1-year follow-up. the effectiveness of two oral reading practices: Round-robin reading
Journal of Educational Psychology, 96(3), 444–461. and the shared book experience. Journal of Literacy Research, 28(2),
Bloome, D. (2003). Narrative discourse. In A. C. Graesser, M. A. Gern- 200–225.
sbacher, & S. R. Goldman (Eds.), Handbook of discourse processes Ellis, E. S., & Graves, A.W. (1990). Teaching rural students with learning
(pp. 287–320). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum. disabilities: A paraphrasing strategy to increase comprehension of main
Bloome, D., Champion, T., Katz, L., Morton, M. B., & Muldrow, R. ideas. Rural Special Education Quarterly, 10(2), 2–10.
(2001). Spoken and written narrative development: African American Fish, S. (1980). Is there a text in this class? The authority of interpretive
preschoolers as storytellers and storymakers. In J. L. Harris, A. G. communities. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
Kamhi, & K. E. Pollock (Eds.), Literacy in African American com- Flaro, L. (1987). The development and evaluation of a reading comprehen-
munities (pp. 45–76). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum. sion strategy with learning disabled students. Reading Improvement,
Bloome, D., Katz, L., & Champion, T. (2003). Young children’s narra- 24, 222–229.
342 Janice F. Almasi, Barbara Martin Palmer, Angie Madden, and Susan Hart

Fleisher, L. S., Jenkins, J. R., & Pany, D. (1979). Effects on poor read- Jitendra, A. K., Edwards, L., Starosta, K., Sacks, G., Jacobson, L. A., &
ers’ comprehension of training in rapid decoding. Reading Research Choutka, C. M. (2004). Early reading instruction for children with
Quarterly, 15(1), 30–48. reading difficulties: Meeting the needs of diverse learners, Journal of
Fuchs, D., Fuchs, L. S., Mathes, P. G., & Lipsey, M. W. (2000). Reading Learning Disabilities, 37, 421–439.
differences between underachievers with and without learning dis- Johnson-Laird, P. N. (1983). Mental models. Cambridge, MA: Harvard
abilities: A meta-analysis. In R. Gersten, E. P. Schiller, & S. Vaughn University Press.
(Eds.), Contemporary special education research: Syntheses of the Kourea, L., Cartledge, G., & Musti-Rao, S. (2007). Improving the reading
knowledge base on critical instructional issues (pp. 81–104). Mahwah, skills of urban elementary students through total class peer tutoring.
NJ: Erlbaum. Remedial and Special Education, 28(2), 95–107.
Gaffney, J., & Anderson, R. C. (2000). Trends in reading research in the Labov, W. (1972). Language in the inner city: Studies in the Black English
United States: Changing intellectual current over three decades. In M. vernacular. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press.
L. Kamil, P. B. Mosenthal, P. D. Pearson, & R. Barr (Eds.), Handbook Lave, J., & Wenger, E. (1991). Situated learning: Legitimate peripheral
of reading research (Vol. 3, pp. 53–74). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum participation. New York: Cambridge University Press.
Gee, J. P. (1989a). The narrativization of experience in the oral style. Lee, C. D. (1995). A culturally based cognitive apprenticeship: Teaching
Journal of Education, 171(1), 75–96. African American high school students skills in literary interpretation.
Gee, J. P. (1989b). Two styles of narrative construction and their linguistic Reading Research Quarterly, 30(4), 608–630.
and educational implications. Journal of Education, 171(1), 97–115. Lenz, B. K., & Hughes, C. A. (1990). A word identification strategy for
Gersten, R., Fuchs, L. S., Williams, J. P., & Baker, S. (2001). Teaching adolescents with learning disabilities. Journal of Learning Disabilities,
reading comprehension strategies to students with learning disabili- 23(3), 149–163.
ties: A review of research. Review of Educational Research, 71(2), Leslie, L., & Allen, L. (1999). Factors that predict success in an early liter-
279–320. acy intervention project. Reading Research Quarterly, 34, 404–424.
Glenberg, A. M., Meyer, M., & Lindem, K. (1987). Mental models contrib- Levin, J. R. (1973). Inducing imagery in poor readers: A test of a recent
ute to foregrounding during text comprehension. Journal of Memory model. Journal of Educational Psychology, 65(1), 19–24.
and Language, 26, 69–83. Mac Iver, M. A., & Kemper, E. (2002). The impact of direct instruction on
Goatley, V. J., Brock, C. H., & Raphael, T. E., (1995). Diverse learners elementary students’ reading achievement in an urban school. Journal
participating in regular education “Book Clubs.” Reading Research of Education for Students Placed At Risk, 7(2), 197–220.
Quarterly, 30, 352–380. Mandler, J. M., & Johnson, N. S. (1977). Remembrance of things parsed:
Goldman, S. R., & Rakestraw, J. A. (2000). Structural aspects of con- Story structure and recall. Cognitive Psychology, 9, 111–151.
structing meaning from text. In M. L. Kamil, P. B. Mosenthal, P. D. Marshall, J. (2000). Research on response to literature. In M. L. Kamil, P.
Pearson, & R. Barr (Eds.), Handbook of reading research (Vol. 3, pp. B. Mosenthal, P. D. Pearson, & R. Barr (Eds.), Handbook of reading
311–335). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum. research (Vol. 3, pp. 381–402). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
Gough, P. B. (1984). Word recognition. In P. D. Pearson, R. Barr, M. L. Mastropieri, M. A., & Scruggs, T. E. (1997). Best practices in promoting
Kamil, & P. B. Mosenthal (Eds.), Handbook of reading research (Vol. reading comprehension in students with learning disabilities 1976 to
1, pp. 225–253). New York: Longman. 1996. Remedial and Special Education, 18(4), 197–213.
Graesser, A. C., Golding, J. M., & Long, D. L. (1991). Narrative represen- Mastropieri, M. A., Scruggs, T. E., Bakken, J. P., & Whedon, C. (1996).
tation and comprehension. In R. Barr, M. L. Kamil, P. B. Mosenthal, Reading comprehension: A synthesis of research in learning dis-
& P. D. Pearson (Eds.), Handbook of reading research (Vol. 2, pp. abilities. Advances in Learning and Behavioral Disabilities, 10B,
171–205). White Plains, NY: Longman. 201–227.
Greene, (1995). LANGUAGE! The comprehensive literacy curriculum. Mastropieri, M. A., Scruggs, T., Mohler, L., Beranek, M., Spencer, V.,
New York: Springer. Boon, R. T., et al. (2001). Can middle school students with serious
Hartman, D. K. (1995). Eight readers reading: The intertextual links reading difficulties help each other and learn anything? Learning Dis-
of proficient readers reading multiple passages. Reading Research abilities Research & Practice, 16(1), 18–27.
Quarterly, 30(3), 520–561. Mathes, P. G., Denton, C. A., Fletcher, J. M., Anthony, J. L., Francis, D.
Heath, S. B. (1982). What no bedtime story means: Narrative skills at J., & Schatschneider, C. (2005). The effects of theoretically different
home and at school. Language in Society, 11(1), 49–76. instruction and student characteristics on the skills of struggling read-
Heath, S. B. (1983). Ways with words: Language, life, and work in com- ers. Reading Research Quarterly, 40, 148–182.
munities and classrooms. New York: Cambridge University Press. Mathes, P. G., & Fuchs, L.S. (1993). Peer-mediated reading instruction
Hitchcock, C. H., Prater, M. A., & Dowrick, P. W. (2004). Reading com- in special education resource rooms. Learning Disabilities Research
prehension and fluency: Examining the effects of tutoring and video and Practice, 8(4), 233–243.
self-modeling on first-grade students with reading difficulties. Learning Mathes, P. G., Howard, J. K., Allen, S. H., & Fuchs, D. (1998). Peer-assist-
Disability Quarterly, 27, 89–103. ed learning strategies for first-grade readers: Responding to the needs
Holland, D., Skinner, D., Lachiotte, W., & Cain, C. (1998). Identity and of diverse learners. Reading Research Quarterly, 33(1), 62–94.
agency in cultural worlds. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University McCarthy, P., Newby, R. F., & Recht, D. R. (1995). Results of an early
Press. intervention program for first grade children at risk for reading dis-
Homan, S. P., Klesius, J. P., & Hite, C. (1993). Effects of repeated readings ability. Reading Research and Instruction, 34(4), 273–294.
and nonrepetitive reading strategies on students’ fluency and compre- McNamara, T. P., Miller, D. L., & Bransford, J. D. (1991). Mental models
hension. Journal of Educational Research, 87(2), 94–99. and reading comprehension. In R. Barr, M. L. Kamil, P. B. Mosenthal,
Hymes, D. (1982). Narrative form as a “grammar” of experience: Native & P. D. Pearson (Eds.), Handbook of reading research (Vol. 2, pp.
Americans and a glimpse of English. Journal of Education, 164(2), 490–511). White Plains, NY: Longman.
121–142. Mefferd, P., & Pettegrew, B.S. (1997). Fostering literacy acquisition
Idol, L. (1987). Group story mapping: A comprehension strategy for of students with developmental disabilities: Assisted reading with
both skilled and unskilled readers. Journal of Learning Disabilities, predictable trade books. Reading Research and Instruction, 36(3),
20, 196–205. 177–190.
Idol, L., & Croll, V. J. (1987). Story-mapping training as a means of Miller, S. D. (2003). Partners-in-reading: Using classroom assistants to
improving reading comprehension. Learning Disabilities Quarterly, rovide tutorial assistance to struggling first-grade readers. Journal of
10(3), 214–229. Education for Students Placed At Risk, 8, 333–349.
Jenkins, J. R., Peyton, J. A., Sanders, E. A., & Vadasy, P. F. (2004). Ef- Minami, M. (2002). Culture-specific language styles: The development of
fects of reading decodable texts in supplemental first-grade tutoring. oral narrative and literacy. Tonawanda, NY: Multilingual Matters.
Scientific Studies of Reading, 8(1), 53–85. Moats, L. C. (2004). Efficacy of a structured, systematic language cur-
 Interventions to Enhance Narrative Comprehension 343

riculum for adolescent poor readers. Reading & Writing Quarterly, Rashotte, C. A., MacPhee, K., & Torgesen, J. K. (2001). The effectiveness
20, 145–159. of a group reading instruction program with poor readers in multiple
Moje, E. (2000). “To be part of the story”: The literacy practices of gangsta grades. Learning Disability Quarterly, 24(2), 119–134.
adolescents. Teachers College Record, 102(3), 651–690. Rashotte, C. A., & Torgesen, J. K. (1985). Repeated reading and reading
Morocco, C. C., Hindin, A., Mata-Aguilar, C., & Clark-Chiarelli, N. fluency in learning disabled children. Reading Research Quarterly,
(2001). Building a deep understanding of literature with middle-grade 20(2), 180–188.
students with learning disabilities. Learning Disability Quarterly, Rasinski, T. V., & Hoffman, J. V. (2003). Oral reading in the school literacy
24, 47–58. curriculum. Reading Research Quarterly, 38(4), 510–522.
Morrow, D. G., Greenspan, S. L., & Bower, G. H. (1987). Accessibility Reutzel, D. R., Hollingsworth, P. M., & Eldredge, J. L. (1994). Oral read-
and situation models in narrative comprehension. Journal of Memory ing instruction: The impact on student reading development. Reading
and Language, 26, 165–187. Research Quarterly, 29(1), 40–62.
National Assessment Governing Board. (2007). Reading framework for the Richek, M. A., & McTague, B. K. (1988). The “Curious George” strat-
2009 National Assessment of Educational Progress: Pre-publication egy for students with reading problems. The Reading Teacher, 43,
edition. Washington, DC: Author. 220–226.
National Reading Panel. (2000). Teaching children to read: An evidence- Rickford, A. (2001). The effect of cultural congruence and higher order
based assessment of the scientific research literature on reading and questioning on the reading enjoyment and comprehension of ethnic
its implications for reading instruction (Report of the Subgroups). minority students. Journal of Education for Students Placed At Risk,
Washington DC: U. S. Department of Health and Human Services, 6(4), 357–387.
Public Health Service, National Institutes of Health, and the National Rightmyer, E. C., McIntyre, E., & Petrosko, J. M. (2006). Instruction,
Institute of Child Health and Human Development. development, and achievement of struggling primary grade readers.
Newby, R. F., Caldwell, J., & Recht, D. R. (1989). Improving the reading Reading Research and Instruction, 45, 209–241.
comprehension of children with dysphonetic and dyseidetic dys- Rosenblatt, L. M. (1978). The reader, the text, the poem: The transactional
lexia using story grammar. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 22(6), theory of the literary work. Carbondale: Southern Illinois University
373–380. Press.
Ochs, E. (1997). Narrative. In T. A. van Dijk (Ed.), Discourse as structure Rumelhart, D. E. (2004). Toward an interactive model of reading. In R.
and process (pp. 185–207). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. B. Ruddell & N. J. Unrau (Eds.), Theoretical models and processes of
O’Shea, L. J., Sindelar, P. T., & O’Shea, D. J. (1987). The effects of reading (5th ed., pp. 1149–1179). Newark, DE: International Reading
repeated readings and attentional cues on the reading fluency and Association.
comprehension of learning disabled readers. Learning Disabilities Samuels, S. J. (2004). Toward a theory of automatic information processing
Research, 2(2), 103–109. in reading, revisited. In R. B. Ruddell & N. J. Unrau (Eds.), Theoretical
Palincsar, A. S., & Brown, A. L. (1984). Reciprocal teaching of compre- models and processes of reading (5th ed., pp. 1127–1148). Newark,
hension-fostering and comprehension-monitoring activities. Cognition DE: International Reading Association.
and Instruction, 1, 117–175. Santa, C. M., & Høien, T. (1999). An assessment of Early Steps: A pro-
Pany, D., & McCoy, K. M. (1988). Effects of corrective feedback on word gram for early intervention of reading problems. Reading Research
accuracy and reading comprehension of readers with learning disabili- Quarterly, 34(1), 54–79.
ties. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 21(9), 546–550. Santoro, L. E., Jitendra, A. K., Starosta, K., & Sacks, G. (2006). Read-
Paris, A. H., & Paris, S. G. (2007). Teaching narrative comprehension ing well with Read Well: Enhancing the reading performance of
strategies to first graders. Cognition and Instruction, 25(1), 1–44. English language learners. Remedial and Special Education, 27(2),
Pearson, P. D. (1990). Foreword. In M. J. Adams (Ed.), Beginning to 105–115.
read: Thinking and learning about print (pp. v–viii). Cambridge, Schmidt, M. W. (1989). Method of questioning and placement of ques-
MA: The MIT Press. tions: Effects on LD students’ comprehension. Learning Disability
Pearson, P. D., & Fielding, L. (1991). Comprehension instruction. In R. Quarterly, 12(1), 192–198.
Barr, M. L. Kamil, P. Mosenthal, & P. D. Pearson (Eds.), Handbook Schwartz, R. M. (2005). Literacy learning of at-risk first-grade students
of reading research (Vol. 2, pp. 815–860). White Plains, NY: Long- in the reading recovery early intervention. Journal of Educational
man. Psychology, 97, 257–267.
Perie, M., Grigg, W., & Donahue, P. (2005). The Nation’s Report Card: Scollon, R., & Scollon, S. B. K. (1981). Narrative, literacy and face in
Reading 2005 (NCES 2006-451). U. S. Department of Education, interethnic communication. Norwood, NJ: Ablex.
National Center for Education Statistics. Washington, DC: U. S. Shany, M. T., & Biemiller, A. (1995). Assisted reading practice: Effects
Government Printing Office. on performance for poor readers in grades 3 and 4. Reading Research
Peterson, C., & McCabe, A. (1983). Developmental psycholinguistics: Quarterly, 30(3), 382–395.
Three ways of looking at a child’s narrative. New York: Plenum Shippen, M. E., Houchins, D. E., Calhoon, M. B., Furlow, C. F., & Sartor,
Press. D. L. (2006). The effects of comprehensive school reform models in
Pinnell, G. S., Lyons, C. A., Deford, D. E., Bryk, A. S., & Seltzer, M. reading for urban middle school students with disabilities. Remedial
(1994). Comparing instructional models for the literacy education of and Special Education, 27(6), 322–328.
high-risk first graders. Reading Research Quarterly, 29, 8–39. Short, E. J., & Ryan, E. B. (1984). Metacognitive differences between
Pressley, M. (2000). What should comprehension instruction be the skilled and less skilled readers: Remediating deficits through story
instruction of? In M. L. Kamil, P. B. Mosenthal, P. D. Pearson, & grammar and attribution training. Journal of Educational Psychol-
R. Barr (Eds.), Handbook of reading research (Vol. 3, pp. 545–561). ogy, 76, 225–235.
Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum. Smith, F. (1978). Understanding reading (2nd ed.). New York: Holt,
Proctor, C. P., Dalton, B., & Grisham, D. L. (2007). Scaffolding English Rinehart, & Winston.
language learners and struggling readers in a universal literacy envi- Snow, C. E., Burns, M. S., & Griffin, P. (Eds.). (1998). Preventing reading
ronment with embedded strategy instruction and vocabulary support. difficulties in young children. Washington, DC: National Academy
Journal of Literacy Research, 39(1), 71–93. Press.
RAND (2006). RAND Research Brief: Developing an R&D Program to Snow, C. E., & Sweet, A. P. (2003). Reading for comprehension. In C. E.
Improve Reading Comprehension. Retrieved November 4, 2006, from Snow & A. P. Sweet (Eds.), Rethinking reading comprehension (pp.
http://www.rand.org/pubs/research_briefsRB8024/index1.htm 1–11). New York: Guilford.
Rapp, D. N., & Gerrig, R. J. (2002). Readers’ reality-driven and plot- Sprick, M., Howard, L. M., & Fidanque, A. (1998–2000). Read Well: Criti-
driven analyses in narrative comprehension. Memory & Cognition, cal foundations in primary reading. Longmont, CO: Sopris West.
30(5), 779–788. Stanovich, K. (1980). Toward an interactive-compensatory model of
344 Janice F. Almasi, Barbara Martin Palmer, Angie Madden, and Susan Hart

individual differences in the development of reading comprehension. van den Broek, P., Tzeng, Y., Risden, K., Trabasso, T., & Basche, P. (2001).
Reading Research Quarterly, 16, 32–71. Inferential questioning: Effects on comprehension of narrative texts as
Stein, N. L., & Glenn, C. G. (1979). An analysis of story comprehension a function of grade and timing. Journal of Educational Psychology,
in elementary school children. In R. Freedle (Ed.), New directions in 93(3), 521–529.
discourse processing (pp. 53–120). Norwood, NJ: Ablex. Van Dijk, T. A., & Kintsch, W. (1983). Strategies of discourse comprehen-
Tan, A., & Nicholson, T. (1997). Flashcards revisited: Training poor readers sion. New York: Academic Press.
to read words faster improving their comprehension of text. Journal Wasik, B. A., & Slavin, R. E. (1993). Preventing early reading failure with
of Educational Psychology, 89(2), 276–288. one-to-one tutoring: A review of five programs. Reading Research
Taylor, N. E., Wade, M. R., & Yekovich, F. R. (1985). The effects of Quarterly, 28, 179–200.
text manipulation and multiple reading strategies on the reading Westra, J., & Moore, D. (1995). Reciprocal teaching of reading compre-
performance of good and poor readers. Reading Research Quarterly, hension in a New Zealand high school. Psychology in the Schools,
20(5), 566–574. 32(3), 225–232.
Therrien, W. J., Wickstrom, K., & Jones, K. (2006). Effect of a combined White, T. G. (2005). Effects of systematic and strategic analogy-based
repeated reading and question generation intervention on reading phonics on grade 2 students’ word reading and reading comprehension.
achievement. Learning Disabilities Research and Practice, 21(2), Reading Research Quarterly, 40(2), 234–255.
89–97. Wilder, A. A., & Williams, J. P. (2001). Students with severe learning
Torgesen, J. K., Alexander, A.W., Wagner, R. K., Rashotte, C. A., Voeller, disabilities can learn higher order comprehension skills. Journal of
K. K. S., & Conway, T. (2001). Intensive remedial instruction for Educational Psychology, 93(2), 268–278.
children with severe reading disabilities: Immediate and long-term Williams, J. P. (2002). Using the theme scheme to improve story com-
outcomes from two instructional approaches. Journal of Learning prehension. In C. C. Block & M. Pressley (Eds.), Comprehension
Disabilities, 24(1), 33–58. instruction: Research-based best practices (pp. 126–139). New York:
Tracey, D. H., & Morrow, L. M. (2006). Lenses on reading: An introduc- Guilford.
tion to theories and models. New York: Guilford. Williams, J. P., Brown, L. G., Silverstein, A. K., & deCani, J. S. (1994).
U.S. Department of Education, Institute of Education Sciences. (2007, An instructional program for adolescents with learning disabilities
July 17). Key definitions. In What works clearinghouse: Beginning in the comprehension of narrative themes. Learning Disabilities
reading abstract. Retrieved March 29, 2009, from http://ies.ed.gov/ Quarterly, 17, 205–221.
ncee/wwc/reports/beginning_reading/abstract.asp Williams, J. P., Lauer, K. D., Hall, K. M., Lord, K. M., Gugga, S., Bak,
Vadasy, P. F., Sanders, E. A., Peyton, J. A., & Jenkins, J. R. (2002). Timing S., et al. (2002). Teaching elementary school students to identify story
and intensity of tutoring: A closer look at the conditions for effective themes. Journal of Educational Psychology, 94(2), 235–248.
early literacy tutoring. Learning Disabilities Research & Practice, Wolf, S. A. (2004). Interpreting literature with children. Mahwah, NJ:
17(4), 227–241. Erlbaum.
Van den Branden, K. (2000). Does negotiation of meaning promote read- Yuill, N., & Oakhill, J. (1988). Effects of inference awareness training
ing comprehension? A study of multilingual primary school classes. on poor reading comprehension. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 2,
Reading Research Quarterly, 35(3), 426–443. 33–45.
 31
Interventions to Enhance Informational
Text Comprehension
NICOLE M. MARTIN AND NELL K. DUKE
Michigan State University

For students today, proficient informational text compre- literacy,” defined as “the knowledge and skills needed to per-
hension is critical. Informational texts—texts written with form document tasks (i.e., to search, comprehend, and use
the purpose of conveying information about the natural or non-continuous texts in various formats). Examples include
social world (Duke, 2000, p. 285) rather than, for example, job applications, payroll forms, transportation schedules,
to convey imagined experience, as with fictional narrative maps, tables, and drug or food labels” (p. 2). International
text—are often a primary means of teaching science and studies—specifically the International Adult Literacy Study
social studies content, whether through textbooks, trade Survey (IALS) and the Adult Literacy and Life Skills Survey
books, web-based text, or some combination. Informational (ALL)—document enormous numbers of adults not only in
text comprehension and related skills are named in every the U.S. but throughout the world who struggle with prose
standards document of which we are aware and comprise and document literacy (OECD & Statistics Canada, 2000;
a significant portion of many reading assessments (e.g., Statistics Canada & OECD, 2005), with the U.S. ranking
Flood & Lapp, 1986; National Assessment Governing in the middle range of the 22 IALS nations studied (note
Board, 2007). Informational texts are also a preferred form that prose and document literacy are described somewhat
of reading material for many students (e.g., Mohr, 2006), differently in these assessments).
and a potential source of both enjoyment and knowledge The degree to which one would classify adults and K–12
building. students who struggle with informational reading compre-
Informational texts do not decline in importance in hension as having reading disabilities depends, of course, on
adulthood, as informational texts abound in workplaces and how one defines the term reading disabilities. Undoubtedly
leisure activities (Smith, 2000). In a given day, for instance, some adults (e.g., some who have emigrated to the United
an adult may find out about current events by reading the States from countries without formal educational systems)
newspaper, decide between two businesses by comparing have been provided with little opportunity to develop infor-
information from their websites, read about a new product mational reading comprehension and could, if provided with
in a company memo, and consult a section of a parenting this opportunity, develop informational reading comprehen-
guide. To complete each of these activities, one needs to sion skills without substantial difficulty; the term reading
be able to comprehend informational texts; before reaching disabled is not an obvious fit for these adults. Other adults,
adulthood, one needs to develop skills and strategies for as well as students, may have experienced formal educa-
informational text comprehension. tion that lacked quality instruction in informational reading
Unfortunately, it is clear that many adults do not develop comprehension, or reading comprehension of any kind.
these skills and strategies. According to the National As- This latter scenario is not at all far-fetched. Inadequacies
sessment of Adult Literacy (NAAL), for example, 14% in our instruction of reading comprehension are long and
or about 30 million U.S. adults have below basic skills continuously documented (Durkin, 1978/1979; Pressley,
in “prose literacy,” which is described as “the knowledge 2005). Also well-documented is a neglect of informational
and skills needed to perform prose tasks, (i.e., to search, text in reading instruction, at least in early schooling (see
comprehend, and use continuous texts). Examples include Duke, Bennett-Armistead, & Roberts, 2002, for a review).
editorials, news stories, brochures, and instructional materi- For this scenario as well reading disabled does not seem
als” (National Center for Education Statistics, 2007, p. iii). the right term. For still other students and adults, even
Another 29% or about 63 million U.S. adults have only basic with opportunity to learn and some quality instruction,
prose literacy skills. Similar findings hold for “document informational reading comprehension does not come easily

345
346 Nicole M. Martin and Nell K. Duke

(Gersten, Fuchs, Williams, & Baker, 2001). It is interven- processes when comprehending different genres of text—
tions for these students that are the primary focus of this for example, narrative versus informational text (e.g., Kirk
chapter. Before we turn to those interventions, however, we & Pearson, 1996; Kucan & Beck, 1996). Readers also do
discuss what causes difficulties with informational reading not necessarily have the same level of proficiency in com-
comprehension in the first place. prehending different genres of text. For instance, in the
Progress in International Reading Literacy Study (PIRLS),
which separately assessed literary reading and reading for
Causes of Substantial Difficulties with Informational
information, some students showed far greater proficiency
Reading Comprehension
in literary reading, while others showed far greater profi-
Students struggle with reading comprehension for many ciency in reading for information (and still others showed
different reasons. In one review on the subject, Duke, roughly equal achievement for both; Park, 2008). This
Pressley, and Hilden (2004) identified each of the follow- pattern was also seen at a national level. Some countries
ing as documented contributors to reading comprehension show greater proficiency with informational reading, some
difficulties: difficulties with word recognition and decoding; show greater proficiency with literary reading, and still oth-
fluency problems; limited short term or working memory; ers show roughly equal performance across the two kinds
limitations of oral language; inadequate knowledge of the of reading. Notably, the United States has the largest gap
particulars of written language, including different genres favoring literary reading ability over informational reading
of written language; a lack of active and strategic thinking ability of any nation studied in PIRLS 2001, though happily,
before, during, and after reading; insufficient prior knowl- not in PIRLS 2006 (Park, 2008). Perhaps not surprisingly, a
edge, vocabulary, and concept knowledge; and a lack of study by Saenz and Fuchs (2002) of U.S. secondary students
reading engagement. For some readers, it is possible that with learning disabilities found they had substantially lower
just one of these contributors to reading comprehension performance comprehending informational than narrative
difficulty is at fault. For many, however, multiple causes are text (and they also read informational text less fluently).
operating, with addressing one difficulty leading only to the This difficulty was seen not in literal comprehension but
surfacing of another. And these causes can appear in differ- in the ability to answer inferential reading comprehension
ent combinations and in concert with different strengths. questions. Results like these raise the question what makes
Research of Riddle Buly and Valencia (2002) illustrates informational reading comprehension difficult?
this point well. In their study of fourth-grade students who One approach to thinking about the particular reading
scored below proficient in reading comprehension on the comprehension difficulties posed by informational text is
Washington Assessment of Student Learning (WASL) and to look at those things that make informational text unique.
were not already identified as needing special instruction in We will focus here on three characteristics of informational
reading, they found six distinct profiles of readers: text that may pose particular challenges for informational
reading comprehension: its content, its vocabulary, and
• Automatic word callers (stronger in word ID and fluency its structure. Of course, informational text has many
than meaning; 18%) other characteristics (Pappas, 2006; Purcell-Gates, Duke,
• Struggling word callers (stronger in word ID and fluency & Martineau, 2007), but these three are arguably especially
than meaning, but struggling with word ID; 15%) good candidates for causing reading comprehension dif-
• Word stumblers (word ID problems, slow readers, mean- ficulties.
ing relative strength; 18%) As explained earlier, the purpose of informational text is
• Slow and steady comprehenders (good word ID and to convey information about the natural and social world.
meaning, slow readers; 24%) As such, when it is serving its purpose, informational text
• Slow word callers (good word ID, slow readers, poor requires the reader to learn new information and to integrate
meaning; 17%) that information with what is already known. This process
• Disabled readers (low word ID, low fluency, low mean- is fraught with challenges. In some cases, the text assumes
ing; 9%) knowledge that the reader does not in fact have, or that
may even contradict the reader’s existing knowledge or
Had the researchers administered assessments in addi- conceptions (e.g., Alvermann, Smith, & Readence, 1985;
tional areas—for example, reading engagement and genre Guzzetti, Snyder, Glass, & Gamas, 1993). In other cases,
knowledge—they would likely have identified even more the reader may have relevant background knowledge but
different profiles of the struggling comprehender. fail to bring it to bear or integrate it with knowledge from
While this research on causes of reading comprehension the text (e.g., Carr & Thompson, 1996), sometimes due
difficulties across different kinds of text is informative, it is to poor organization of the reader’s knowledge, the text,
also important to examine causes of reading comprehension or both. In both cases there is a vicious cycle at work for
difficulties with specific genres of text. It is increasingly readers with substantial comprehension difficulties: readers
clear that reading comprehension is, to a substantial degree, who struggle to learn content from informational text then
genre-specific (Duke, 2005; RAND Reading Study Group, do not have that content knowledge to bring to bear with
2002). Readers engage, to different degrees, in different future texts they read. This may help to explain why reading
 Interventions to Enhance Informational Text Comprehension 347

comprehension interventions that focus heavily on content aged students with reading difficulties. These instructional
learning are often effective (Duke & Martin, 2008). activities range from analyzing text structures to teaching
A second and closely related characteristic of informa- comprehension strategies to implementing highly complex
tional text is a density of specialized vocabulary (Purcell- multi-component interventions. In some studies of these
Gates et al., 2007). For readers with limited vocabulary interventions the target population is identified as “students
knowledge, this may mean encountering an overwhelming with learning disabilities.” Other times it is “students with
number of unfamiliar words during reading. And because reading disabilities,” “poor readers,” or “struggling readers.”
so much vocabulary is learned from reading (Swanborn & There is probably not a perfect match between any of these
de Glopper, 1999), there is again a vicious cycle at work labels and students who experience substantial difficulties
for poor readers—less reading means fewer opportunities to with informational reading comprehension—both because
learn vocabulary which means less vocabulary knowledge there may be students who struggle only with informational
to bring to bear when reading (Cunningham & Stanovich, reading comprehension and because there may be students
1998). On the bright side, unlike narrative text, which uses who are poor readers in many senses but relatively strong
many words only once, informational text often repeats in informational reading comprehension—but there is also
key vocabulary many times (Hiebert, 2006). For example, probably considerable overlap. Hence we are including
while a narrative text might describe a character as dainty among interventions reviewed interventions targeting any
just one time, an informational text might describe a tree of the previously listed groups as well as interventions of
as deciduous many times, providing many exposures and a broader population that have disaggregated their data to
opportunities to learn the word. Moreover, informational show the impact of their intervention on students identified
text often provides many clues to word meaning, such as having reading difficulties.
glosses of the word in the running text (e.g., a canine, or As the title of this section indicates, we are also limit-
animal in the dog family. . .), illustrations of the word (e.g., ing our review to interventions that have been tested with
a diagram depicting and labeling a flower’s stamens), or elementary-aged students, which we’ve defined as K–6 (al-
definitions of the word in the glossary (Duke & Billman, though older students were sometimes also included in the
2009), although a reader needs particular knowledge and studies as well). To our knowledge, no review on this topic
skills to take advantage of these clues—knowledge and has focused specifically on elementary-aged children, even
skills that are challenging to teach (Baumann, 2008). In though we likely all agree that interventions that work well
addition, many unfamiliar words in an informational text at other ages may not necessarily work well for elementary-
are likely to be conceptually related, lending themselves to aged children and vice-versa. (Similarly, interventions that
the kinds of knowledge-oriented vocabulary teaching that work well for children in upper elementary grades may not
have been shown to be more effective than definitional ap- work well for children in the primary grades and vice-versa,
proaches (Bos & Anders, 1990), although in practice such which is why we are careful to specify age groups through-
teaching appears to be rare (e.g., Dole & Nelson, 2008; out our discussion of research in this area.) In contrast, there
Scott, Jamieson-Noel, & Asselin, 2003). are reviews on this topic addressing elementary, middle,
A third characteristic of informational text that may and secondary together, and addressing narrative as well
pose particular challenges for readers with substantial as informational text (Gersten et al., 2001; Talbott, Lloyd,
comprehension difficulties is its structure. Informational & Tankersley, 1994).1
texts organize information using specific structures, such Focusing exclusively on elementary-aged children
as problem-solution and compare-contrast. If used, these allows us to make three important points: First, even in
structures can assist the reader in comprehending and learn- elementary school, instruction for struggling readers need
ing from the text. However, it has been demonstrated across not focus entirely on decoding and word recognition. As
multiple studies that poor readers and readers with learning you will read, even in elementary school, and even in
disabilities are not as attuned as other readers to informa- the primary grades of elementary school, it appears that
tional text structures (e.g., Englert & Thomas, 1987; Mc- struggling readers benefit from instruction in reading
Gee, 1982). Exacerbating the problem is the fact that many comprehension. Second, the previous statement is true for
informational texts are “inconsiderate” (e.g., Armbruster, informational text, a genre often neglected and considered
1984), including not being particularly well structured. For- too difficult for young children (Duke et al., 2002) and per-
tunately, as discussed in the following section, interventions haps also for struggling readers (Caswell & Duke, 1998).
to improve struggling readers’ attention to and use of text Third, focusing on elementary-aged children helps to reveal
structure have enjoyed considerable success. some specific gaps in the research that are less likely to be
revealed through a broader review. As the reader will see,
and as we discuss in the concluding section of the chapter,
Interventions to Enhance Informational Reading
we have much work to do in the development and testing
Comprehension Among Elementary Students with
of interventions in informational text comprehension for
Reading Difficulties
elementary-aged struggling readers.
Researchers have tested a variety of interventions to improve The reader will notice that nearly all of the research
informational reading comprehension among elementary- cited in this chapter comes from 1975 and later. This is not
348 Nicole M. Martin and Nell K. Duke

a coincidence but rather reflects important changes in the and tested maintenance within a month of instruction. Like
field that occurred before and around that time. The “cog- the studies that have examined strategy instruction primar-
nitive revolution” had so taken hold that cognitive science ily with general education students (e.g., Baumann, 1984;
had become the dominant perspective in many fields in and Brown, Pressley, Van Meter, & Schuder, 1996; Taylor &
related to educational research (Gardner, 1987). In reading, Frye, 1992), though, the available evidence suggests that
this revolution brought with it an intense interest in what is students with reading difficulties also appear to profit from
going on in the mind as one makes meaning with text and these lessons.
how instruction might influence that (Pearson, 1986). The We have organized the discussion of comprehension
Center for the Study of Reading, established in 1976, and the strategies instruction into two sections: single strategy
ascendance in the late 1970s of interest in metacognition, instruction and multiple strategy instruction. This raises
helped to spur the development and testing of a wide range the question of which is better—teaching strategies one at
of approaches to improving reading comprehension, many a time or teaching strategies in clusters. This is a question
of them (as is clear from the later citations in this chapter) we often encounter in schools, but it has been the subject
still being studied in one form or another today. of very little in research. One study, Reutzel, Smith, and
Another contextual factor to bear in mind when reading Fawson (2005), conducted a head-to-head comparison of
this review of studies on informational text comprehension single and multiple strategy instruction with informational
instruction regards the assessments used in the studies. “Ef- text. Eighty second graders stratified by achievement level
fectiveness” is determined by student performance on some participated. Instruction focused on making connections
measure or measures chosen by the researchers. Thus, as and predictions; visualizing; self-monitoring; questioning;
you read about each study and technique, it is important to summarizing; and, for the multiple strategy instruction con-
bear in mind the measures used and not used. As is clear in dition, setting goals and attending to text structure. Students
Table 31.1, both the number and the nature of measures vary either were taught successively, with 13 days spent on each
a great deal from study to study. Each of these measures, strategy; or they simultaneously studied all these strategies,
of course, has limitations, with some very limited in their with 10 to 15 minutes devoted to individually introducing
ability to measure reading comprehension as we currently each strategy (over the course of a total of three lessons).
conceive it (Pearson & Hamm, 2005; RAND Reading Study After 16 weeks of instruction, on many of the measures
Group, 2002). As we discuss further at the conclusion of the (e.g., general reading comprehension, strategy use, moti-
chapter, improving reading comprehension assessment is, vation), no statistically significant differences were found.
or should be, a high priority for research and development However, the latter group scored significantly higher on
in comprehension instruction. some measures: curriculum-based measures, knowledge of
The evidence to date suggests that a variety of informa- subordinate ideas, and scientific content knowledge. The
tional text comprehension interventions can increase the researchers concluded that multiple strategies instruction
comprehension performance of elementary-aged students presented a “clear added value” (p. 298). This, in turn,
with reading difficulties. Researchers have tested several raises the question of why multiple strategy instruction
different kinds of instruction with elementary students may be more effective. We can only speculate here, but
with learning disabilities, as well as those enrolled in the following seem especially strong explanations: (a) this
remedial reading classes, reading below grade level, and/ gives the reader more practice, earlier, in coordinating the
or classified as low readers. As similar studies with other use of multiple strategies, which is what good readers do
populations (e.g., Duke & Pearson, 2002; Pressley, 2000) when they read (Pressley & Afflerbach, 1995); (b) this gives
have found, these interventions often produce significant the reader more time to learn any one strategy (instead, for
gains. At least five different kinds of instruction have been example, of not beginning to learn a particular strategy
studied: comprehension strategy instruction, use of graphic until month 4); (c) this allows the reader to foreground the
organizers and other visual aids, text structure instruction, strategy or strategies that are the best fit for his/her purposes,
before-reading interventions, and other interventions. In prior knowledge, and the text in a given reading situation,
each area, at least one approach has been shown to be effec- while backgrounding the strategy or strategies that are less
tive, supporting the notion that instruction in informational helpful in that particular context. All this said, clearly more
text comprehension benefits struggling readers (although, research is needed on this question, and it remains worth-
as the reader will see, long-term maintenance and transfer while to examine the research on both single and multiple
are more elusive). strategy instruction approaches.

Comprehension Strategy Instruction Strategy instruc- Single strategy instruction. At times, a single compre-
tion, in which instructors attempt to boost students’ read- hension strategy has been the focus of an intervention. For
ing comprehension by equipping them with new ways to example, researchers have investigated the effects of teach-
think as they read, is one of the largest areas of inquiry for ing students with reading difficulties how to look for the main
researchers interested in this population. These studies have idea in informational texts by directing them to tell “what
typically focused on older elementary students (fifth and the whole story is about or the main idea” (Graves, 1986, p.
sixth graders), included relatively short-term interventions, 93), identify “what subjects or concepts were discussed in
TABLE 31.1
Measures Included in Each Study
Study Summary or Retelling Experimenter- Commercial Performance Attitudes Interview Other
Oral Written Developed Norm- Assessment Surveya
Pencil & Paper Referenced
Test Assessment
Adams, Carnine, & Gersten (1982) X SA X
Ankney & McClurg (1981) MC X
Babbs (1984) X X
Boyle (1996) U X X student maps; metacognitive/strategy
knowledge measure
Brand-Gruwel, Aarnoutse, & van den Bos (1998) MC X error detection task; decoding measure
Carnine & Kinder (1985) X SA, U decoding measure
Chan & Cole (1986) MC X
Chan (1991) MC student rating of important ideas
Darch & Carnine (1986) MC X
Ellis & Graves (1990) MC
Englert & Mariage (1991) X metacognitive/strategy knowledge measure
Englert et al. (1994) X metacognitive/strategy knowledge measure
Gagne & Memory (1978) X MC, SA X
Gajria & Salvia (1992) X MC X
Graves (1986) MC X decoding measure
Griffin, Simmons, & Kameenui (1991) X MC, SA X
Guthrie et al. (1998) X
Guthrie et al. (2004) X X X word-pair ratings; teacher ratings
Jitendra et al. (2000) MC, SA X
Johnson-Glenberg (2005) MC, SA X rereading scrollbacks
Kelly, Moore, & Tuck (1994) U X
Klingner et al. (2004) X X
Klingner, Vaughn, & Schumm (1998) MC, SA, FIB X vocabulary definitions; observations
Langer (1984) MC X free association of vocabulary
Lederer (2000) X SA student-created questions; textbook chapter/
unit test
Lysynchuk, Pressley, & Vye (1990) X SA X decoding measure
Mason (2004) X X X X outlining
Mason et al. (2006) X X X X outlining
(continued)
TABLE 31.1
Continued
Study Summary or Retelling Experimenter- Commercial Performance Attitudes Interview Other
Oral Written Developed Norm- Assessment Surveya
Pencil & Paper Referenced
Test Assessment
McCormick (1989) MC
Memory (1983) MC, SA X
O’Mallen, Lewis, & Craig (1993) X X textbook chapter/unit test
Reutzel, Smith, & Fawson (2005) X MC X X metacognitive/strategy knowledge measure
Simmonds (1992) X
Sinatra, Stahl-Gemake, & Berg (1984) MC
Stevens (1988) U
Taylor (1982) X SA
Walker (1995) SA/E X
Williams et al. (2005) X X
Williams et al. (2007) X X X
Wong & Wilson, study two (1984) X
Note. MC = Multiple choice. SA = Short answer. E = Essay. FIB = Fill in the blank. U = Unspecified format.
a
This category includes measures of students’ attitudes toward reading and measures of students’ attitudes about the particular intervention.
 Interventions to Enhance Informational Text Comprehension 351

each of the individual sentences” (Stevens, 1988, p. 23), or this sentence repeat what has already been said?”; “What
“name the person and tell the main thing the person did in is the paragraph mainly about?”; Chan, 1991, p. 429). In-
all the sentences” (Jitendra, Hoppes, & Xin, 2000, p. 130). struction involved either a demonstration and practice or a
In all three studies, after a short sequence of lessons (e.g., five-stage teaching model that included teacher modeling,
six), fifth- and sixth-grade students with learning disabili- guided practice, and fading support. In the second study,
ties and those enrolled in remedial reading classes, along one group of students was told to take turns pretending “that
with adolescents from older grades, outperformed other they were reading to Rob the robot, and wanted to check
participants at a level of statistical significance, with gains every now and then to see whether Rob had been following”
further heightened by adding a self-monitoring component and acting as the robot to answer the question posed (Chan
(Graves, 1986; Jitendra et al., 2000). These effects were seen & Cole, 1986, p. 36). Another group of students was told
with texts and questions similar to instructional materials to “underline with the fluorescent marker two interesting
(Graves, 1986; Jitendra et al., 2000; Stevens, 1988), as well words from the paragraph, and then to think of two ques-
as on maintenance assessments administered one (Graves, tions to ask Rob about the two underlined words” (p. 36).
1986) and six (Jitendra et al., 2000) weeks later. It should In these studies, students who were taught to self-question
be noted, however, that these samples of students, which performed as well as peers who learned to underline
numbered between 20 and 50, were often asked to select interesting words, those who studied a combination (self-
the main idea among several choices, and one researcher question and either read or underline), and a comparison
(Jitendra et al., 2000) found that scores dropped when chil- group of normally achieving third-grade students. Transfer
dren were asked to generate the main idea themselves. Also, was limited, although one group who underwent strategy
transfer-of-learning measures to different kinds of texts or to generalization training showed some evidence of indepen-
general comprehension were only significant in some cases dently applying the strategy across contexts.
(Jitendra et al., 2000; Stevens, 1988).
In addition, studies have tested the effects of teach- Multiple strategy instruction. In addition to these
ing students with reading difficulties summarizing and single-strategy interventions, multiple strategy instructional
self-questioning strategies with informational text. In two methods have been designed specifically for or tested with
cases, 30–47 students (enrolled in the fifth to ninth grades) elementary-aged students with reading difficulties. For
who tested at least 2 years below grade level expectations instance, Reciprocal Teaching (Palinscar & Brown, 1984),
in reading comprehension were taught how to summarize an approach to developing informational reading compre-
(Ellis & Graves, 1990; Gaijria & Salvia, 1992). Gaijria and hension originally designed for seventh graders who were
Salvia explicitly taught participants “the five summarization classified as below-average readers, has also been tested
rules developed by Brown and Day (1983): (a) superordina- with fourth-, fifth-, and sixth-grade students with learning
tion, (b) deletion of redundant information, (c) selection, disabilities or who otherwise struggle with reading compre-
(d) invention, and (e) deletion of unimportant information” hension (Brand-Gruwel, Aarnoutses, & van den Bos, 1998;
(p. 511); they introduced, modeled, justified, and provided Kelly, Moore, & Tuck, 1994; Lederer, 2000; Lysynchuk,
practice opportunities for each rule, fading their support Pressley, & Vye, 1990). This method of instruction involves
over the course of instruction (which ranged from 6.5 to 11 teaching students to ask questions, clarify their understand-
hours). Ellis and Graves also modeled how to paraphrase, ings, make predictions, and summarize by having them
provided practice opportunities, and gave feedback to par- take turns leading their peers in dialogic communication.
ticipants during their 8-day intervention. Students from both Most of these lessons occurred for 13 to 17 days, but one
studies significantly outperformed control groups and peers study (Kelly et al., 1994) continued daily instruction for an
who participated in alternate treatment conditions (e.g., entire semester. The number of participants varied widely,
rereading the texts several times); they performed as well from 18 (Kelly et al., 1994) to 128 (Lederer, 2000). In all
as students without disabilities on literal recall questions cases, favorable and significant effects were found for im-
and better than this comparison group on “condensation” mediate and direct tests (e.g., answering comprehension
(e.g., inferential, cause-and-effect) questions (Gaijria & questions). These gains were not always maintained over
Salvia, 1992). These gains seemed to be maintained, at the 1- to 3-month period between posttest and follow-up;
least for the 14 to 36 days that elapsed between the post- several researchers reported at least some of their experi-
test and delayed tests, and to transfer to a general reading mental group’s scores on delayed measures as insignificant
comprehension measure (Ellis & Graves, 1990; Gaijria & (Brand-Gruwel et al., 1998; Kelly et al., 1994; Lederer,
Salvia, 1992). 2000). Also, with one notable exception (Lysynchuk et al.,
For self-questioning, fifth- and sixth-grade students with 1990), analysis of the experimental group’s scores on norm-
reading or learning disabilities who learned to create their referenced test measures (e.g., Progressive Achievement
own questions about an expository text selection scored sig- Test of Reading Comprehension; Reid & Elley, 1991) re-
nificantly higher than students who reread texts or practiced vealed either increases that were not statistically significant
answering questions (Chan, 1991; Chan & Cole, 1986). In or differences that only approached significance.
the first study, students participated in five lessons, in which An intervention based on Reciprocal Teaching, POSSE,
they were taught to ask themselves questions (e.g., “Does has also been investigated (Englert & Mariage, 1991;
352 Nicole M. Martin and Nell K. Duke

Englert, Tarrant, Mariage, & Oxer, 1994). Over the course 2 weeks later, the instructed group scored higher than their
of 2 months, first through eighth graders with learning peers at a level of statistical significance, but no statisti-
disabilities, emotional impairment, or mild mental retar- cally significant between-group differences were found on
dation learned to engage in: “Predicting ideas based upon participants’ retellings.
background knowledge, Organizing predicted textual ideas Another multiple strategy intervention that has been
and background knowledge based upon text structure, tested specifically with struggling elementary readers is
Searching/Summarizing by searching for the text structure Think before reading, think While reading, think After
in the expository passage and summarizing the main ideas, reading (TWA; Mason, 2004; Mason, Snyder, Sukhram,
and Evaluating their comprehension” (Englert & Mariage, & Kedem, 2006). Fourth- and fifth-grade students who
1991, p. 124). On written recalls and strategy knowledge could decode “at a third-grade level and who had reading
measures, students in the POSSE condition performed sig- comprehension subtests scores between the 10th and 40th
nificantly better than students engaged in regular reading percentiles on the Comprehensive Tests of Basic Skills
or K-W-L (Ogle, 1986) instruction. Among other things, (CTBS; CTB/McGraw-Hill, 1996) taken in fourth grade”
the researchers concluded that students with learning dis- (Mason, 2004, p. 285) participated. They were given 11
abilities “who were trained in the POSSE strategies made to 15 lessons in activating prior knowledge and making
significant gains in their ability to recall textual ideas” predictions (“Think before reading”); monitoring reading
(Englert & Mariage, 1991, p. 135), and that “POSSE was speed, making connections, and rereading (“think While
more effective than K-W-L when students were applying reading”); and finding the main idea, summarizing, and
their knowledge independently in the unprompted and un- reflecting on learning (“think After reading”). In contrast to
scaffolded posttest conditions,” as well as in helping them the comparison group (who were taught Reciprocal Ques-
comprehend and recall passages (Englert et al., 1994, p. tioning; Manzo, 1975), significant main effects emerged
181). Importantly, the researchers found no age by treatment when TWA students were asked to orally identify the main
interaction, suggesting that the intervention was equally idea, summarize, and retell. These effects did not appear on
effective for all ages first through eighth grade. the other measures (intrinsic motivation, self-efficacy, and
In addition, Klingner and her colleagues (Klingner, written retelling). In a single subject experimental design,
Vaughn, Arguelles, Hughes, & Leftwich, 2004; Klingner, nine fourth-grade students with reading difficulties were
Vaughn, & Schumm, 1998) examined an informational taught TWA in conjunction with another multiple-strategy
text comprehension intervention called Collaborative Stra- approach, “Pick goals, List ways to meet goals, And, make
tegic Reading (CSR). Fourth-grade students classified as Notes, and Sequence notes” (PLANS; Mason et al., 2006, p.
“low achieving” and those with learning disabilities were 72). The researchers measured students’ inclusion of main
included among the participants. The strategy instruction ideas in note-taking outlines, oral retellings, and written
encompassed four different strategies: previewing (“pre- retellings. Nearly all of the fourth-graders learned to inde-
view”), comprehension-monitoring (“click and clunk”), pendently use TWA and PLANS during the instructional
finding and summarizing the main ideas (“get the gist” and phase (as evidenced by their inclusion of 3–5 main ideas).
“wrap up”), and self-questioning (“wrap up”). Research- The majority of the participants (6 students) continued to
ers taught these strategies by introducing them, modeling include more main ideas in their post-instructional outlines,
them through “think alouds,” providing guided practice for at least some of the time. Despite a few erratic perfor-
opportunities, and organizing small groups of students to mances on the maintenance probes, most of the students
work together and to help each other use these strategies also included more main ideas in their post-instruction oral
for several days. On norm-referenced tests, paper-and- and written retellings.
pencil unit tests, interviews, and observations of hundreds Guthrie and his colleagues (e.g., Guthrie et al., 1998;
of students, the intermediate elementary students assigned Guthrie et al., 2004) have also developed an informational
to the CSR condition displayed significant gains in read- comprehension intervention involving multiple strategy
ing comprehension, although effects on students’ content instruction: Concept-Oriented Reading Instruction (CORI).
knowledge were insignificant and higher-level talk was This intervention has been examined in a number of studies,
infrequent. The researchers concluded that students deemed including a recent study focused on Grade 5 low achieving
to be low-achieving benefitted the most from this kind of readers (Guthrie et al., 2009). In CORI, during 12-week
strategy instruction. units, teachers use sets of books (information books, novels,
In another study, fifth graders identified as having poor and poetry), websites, and hands-on materials to address
study skills learned to preview texts, recite subheadings, reading (e.g., fluent oral reading, self-monitoring), science
ask questions, read for key details, and reread subheadings (e.g., mutualism, competition), and reading motivation (e.g.,
and details (Adams, Carnine, & Gersten, 1982). Participants intrinsic motivation, self-efficacy) goals. As described in
individually met four times with trainers, who reviewed a meta-analysis of research on CORI, CORI lessons have
potentially unknown words from the social studies texts, followed a specific pattern:
modeled the study technique, corrected mistakes, faded First, for 10 min, students performed oral reading fluency
their support, and provided periodic feedback. On short- activities with poems or information books. Approximately
answer tests administered immediately after instruction and 2 days per week, instead of oral reading fluency, students
 Interventions to Enhance Informational Text Comprehension 353

studied science concepts and/or participated in a hands-on & Wolfe, 1984; Armbruster, Anderson, & Meyer, 1991;
activity (such as drawing a horseshoe crab from observa- Boothby & Alvermann, 1984; DiCecco & Gleason, 2002;
tion). Second, the teacher spent 10 min giving a minilesson Griffin, Simmons, & Kameenui, 1991; Simmons, Griffin,
on comprehension [specifically a comprehension strategy] & Kameenui, 1988). When researchers’ investigations have
to set the stage for organized guided reading. For the next
focused on elementary students with learning disabilities
three 15-min segments, students alternated among small-
or reading difficulties, they have also found that the use
group guided reading, writing, and independent reading.
Third, the teacher provided guided reading in three small of graphic organizers or other visual aids boosts students’
groups of four or five students for 15 min each. For guided performances.
reading, appropriate-level texts were used for modeling, In one study, 27 intermediate elementary students en-
scaffolding, and guided practice of the reading comprehen- rolled in a reading clinic program individually learned to
sion strategies. During the writing segment, students made use a blank graphic organizer to guide their pre-discussion
entries into their portfolios based on their information books and reading efforts over a 4-month period (Sinatra, Stahl-
used in the comprehension lesson, or they wrote reactions Gemake, & Berg, 1984). Experimenter-developed compre-
to their novels that were used in small-group discussions. hension measures revealed that they performed significantly
During independent reading activity, students silently read better on average than when taught using “Directed Reading
their book club novels. When requested, students took notes
Activity (DRA)” lessons. Neither transfer nor maintenance
and prepared reaction entries for their journals. (Guthrie,
was tested.
McRae, & Klauda, 2007, p. 241)
In another study, Boyle (1996) taught 15 students with
When tested against traditional instruction (Guthrie et al., reading difficulties in sixth grade (and higher) to TRAVEL.
1998) and against traditional instruction (one group) and For four lessons, they learned to identify, record, and circle
comprehension strategy instruction alone (the other group, the text’s topic (“Topic”); read the passage (“Read”); to
using the same comprehension strategies and science ac- identify, record, and circle each paragraph’s main idea and
tivities as CORI; Guthrie, 2004), the third- and fifth-grade three corresponding details (“Ask”); check their thinking
students in the CORI condition outperformed both groups (“Verify”); repeat these steps (“Examine”); and connect all
on experimenter-developed and norm-referenced tests, with the circles (“Link”). At posttest Boyle found significant dif-
concomitant increases in self-reported motivation and cogni- ferences in TRAVEL students over control group students
tive strategy composite scores. In addition, the intervention in performance on an experimenter-developed reading
appeared to have “a positive, indirect effect on conceptual comprehension test, but not on a norm-referenced reading
transfer” (Guthrie et al., 1998, p. 18). Similar results have test, metacognitive awareness questionnaire, or a student
been obtained when examining the impact of CORI specifi- attitudes measure.
cally for low-achieving students (Guthrie et al., 2009). In a no-control experiment, Carnine and Kinder (1985)
Finally, Johnson-Glenberg (2005) tested the efficacy of tested two interventions: one asked 27 low-comprehending
digitally embedding cues to use comprehension strategies fourth-, fifth-, and sixth-grade students to stop periodically
in informational texts. For eight lessons, sixth (and seventh) while reading expository passages and visualize (genera-
graders classified as poor comprehenders read texts on the tive-learning condition), and the other directed students
computer in which they were periodically asked to create to identify and apply the principle explained in the text
questions and to build models that reflected their content (schema-based condition). After 10 lessons, the pre- to
understandings. Although both the control and experi- posttest performances of students from both interventions
mental participants made significant gains on vocabulary improved significantly. The interventions were not, how-
measures, the latter group manifested significantly higher ever, equally effective in the long term; students who had
comprehension than the former. Johnson-Glenberg (2005) created mental images scored significantly lower on the
concluded that it was “the use of higher-level verbal strate- comprehension test administered 2 weeks later.
gies and the addition of the visual/imaginal processing that Finally, when fifth- and sixth-grade students with learn-
appear to result in an increase in deeper comprehension ing disabilities were trained to study graphic organizers
for the readers” (p.775). Johnson-Glenberg’s computer- before and after reading a science textbook chapter, they
based work adds further to the menu of multiple strategy performed higher than the alternative group (who studied
instruction techniques shown to be effective at improving lists of facts) but not at a level of statistical significance;
the informational reading comprehension of students with because this difference was statistically insignificant,
reading difficulties. Griffin, Simmons, and Kameenui (1991) concluded that
“graphic organizers do not significantly enhance student’s
Graphic Organizers and Other Visual Aids Visual aids [sic] comprehension and recall of science content more than
that readers can create and/or use to assist in their compre- an alternate instructional adjunct, a list of facts” (p. 369).
hension of informational text have also been explored with The results of this study appear to represent an exception to
students with reading difficulties. Graphic organizers have researchers’ general pattern of finding positive outcomes in
often long been used to aid content knowledge acquisition use of graphic organizers or other visual aids. This may be
and/or to support the reading comprehension of students related to the instructional procedures used in this study—
from general education contexts (Alvermann, Boothby, rather that creating or completing graphic organizers, as in
354 Nicole M. Martin and Nell K. Duke

other studies, students studied graphic organizers that had previewing, asking questions) for elementary-aged students
already been constructed. with reading difficulties. Like other kinds of interventions,
research in this area has tended to feature students from
Text Structure Instruction Text structure instruction the intermediate grades and to occur for a short period of
involves teaching students to look for the underlying time. In particular, in the studies reviewed below, research
structure or organization of text (e.g., cause-effect or designs have focused on fifth- and/or sixth-grade students
compare-contrast) and to use that knowledge to assist their and instructional phases that lasted between three and ten
comprehension. Text structure instruction has been studied lessons.
with both narrative and informational texts and with a vari- In an early study, Gagne and Memory (1978) examined
ety of grade levels. In general, text structure instruction has the impact of providing sixth-grade students with different
proven to be effective at improving reading comprehension kinds of instructions prior to their beginning to read infor-
(Dickson, Simmons, & Kameenui, 1998). Surprisingly, we mational text in a single lesson. There were seven different
found very few studies of text structure instruction focused instructions for seven different groups (total N = 224) as
on the population of interest in this chapter—elementary- follows: “read background information before reading the
aged students with reading difficulties. Those we did find, main passage” (Group 1); “While reading this passage,
however, did find some positive impacts, though again try to form a vivid mental picture of what was described
transfer is an often unmet challenge. in the passage” (p. 326; Group 2); search for the answer
In a study with older students, Taylor (1982) taught to a factual question as they read (Group 3); search for the
fifth graders classified as either competent or less compe- answer to an application question as they read (Group 4);
tent readers, in seven weekly lessons, how to identify the search for the answer to a question about the main idea as
structure of a text and use it to create an outline. In the first they read (Group 5); read background information before
of two studies, participants, including the less competent reading the main passage (Group 6); and think about how
readers, made statistically significant gains in recalling a given example was similar to the relationship in the
information and identifying textual organization, but not main passage (Group 7). Cause-effect passages were used.
in answering short-answer questions. In the second of two Although students in Groups 2–7 tended to perform the
studies, no significant gains were observed, with several same as students in Group 1, low-achieving students who
possible explanations provided for the differing results for were asked to search for the answer to a main idea ques-
the second group. tion (Group 5) performed significantly better on main-idea
In a text structure instruction study focusing on students test questions.
identified as having learning disabilities, Wong and Wilson A related study (Memory, 1983) found that adding a pre-
(1984, study two) asked 56 fifth-, sixth-, and seventh-grade question (e.g., “What feelings and attitudes of some people
students to organize disorganized passages. During one in the Roman Catholic Church led to the formation of new
lesson, participants received one-on-one instruction; the religions in Europe during the 1500’s?”; p. 41) before stu-
experimenter read passages aloud, while they provided dents read informational text benefited students with reading
oral retellings and re-ordered disorganized passages. After difficulties. Specifically, after a 3-lesson intervention, sixth
this training period, participants were tested on their abil- graders classified as low-average “who had practice with
ity to organize, study, and retell a disorganized passage. why prequestions and who were given such prequestions
The researchers concluded that “our sample of learning as aids during the testing performed significantly better”
disabled children readily learned how to organize sentences (Memory, 1983, p. 45), whereas skilled readers did not
around a subtopic in the paragraphs of a passage. More exhibit significant gains.
importantly, such learning increased their retention of the Langer (1984) used the Pre REading Plan (PReP) pro-
passage” (p. 481). cedure with sixth graders reading above, on, and below
Instruction about attending to the structure of text has grade level. For three lessons, Langer asked students to
also been also included in some multiple comprehension make associations with the primary concepts in the text,
strategy instructional approaches. For example, in POSSE reflect on their thinking, and discuss new knowledge. She
(Englert & Mariage, 1991; Englert et al., 1994), described used three phases of questioning (e.g., phase 1: “Tell me
earlier, two of the strategies include: “Organizing predicted anything that comes to mind when…” phase 2: “What made
textual ideas and background knowledge based upon text you think of …?”; phase 3: “Based on our discussion, have
structure” and “Searching… by searching for the text you any new ideas about…?”; p. 471) to help students ac-
structure in the expository passage.” Further, previewing, tivate their background knowledge and monitor the quality
as found in interventions such as Collaborative Strategic of their initial ideas. Although students had significantly
Reading (Klingner et al., 2004; Klingner et al., 1998), also better scores than the other treatment groups on average,
described earlier, can also be seen as involving attention the intervention did not appear to be effective for students
to text structure. who were below grade level.
Finally, McCormick (1989) incorporated written pre-
Before-Reading Interventions At times, studies have views into her intervention. More- and less-skilled readers
examined the effects of specific pre-reading activities (e.g., in fifth grade participated in lessons for 2 weeks; they
 Interventions to Enhance Informational Text Comprehension 355

studied, discussed, and listened to pre-written previews instruction, before reading interventions, and other inter-
before reading the selected passages. Each preview shared ventions appear to produce significant gains. This finding
the same elements: (a) multiple questions about students’ mirrors the results of reviews on reading comprehension
background information; (b) summary of the text; and (c) instruction for students identified as having learning dis-
important vocabulary. During each session, the teacher abilities that have included older students (Gersten et al.,
spent 10 minutes discussing the questions, reading aloud 2001; Talbott et al., 1994) as well as results of reviews of
the summary, and reviewing the key words. Then they read reading comprehension instruction that include studies
the passage and completed an experimenter-developed test. with elementary-aged readers who are not struggling (e.g.,
Among other results, McCormick reported that “with both National Reading Panel, 2000; Pressley, 2005).
more skilled and less skilled readers, overall performance This finding is important because, in our and others’
was superior when previews were employed before reading observations (e.g., Pressley et al., 2009), when elementary-
social studies selections” (pp. 228–229). aged students struggle with reading, they are often provided
with interventions primarily or entirely focused on decoding
Other Interventions In a study of a well-known inter- and word recognition. Yet it appears that intervention in the
vention to help students better understand and answer area of reading comprehension can also benefit this popula-
reading comprehension questions, Simmonds (1992) had tion. This finding is also important because of the persistent
teachers teach lessons about Question-Answer Relation- perception among many that informational text is too dif-
ships (QARs; e.g., Raphael & Pearson, 1985). This study ficult for students still learning to read (rather than reading
included an unusually broad range of ages—first through to learn) and the concomitant neglect of informational text
ninth graders with learning disabilities who participated in the elementary years, particularly the primary grades
and received instruction in their resource rooms. For four (Duke et al., 2002) and perhaps with struggling readers
sessions, teachers introduced each question type (“Right (Caswell & Duke, 1998). From the research reviewed in this
There,” “Think and Search,” and “On My Own”) and chapter it appears that informational text comprehension in
provided varied opportunities to categorize questions and the elementary years, even for struggling readers, is both
formulate answers. Then, for an additional week, teachers appropriate and fruitful.
asked students to apply QAR in content area texts. The With an age group about which we would expect the
researcher noted that teachers “followed their existing least research in this area, it is encouraging that such a
patterns of reading instruction in which students read or range of interventions for improving informational text
were read to and answered corresponding questions” (p. comprehension for struggling readers have been examined.
197). After this 3-week intervention, teachers removed all This suggests a recognition that informational text is criti-
relevant charts from display and administered posttests. As cal for success in and outside of school and that many U.S.
compared to students in a control group, students taught students, including struggling readers, have difficulty with
QARs displayed significant gains on posttests, from which these texts. It also suggests a recognition that reading com-
the researcher concluded that “QARs significantly improved prehension is indeed genre-specific—that students must be
the question-answer recognition and location performance provided with experience and instruction that features the
of students with learning disabilities” (p. 198). kinds of text we wish them to learn to comprehend, using
Manzo’s Guided Reading Procedure, a routine for teach- approaches that are designed for that kind of text. Several
ers to use during small group reading, was examined in approaches reviewed in this chapter, such as instruction in
a study that included fifth- and sixth-grade students who identifying main idea and details and instruction in specific
scored in the bottom quartile of the Metropolitan Achieve- informational text structures, make little sense for other
ment Test. Students participated in a lesson featuring genres, such as narrative texts. Moreover, many approaches
Manzo’s Guided Reading Procedure, in which students set address head on the particular challenges posed by infor-
their reading purpose, recalled what they read, searched the mational text, which, as discussed earlier in the chapter,
text for additional information, organized their knowledge, include its content, structure, and vocabulary.
answered synthesis questions, and completed a comprehen- The menu of approaches for improving informational
sion test (Ankney & McClurg, 1981). Students, including reading comprehension includes approaches to be admin-
those in the bottom quartile, outperformed their peers on istered in a variety of settings—in the regular classroom,
measures administered immediately, 1 week, and 4 weeks in small group settings, and one-on-one. This suggests
later. that informational reading comprehension instruction
need not be the purview of any one professional, but can
be administered across the multiple settings in which
Status of the Field
struggling readers are found. Similarly, among the variety
From these studies, it appears that elementary-aged students of choices are both very targeted approaches (e.g. Chan
with reading difficulties may benefit from informational text and Cole’s, 1986, self-questioning intervention) and rela-
comprehension instruction. At least some versions of single tively comprehensive approaches (e.g., Concept-Oriented
and multiple comprehension strategy instruction, the use Reading Instruction; see Guthrie et al., 2004). The scope
of graphic organizers and other visual aids, text structure of the approach is an important factor to consider when
356 Nicole M. Martin and Nell K. Duke

designing an entire instructional agenda for a struggling the primary grades were available to be included. In these
reader or readers. studies, students in the fourth grade or above were primar-
The depth and breadth of instruction are also important ily featured, with approximately 80% of the studies we
factors to address when teaching students with reading reviewed drawing their samples from these grades. One
difficulties. We discussed above a diverse array of choices possible explanation for this is that relatively few students
for improving informational reading comprehension at are identified as having reading or learning disabilities as
the elementary level, which we grouped into the broad early as the primary grades (though note that the review
categories of comprehension strategy instruction (single included a few studies that did indeed include students so
and multiple), use of graphic organizers and other visual identified as early as Grade 1). However, in selecting stud-
aids, text structure instruction, before-reading interventions, ies, we did allow for inclusion not only of studies focused
and other interventions. While having many effective tech- on students with reading or learning disabilities but also of
niques available has distinct advantages, we are concerned studies focusing on just low achieving readers, of which there
that it also holds the danger that one may sample from too are certainly many in the primary grades, with good reason
many different approaches rather than focusing on a few to think that comprehension is at least part of the challenge
in greater depth. Given what we know about learning in many of them face (Cain & Oakhill, 2007; Duke et al., 2004).
general and the learning of students with reading difficul- So there must be additional explanations for the relative lack
ties in particular, we hypothesize that it is better to teach of studies with younger students, including, we suspect, a
fewer thinking processes in greater depth than more at a general inattention to comprehension and informational text
more cursory level. This is one of many hypotheses ripe in the primary grades (see earlier discussion).
for future research. Just as we have argued in the rationale for this review
that we cannot generalize studies of secondary students to
elementary-aged learners, so too do we argue that primary-
Directions for Future Research
grade students may not respond to intervention in the
While there is much that is encouraging in the literature same way as upper elementary students. Thus examining
reviewed for this chapter, it is also clear that much more instructional outcomes of interventions with children in
research and development work needs to be done. In the kindergarten through third grade is crucial. Moreover, of
paragraphs that follow, we identify several areas of need: course, the principle of early intervention, so widely touted
greater depth of research, greater attention to the early el- in general and certainly extolled for addressing word-level
ementary grades, improvement of assessment, achievement problems in the primary grades, seems worthy of investi-
of transfer and maintenance, and greater concern with the gation for its possible value in the area of informational
big picture of informational comprehension development. reading comprehension. We are especially interested in
the long-term impacts of identifying and intervening early
Greater Depth of Research While the breadth of ap- with students who show signs of struggling with informa-
proaches to improving informational text comprehension tional reading comprehension, including those who do not
for struggling elementary-aged readers is relatively strong, demonstrate concomitant difficulties in the area of word
the depth of this research often is not. For most categories recognition and decoding (e.g., Catts, Adlof, & Weismer,
we discuss (e.g., use of graphic organizers and other visual 2006; Riddle Buly & Valencia, 2002).
aids), there are only a very few studies that specifically There are two important resources available to the field
focus on elementary-aged students with reading difficul- as it moves forward in examining informational reading
ties. A greater number and range of studies in each area— comprehension interventions for struggling primary-grade
for example, the number and range we find in the area of readers. The first is to take interventions that have been
phonological awareness intervention—would very likely successful with older struggling readers, modify them for
improve our understanding and our ability to better impact characteristics of younger readers, and then test those.
these students’ comprehension. Similarly, with a few excep- Another approach is to examine the impact specifically
tions (e.g., Reciprocal Teaching), there are typically only on struggling readers of approaches that have been devel-
one or two studies that examine the outcome of any one oped for primary-grade learners in general. For example,
approach with struggling elementary-aged readers. Addi- the work of Williams and her colleagues (Williams et al.,
tional research on specific interventions would improve our 2005; Williams et al., 2007) on teaching second graders
understanding of their respective benefits and limitations. the compare-contrast and cause-effect text structures seems
Ideally, any given approach would be examined through promising in terms of potential benefits for struggling
a series of studies that address not only whether the ap- readers. In their 2005 study, instruction involved setting
proach is effective but for whom it is effective, under what purposes, introducing key terms that signaled the targeted
conditions it is most effective, how it interacts with other text structure, reading informational passages about ani-
approaches, and what effects it has in the long-term. mals, discussing content, generating compare-and-contrast
statements, writing summaries, and reviewing the lesson.
Greater Attention to the Early Elementary Grades A In their 2007 study, instruction involved introducing the
striking finding from this review is how few studies in cause-effect text structure, teaching signal words, attend-
 Interventions to Enhance Informational Text Comprehension 357

ing to vocabulary, creating class charts, and answering Relatively recent work in comprehension assessment
questions during the post-reading discussion. Following development holds promise for addressing some of these
this, students read aloud and analyzed a second passage for shortcomings. As noted early in the chapter, a number of
its structure and content. Significant differences for both large-scale assessments, including cross-national assess-
studies were seen on several subskills, including locating ments, are separating reading for information from liter-
the signal words, completing a graphic organizer orally and ary reading; as those assessments become more widely
in writing, underlining clauses, and answering three kinds known and available, they may be useful in research on
of questions (structural, effect, and non-causal), although the impact of reading comprehension interventions for
the gains did not appear to transfer to passages featuring students with reading difficulties. In addition, more com-
novel content or to different text structures. We would like prehension assessments are being developed that provide
to see interventions like those Williams used examined more diagnostic information. For example, the Diagnostic
specifically for their impact for struggling primary-grade Reading Comprehension Assessment (DARC; Francis et
readers, as well as greater attention to the early elementary al., 2006) is designed to separate background or world
grades throughout informational comprehension interven- knowledge from reading comprehension skill. The Con-
tion research. cepts of Comprehension Assessment (COCA; Billman et
al., 2008) and Informational Strategic Cloze Assessment
Improvement of Assessment It is clear from this review (ISCA; Hilden et al., 2008) are designed to measure four
(see especially Table 31.1), that the field would benefit contributors to informational reading comprehension—
from better tools for measuring informational reading knowledge of informational text features, use of com-
comprehension of students with reading difficulties. There prehension strategies, ability to comprehend graphics in
is remarkably little overlap in the assessment tools used text, and vocabulary knowledge and use—for students in
in different studies, with most tools developed by the re- Grades 1 to 3 (see also Paris & Paris, 2003, for a narrative
searchers for that particular study. This makes it difficult to comprehension assessment for use with primary-grade
compare results from one study to another or even to have students). Guthrie and his colleagues (e.g., Guthrie et
confidence that the same informational reading comprehen- al., 2004) have developed assessments of informational
sion skills are being measured. reading comprehension that not only have higher levels
Some studies did use more widely-known and widely- of ecological validity than most measures, but that also
used assessments; however, these were usually norm- assess engagement as well.
referenced tests of reading achievement. There are several One of the characteristics of many of these newer
problems with the use of such tests in this research. First, assessments of comprehension is that they are more
these tests typically do not separate informational read- process-oriented than product-oriented. That is, rather than
ing achievement from narrative or other kinds of reading measuring reading comprehension at the “end” of reading
achievement, with informational reading comprehension through such tools as oral or written retellings or responses
items only a portion of the test. Given the genre-specific to passage-final comprehension questions, several of these
nature of reading comprehension, this means that even an assessments ask questions and/or engage students in tasks
intervention effective at improving informational reading throughout the reading. Greater proximity to the ongoing
comprehension achievement may not be able to show itself moment-by-moment process of meaning construction, with-
as such on the test; and indeed few studies we reviewed in the particular demands of the text, may provide greater
were able to show impacts on norm-referenced assessments. insight about when and why comprehension is breaking
Second, norm-referenced tests are typically of question- down, or is successful—something that is more difficult
able value for students scoring at the very lowest end of to glean from after-the-fact measures. These and other
the achievement spectrum, as is true of many students in developments are encouraging with respect to improving
the studies we reviewed. Third, these tests are typically assessment of, and thus research on, informational reading
not diagnostic in nature. That is, they do not tell us what comprehension intervention in the future.
aspects of informational reading comprehension (or read-
ing comprehension in general) are more or less difficult for Achievement of Transfer and Maintenance It is hard to
students. This makes it difficult to tease apart what aspects miss in this literature how elusive transfer (to new reading
of informational reading comprehension performance are situations) and maintenance (of gains over time) often are.
really impacted by the intervention at hand. Finally, these Part of the reason for this may lie in the nature of some of
assessments, as well as many of the experimenter-developed the assessments used, as discussed above with respect to
measures, tend to have limited ecological validity. Passages norm-referenced tests. Another explanation is undoubtedly
are generally short. Many informational text features, such the short duration of many of the interventions. Of the stud-
as indexes, headings, and diagrams, are not included. The ies explored above, interventions ranged from one lesson
assessments rarely involve either nonlinear reading or the (e.g., Ankney & McClurg, 1981; Gagne & Memory, 1978)
process of comprehending across multiples texts—both to an entire academic school year (e.g., Klingner et al.,
very much part of normal informational reading demands 2004). Three-quarters of these designs provided instruc-
in and outside of school. tion for less than 1 month, with an average of 8 lessons per
358 Nicole M. Martin and Nell K. Duke

intervention. It is unsurprising that it would be difficult to gram look like in places in which all or nearly all students
achieve strong transfer and maintenance with interventions with reading difficulties develop into strong comprehenders
this short. of informational text? What teacher characteristics are as-
A related explanation for the challenge of transfer and sociated with strong growth in informational reading com-
maintenance is the relatively narrow scope of some of prehension? Ultimately, what level of informational reading
the interventions. Several of the interventions reviewed comprehension do students with reading difficulties from
address a single comprehension strategy or instructional various instructional contexts achieve? These are difficult
activity. On the one hand, it is encouraging that many of questions, to be sure, but also questions that those in school
these interventions do show statistically significant ef- have to, or at least should, address every day.
fects. On the other hand, it is understandable that it may One example of the kind of research and development
be difficult to show long-term multi-context impacts of program that addresses many of the kinds of questions posed
these interventions. It is striking to compare many of the in the previous paragraph is that carried out at Benchmark
interventions we reviewed for this chapter to Concept- School in Media, Pennsylvania, under the leadership of
Oriented Reading Instruction (CORI), which is the most Irene Gaskins. Benchmark is a school for students who
comprehensive intervention we reviewed. CORI involves have been experiencing difficulty learning to read. Most
not only instruction in a number of comprehension strate- students enter the school in second, third, or fourth grade
gies, but instruction and experience in informational read- with very low levels of reading achievement and often with
ing comprehension tasks such as searching for information family histories of difficulty with reading. Benchmark has a
and reading and synthesizing across multiple texts. CORI remarkable record of long-term success with these students.
attends not only to strategy instruction but also, heavily, While Benchmark engages in many activities to develop this
to motivation and engagement. Not only large-scale re- success, one is long-term, intense comprehension strategy
search but also individual case study research (e.g., Hall, instruction that is coherent and cumulative across grades
2006) suggest that motivation and engagement are crucial (e.g., Gaskins, Laird, O’Hara, Scott, & Cress, 2002). This
accompaniments of both comprehension instruction and instruction is embedded in a larger context, also well de-
content area learning. The field would be well-served, scribed in the literature (e.g., Pressley, Gaskins, Solic, &
in our view, by more studies of the impact of relatively Collins, 2006), of other instructional and non-instructional
comprehensive interventions on students’ informational characteristics of the school that appear to work in tandem,
reading comprehension. if not synergistically, to produce great success for students
Interestingly, the existing literature is not well suited with reading difficulties.
to evaluating the hypothesis that longer-term and more
comprehensive interventions provide greater evidence of
Summary
transfer and maintenance because many of the longest
term and most comprehensive interventions have not been Assuming that reading comprehension is to some degree
subject to transfer and maintenance measures. This is part genre-specific, this chapter began with a discussion of the
of a larger pattern in the literature of very little longitudinal importance of informational reading comprehension and
research on reading comprehension instruction for students possible causes of informational reading comprehension
with reading difficulties, a point we discuss in greater depth difficulties. We then reviewed research on interventions
in the following section. for informational reading comprehension. Recognizing
the lack of reviews focused specifically on elementary-
Greater Concern with the Big Picture of Informational aged students with reading difficulties, our review
Comprehension Development Largely absent from the focused on interventions that have been tested for that
research on elementary-aged students with reading difficul- group. While there are relatively few studies and many
ties is the bigger picture of how to create a total program questions left unanswered, a range of interventions have
of informational comprehension instruction for these stu- proven to be effective in improving the informational
dents. None of the approaches reviewed, particularly those reading comprehension of elementary-aged students with
of narrower scope, would alone suffice to provide all the reading difficulties. The task that lies before us now is to
comprehension instruction needed for students with reading find ways to combine, contextualize, and carry out these
difficulties throughout the elementary years. So how can interventions to make a meaningful, long-term difference
these approaches be pieced together in ways that are most for struggling readers.
beneficial for students? How should the comprehension
interventions used with students change, and not change,
Note
as the student progresses in grade level and/or comprehen-
sion ability? What time should be devoted to informational 1 For edited volumes and articles on the topic, see Cain and Oakhill
(2007); Cornoldi and Oakhill (1996); and Gajria, Jitendra, Sood,
comprehension interventions as opposed to other forms and
and Sacks (2007). For books written for practitioners focusing
foci of instruction? What is the relative role of the general on improving reading comprehension of students with learning
education classroom, the resource room, and clinical or disabilities, see Carlisle and Rice (2002) and Klingner, Vaughn, and
tutoring services? What does the total comprehension pro- Boardman (2007).
 Interventions to Enhance Informational Text Comprehension 359

References CTB/McGraw-Hill. (1996). Comprehensive Test of Basic Skills. Monterey,

CA: Author.
Adams, A., Carnine, D., & Gersten, R. (1982). Instructional strategies Chan, L. K. S. (1991). Promoting strategy generalization through self-
for studying content area texts in the intermediate grades. Reading instructional training in students with reading disabilities. Journal of
Research Quarterly, 18, 27–55. Learning Disabilities, 24, 427–433.
Alvermann, D. E., Boothby, P. R., & Wolfe, J. (1984). The effect of graphic Chan, L. K. S., & Cole, P. G. (1986). The effects of comprehension moni-
organizer instruction on fourth graders’ comprehension of social stud- toring training on the reading competence of learning disabled and
ies text. Journal of Social Studies Research, 8, 13–21. normal students. Remedial and Special Education, 7, 33–40.
Alvermann, D. E., Smith, L. C., & Readence, J. E. (1985). Prior knowledge Cornoldi, C., & Oakhill, J. (Eds.). (1996). Reading comprehension difficul-
activation and the comprehension of compatible and incompatible text. ties: Processes and intervention. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
Reading Research Quarterly, 20, 420–436. Cunningham, A. E., & Stanovich, K. E. (1998). What reading does for the
Ankney, P., & McClurg, P. (1981). Testing Manzo’s guided reading pro- mind. American Educator, 22, 1–2, 8–15.
cedure. Reading Teacher, 34, 681–685. DiCecco, V. M., & Gleason, M. M. (2002). Using graphic organizers to
Armbruster, B. B. (1984). The problem of inconsiderate text. In G. attain relational knowledge from expository text. Journal of Learning
G. Duffy, L. R. Roehler, & J. Mason (Eds.), Comprehension in- Disabilities, 35, 306–320.
struction: Perspectives and suggestions (pp. 202–217). New York: Dickson, S. V., Simmons, D. C., & Kameenui, E. J. (1998). Text organiza-
Longman. tion: Research bases. In D. C. Simmons & E. J. Kameenui (Eds.), What
Armbruster, B. B., Anderson, T. H., & Meyer, J. L. (1991). Improving reading research tells us about children with diverse learning needs:
content-area reading using instructional graphics. Reading Research Bases and basics (pp. 239–277). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
Quarterly, 26, 393–416. Dole, J. A., & Nelson, K. L. (2008, May). Vocabulary instruction among
Baumann, J. F. (1984). The effectiveness of a direct instruction paradigm primary-grade teachers in a school reform project. Presentation at
for teaching main idea comprehension. Reading Research Quarterly, the International Reading Association Reading Research Conference,
20, 93–115. Atlanta, GA.
Baumann, J. F. (2008). Vocabulary and reading comprehension: The nexus Duke, N. K. (2000). 3.6 minutes per day: The scarcity of informational
of meaning. In S. E. Israel & G. G. Duffy (Eds.), Handbook of research text in first grade. Reading Research Quarterly, 35, 202–224.
on reading comprehension (pp. 323–346). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum. Duke, N. K. (2005). Comprehension of what for what: Comprehension as
Billman, A. K., Duke, N. K., Hilden, K. R., Zhang, S., Roberts, K., Hal- a non-unitary construct. In S. Paris & S. Stahl (Eds.), Current issues
laday, J. L., et al. (2008). Concepts of Comprehension Assessment in reading comprehension and assessment (pp. 93–104). Mahwah,
(COCA). Retrieved June 18, 2008, from http://www.msularc.org/html/ NJ: Erlbaum.
project_COCA_main.html Duke, N. K., Bennett-Armistead, V. S., & Roberts, E. M. (2002). Incor-
Boothby, P. R., & Alvermann, D. E. (1984). A classroom training study: porating informational text in the primary grades. In C. Roller (Ed.),
The effects of graphic organizer instruction on fourth graders’ com- Comprehensive reading instruction across the grade levels (pp. 40–54).
prehension. Reading World, 23, 325–339. Newark, DE: International Reading Association.
Bos, C. S., & Anders, P. L. (1990). Effects of interactive vocabulary Duke, N. K., & Billman, A. K. (2009). Informational text difficulty for
instruction on the vocabulary learning and reading comprehension of beginning readers. In E. H. Hiebert & M. Sailors (Eds.), Finding the
junior-high learning disabled students. Learning Disability Quarterly, right texts for beginning and struggling readers: Research-based
13, 31–42. solutions (pp. 109–128). New York: Guilford.
Boyle, J. R. (1996). The effects of a cognitive mapping strategy on the Duke, N. K., & Martin, N. M. (2008). Comprehension instruction in ac-
literal and inferential comprehension of students with mild disabilities. tion: The elementary classroom. In C. C. Block & S. Parris (Eds.),
Learning Disability Quarterly, 19, 86–98. Comprehension instruction: Research-based best practices (pp.
Brand-Gruwel, S., Aarnoutses, C. A. J., & van den Bos, K. P. (1998). 241–257). New York: Guilford.
Improving text comprehension strategies in reading and listening Duke, N. K., & Pearson, P. D. (2002). Effective practices for developing
settings. Learning and Instruction, 8, 63–81. reading comprehension. In A. E. Farstrup & S. J. Samuels (Eds.), What
Brown, A. L., & Day, J. D. (1983). Macrorules for summarizing texts: research has to say about reading instruction (3rd ed., pp. 205–242).
The development of expertise. Journal of Verbal Learning & Verbal Newark, DE: International Reading Association.
Behavior, 22(1), 1–14. doi: 10.1016/S0022-5371(83)80002-4 Duke, N. K., Pressley, M., & Hilden, K. (2004). Difficulties with reading
Brown, R., Pressley, M., Van Meter, P., & Schuder, T. (1996). A quasi- comprehension. In C. A. Stone, E. R. Silliman, B. J. Ehren, & K. Apel
experimental validation of transactional strategies instruction with (Eds.), Handbook of language and literacy development and disorders
low-achieving second grade readers. Journal of Educational Psychol- (pp. 501–520). New York: Guilford.
ogy, 88, 18–37. Durkin, D. (1978/1979). What classroom observations reveal about
Cain, K., & Oakhill, J. (Eds.). (2007). Children’s comprehension prob- reading comprehension instruction. Reading Research Quarterly,
lems in oral and written language: A cognitive perspective. New 14, 481–533.
York: Guilford. Ellis, E. S., & Graves, A. W. (1990). Teaching rural students with learning
Carlisle, J. F., & Rice, M. S. (2002). Improving reading comprehension: disabilities: A paraphrasing strategy to increase comprehension of main
Research-based principles and practices. Baltimore, MD: York ideas. Rural Special Education Quarterly, 10, 2–10.
Press. Englert, C. S., & Mariage, T. V. (1991). Making students partners in the
Carnine, D., & Kinder, B. D. (1985). Teaching low-performing students comprehension process: Organizing the reading “POSSE”. Learning
to apply generative and schema strategies to narrative and expository Disability Quarterly, 14, 123–138.
material. Remedial and Special Education, 6, 20–30. Englert, C. S., Tarrant, K. L., Mariage, T. V., & Oxer, T. (1994). Lesson talk
Carr, S. C., & Thompson, B. (1996). The effects of prior knowledge and as the work of reading groups: The effectiveness of two interventions.
schema activation strategies on the inferential reading comprehension Journal of Learning Disabilities, 27, 165–185.
of children with and without learning disabilities. Learning Disability Englert, C. S., & Thomas, C. C. (1987). Sensitivity to text structure in
Quarterly, 19, 48–61. reading and writing. A comparison between learning disabled and
Caswell, L. J., & Duke, N. K. (1998). Non-narrative as a catalyst for non-learning disabled students. Learning Disability Quarterly, 10,
literacy development. Language Arts, 75, 108–117. 93–105.
Catts, H. W., Adlof, S. M., & Weismer, S. E. (2006). Language deficits in Flood, J., & Lapp, D. (1986). Types of texts: The match between what
poor comprehenders: A case for the Simple View of Reading. Journal students read in basals and what they encounter in tests. Reading
of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research, 49, 278–293. Research Quarterly, 21, 284–297.
360 Nicole M. Martin and Nell K. Duke

Francis, D. J., Snow, C. E., August, D., Carlson, C. D., Miller, J., & Johnson-Glenberg, M. C. (2005). Web-based training of metacognitive
Iglesias, A. (2006). Measures of reading comprehension: A latent vari- strategies for text comprehension: Focus on poor comprehenders.
able analysis of the diagnostic assessment of reading comprehension. Reading and Writing, 18, 755–786.
Scientific Studies of Reading, 10, 301–322. Kelly, M. U., Moore, D. W., & Tuck, B. F. (1994). Reciprocal teaching in
Gagne, E. D., & Memory, D. (1978). Instructional events and comprehen- a regular primary school classroom. Journal of Educational Research,
sion: Generalization across passages. Journal of Reading Behavior, 88, 53–61.
10, 321–335. Kirk, L., & Pearson, H. (1996). Genres and learning to read. Reading
Gajria, M., Jitendra, A. K., Sood, S., & Sacks, G. (2007). Improving Research Quarterly, 30, 37–41.
comprehension of expository text in students with LD: A research Klingner, J. K., Vaughn, S., Arguelles, M. E., Hughes, M. T., & Left-
synthesis. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 40, 210–255. wich, S. A. (2004). Collaborative Strategic Reading: “Real-world”
Gaijria, M., & Salvia, J. (1992). The effects of summarization instruction lessons from classroom teachers. Remedial and Special Education,
on text comprehension of students with learning disabilities. Excep- 25, 291–302.
tional Children, 58, 508–516. Klingner, J. K., Vaughn, S., & Boardman, A. (2007). Teaching reading
Gardner, H. (1987). The mind’s new science: A history of the cognitive comprehension to students with learning difficulties. New York:
revolution. New York: Basic Books. Guilford.
Gaskins, I. W., Laird, S. R., O’Hara, C., Scott, T., & Cress, C. A. (2002). Klingner, J. K., Vaughn, S., & Schumm, J. S. (1998). Collaborative strategic
Helping struggling readers make sense of reading. In C. C. Block, L. B. reading during social studies in heterogenous fourth-grade classrooms.
Gambrell, & M. Pressley (Eds.), Improving comprehension instruction: Elementary School Journal, 99, 3–22.
Rethinking research, theory, and classroom practice (pp. 370–383). Kucan, L., & Beck, I. L. (1996). Four fourth graders thinking aloud:
Newark, DE: International Reading Association. An investigation of genre effects. Journal of Literacy Research, 28,
Gersten, R., Fuchs, L. S., Williams, J. P., & Baker, S. (2001). Teaching read- 259–287.
ing comprehension strategies to students with learning disabilities: A Langer, J. (1984). Examining background knowledge and text comprehen-
review of research. Review of Educational Research, 71, 279–320. sion. Reading Research Quarterly, 19, 468–481.
Graves, A. W. (1986). Effects of direct instruction and metacomprehen- Lederer, J. M. (2000). Reciprocal teaching of social studies in inclusive el-
sion training on finding main ideas. Learning Disabilities Research, ementary classrooms. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 33, 91–106.
1, 90–100. Lysynchuk, L. M., Pressley, M., & Vye, N. J. (1990). Reciprocal teaching
Griffin, C. C., Simmons, D. C., & Kameenui, E. J. (1991). Investigating improves standardized reading-comprehension performance in poor
the effectiveness of graphic organizer instruction on the comprehension comprehenders. The Elementary School Journal, 90, 469–484.
and recall of science content by students with learning disabilities. Manzo, A. V. (1975). Guided reading procedure. Journal of Reading,
Journal of Reading, Writing, and Learning Disabilities, International, 18, 287–291.
7, 355–376. Mason, L. H. (2004). Explicit self-regulated strategy development versus
Guthrie, J. T. (2004). Differentiating instruction for struggling readers reciprocal teaching: Effects on expository reading comprehension
within the CORI classroom. In J. T. Guthrie, A. Wigfield, & K. C. among struggling readers. Educational Psychology, 96, 283–296.
Perencevich (Eds.), Motivating reading comprehension: Concept-Ori- Mason, L. H., Snyder, K. H., Sukhram, D. P., & Kedem, Y. (2006). TWA +
ented Reading Instruction (pp. 173–194). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum. PLANS Strategies for expository reading and writing: Effects for nine
Guthrie, J. T., McRae, A., Coddington, C. S., Lutz Klauda, S., Wigfield, A., fourth-grade students. Exceptional Children, 73, 69–89.
& Barbosa, P. (2009). Impacts of comprehensive reading instruction McCormick, S. (1989). Effects of previews on more skilled and less
on diverse outcomes of low- and high-achieving readers. Journal of skilled readers’ comprehension of expository text. Journal of Reading
Learning Disabilities, 42, 195–214. Behavior, 21, 219–239.
Guthrie, J. T., McRae, A., & Klauda, S. L. (2007). Contributions of Con- McGee, L. M. (1982). Awareness of text structure: Effects on children’s
cept-Oriented Reading Instruction to knowledge about interventions recall of expository text. Reading Research Quarterly, 17, 581–590.
for motivations in reading. Educational Psychologist, 42, 237–250. Memory, D. (1983). Main idea prequestions as adjunct aids with good
Guthrie, J. T., Meter, P. V., Hancock, G. R., Solomon, A., Anderson, E., and low-average middle grade readers. Journal of Reading Behavior,
& McCann, A. (1998). Does Concept-Oriented Reading Instruction 15, 37–48.
increase strategy use and conceptual learning from text? Journal of Mohr, K. A. J. (2006). Children’s choices for recreational reading: A three-
Educational Psychology, 90, 261–278. part investigation of selection preferences, rationales, and processes.
Guthrie, J. T., Wigfield, A., Barbosa, P., Perencevich, K. C., Taboada, A., Journal of Literacy Research, 38, 81–104.
Davis, M. H., et al. (2004). Increasing reading comprehension and National Assessment Governing Board. (2007). Reading framework for
engagement through Concept-Oriented Reading Instruction. Journal the 2009 National Assessment of Educational Progress. Washington,
of Educational Psychology, 96, 403–423. DC: American Institutes for Research. Retrieved October 20, 2007,
Guzzetti, B. J., Snyder, T. E., Glass, G. V., & Gamas, W. S. (1993). Pro- from http://www.nagb.org/frameworks/fw.html
moting conceptual change in science: A comparative meta-analysis National Center for Education Statistics. (2007). Literacy in everyday
of instructional interventions from reading education and science life: Results from the 2003 National Assessment of Adult Literacy.
education. Reading Research Quarterly, 28, 116–159. Retrieved November 2, 2008, from http://nces.ed.gov/pubsearch/
Hall, L. A. (2006). Anything but lazy: New understandings about strug- pubsinfo.asp?pubid=2007480
gling readers, teaching, and text. Reading Research Quarterly, 41, National Reading Panel. (2000). Teaching children to read: An evidence-
424–426. based assessment of the scientific research literature on reading and
Hiebert, E. H. (2006). Becoming fluent: What difference do texts make? its implications for reading instruction (National Institute of Health
In S. J. Samuels & A. E. Farstrup (Eds.), What research has to say Pub. No. 00-4769). Washington, DC: National Institute of Child Health
about reading fluency (pp. 204–226). Newark, DE: International and Human Development.
Reading Association. OECD & Statistics Canada. (2000). Literacy in the information age: Final
Hilden, K. R., Duke, N. K., Billman, A. K., Zhang, S., Halladay, J. L., report of the International Adult Literacy Survey. Paris: Organisation
Schaal, A. M., et al. (2008). Informational Strategic Cloze Assessment for Economic Co-operation and Development.
(ISCA). Retrieved June 18, 2008, from http://www.msularc.org/html/ Ogle, D. (1986). KWL: A teaching model that develops active reading of
project_ISCA_main.html expository text. The Reading Teacher, 39, 564–572.
Jitendra, A. K., Hoppes, M. K., & Xin, Y. P. (2000). Enhancing main idea Palinscar, A. S., & Brown, A. L. (1984). Reciprocal teaching of compre-
comprehension for students with learning problems: The role of a hension-fostering and comprehension-monitoring activities. Cognition
summarization strategy and self-monitoring instruction. The Journal and Instruction, 1(2), 117–175.
of Special Education, 34, 127–139. Pappas, C. C. (2006). The information book genre: Its role in integrated
 Interventions to Enhance Informational Text Comprehension 361

science literacy research and practice. Reading Research Quarterly, Saenz, L. M., & Fuchs, L. S. (2002). Examining the reading difficulty of
41, 226–250. secondary students with learning disabilities: Expository versus nar-
Paris, A. H., & Paris, S. G. (2003). Assessing narrative comprehension in rative text. Remedial and Special Education, 23, 31–41.
young children. Reading Research Quarterly, 38, 36–76. Scott, J. A., Jamieson-Noel, D., & Asselin, M. (2003). Vocabulary instruc-
Park, Y. (2008). Patterns in and predictors of elementary students’ reading tion throughout the day in twenty-three Canadian upper-elementary
performance: Evidence from the data of the progress in International classrooms. The Elementary School Journal, 103, 269–286.
Reading Literacy Study 2006 (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). Simmonds, E. P. M. (1992). The effects of teacher training and imple-
Michigan State University, Ann Arbor, MI. mentation of two methods of improving the comprehension skills of
Pearson, P. D. (1986). Twenty years of research in reading comprehension. students with learning disabilities. Learning Disabilities Research
In T. E. Raphael (Ed.), Contexts for school-based literacy (pp. 43–62). and Practice, 7, 194–198.
New York: Random House. Simmons, D. C., Griffin, C. C., & Kameenui, E. J. (1988). Effects of
Pearson, P. D., & Hamm, D. N. (2005). The history of reading comprehen- teacher-constructed pre- and post-graphic organizer instruction on
sion assessment. In S. G. Paris & S. A. Stahl (Eds.), Children’s reading sixth-grade science students’ comprehension and recall. Journal of
comprehension and assessment (pp. 13–69). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum. Educational Research, 82, 15–21.
Pressley, M. (2000). What should comprehension instruction be the Sinatra, R. C., Stahl-Gemake, J., & Berg, D. N. (1984). Improving reading
instruction of? In M. L. Kamil, P. B. Mosenthal, P. D. Pearson, & R. comprehension of disabled readers through semantic mapping. The
Barr (Eds.), Handbook of reading research (pp. 545–561). Mahwah, Reading Teacher, 38, 22–29.
NJ: Erlbaum. Smith, M. C. (2000). The real-world reading practices of adults. Journal
Pressley, M., & Afflerbach, P. (1995). Verbal protocols of reading: The of Literacy Research, 32, 25–52.
nature of constructively responsive reading. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum. Statistics Canada & OECD. (2005). Learning a living: First results of the
Pressley, M., Duke, N. K., Gaskins, I. W., Fingeret, L., Halladay, J., Hilden, Adult Literacy and Life Skills Survey. Paris: Organisation for Economic
K., et al. (2009). Working with struggling readers: Why we must get Co-operation and Development.
beyond the Simple View of Reading and visions of how it might be Stevens, R. J. (1988). Effects of strategy training on the identification of
done. In T. Gutkin & C. R. Reynolds (Eds.), The handbook of school the main idea of expository passages. Journal of Educational Psychol-
psychology (4th ed., pp. 522–546). Hoboken, NJ: Wiley. ogy, 80, 21–26.
Pressley, M., Gaskins, I. W., Solic, K., & Collins, S. (2006). A portrait Swanborn, M. S. L., & de Glopper, K. (1999). Incidental word learning
of Benchmark School: How a school produces high achievement in while reading: A meta-analysis. Review of Educational Research,
students who previously failed. Journal of Educational Psychology, 69, 261–285.
98, 282–306. Talbott, E., Lloyd, J. W., & Tankersley, M. (1994). Effects of reading
Pressley, M. (with Wharton-McDonald, R.). (2005). The need for increased comprehension interventions for students with learning disabilities.
comprehension instruction. In Reading instruction that works: The case Learning Disability Quarterly, 17, 223–232.
for balanced teaching (3rd ed., pp. 293–346). New York: Guilford. Taylor, B. M. (1982). Text structure and children’s comprehension and
Purcell-Gates, V., Duke, N. K., & Martineau, J. A. (2007). Learning to memory for expository material. Journal of Educational Psychology,
read and write genre-specific text: Roles of authentic experience and 74, 323–340.
explicit teaching. Reading Research Quarterly, 42, 8–45. Taylor, B. M., & Frye, B. J. (1992). Comprehension strategy instruction
RAND Reading Study Group. (2002). Reading for understanding: Toward in the intermediate grades. Reading Research and Instruction, 32,
an R&D program in reading comprehension. Santa Monica, CA: 39–48.
Rand Education. Williams, J. P., Hall, K. M., Lauer, K. D., Stafford, B., DeSisto, L. A., &
Raphael, T. E., & Pearson, P. D. (1985). Increasing students’ awareness of deCani, J. S. (2005). Expository text comprehension in the primary
sources of information for answering questions. American Educational grade classroom. Journal of Educational Psychology, 97, 538–550.
Research Journal, 22, 217–235. Williams, J. P., Nubla-Kung, A. M., Pollini, S., Stafford, B. K., Garcia, A.,
Reid, N. A., & Elley, W. B. (1991). Progressive Achievement Test of Read- & Snyder, A. E. (2007). Teaching cause-effect text structure through
ing Comprehension. Wellington: NZCER. social studies content to at-risk second graders. Journal of Learning
Reutzel, D. R., Smith, J. A., & Fawson, P. C. (2005). An evaluation of Disabilities, 40, 111–120.
two approaches for teaching reading comprehension strategies in Wong, B. Y. L., & Wilson, M. (1984). Investigating awareness of and
the primary years using science information texts. Early Childhood teaching passage organization in learning disabled children. Journal
Research Quarterly, 20, 276–305. of Learning Disabilities, 17, 477–482.
Riddle Buly, M., & Valencia, S. W. (2002). Below the bar: Profiles of
students who fail state reading assessments. Educational Evaluation
and Policy Analysis, 24, 213–239.
 32
Peer Mediation
A Means of Differentiating Classroom Instruction
DOUGLAS FUCHS, LYNN S. FUCHS
Vanderbilt University

ADINA SHAMIR
Bar Ilan University (Israel)

ERIC DION
University of Quebec at Montreal

LAURA M. SAENZ
University of Texas—Pan American

KRISTEN L. MCMASTER
University of Minnesota

Picture this: 34 children in an urban third-grade classroom, We (Fuchs, Fuchs, Mathes, & Simmons, 1996) wrote this
one third of whom live in poverty. Six live with grandpar- more than 10 years ago to describe the serious disconnect
ents, and three are in foster care. Five come from homes in in many communities between students’ diversity of lan-
which a language other than English is spoken; two children guages, cultures, experiences, and readiness to learn and
do not speak English at all. Seven, six, five, three, two, and the uniformity of classroom instruction. Educators in school
one are African American, Hispanic American, Korean, buildings, district offices, and universities recognize this
Russian, Haitian, and Chinese, respectively. Six are new to disconnect as an important, if not primary, cause of hun-
the school, and four will relocate to a different school next dreds of thousands of students’ poor learning. Many would
year. Only five of the 34 students are at or above grade level say that what Mr. Stasis’s class needs first and foremost is
in reading; 10 are two or more grade levels below. There is differentiated instruction.
a 5-grade spread in reading achievement. In addition, three For more than a decade, differentiated instruction has
students have been certified as learning disabled. One is been one of the “it” phrases in K–12 education. Teachers
severely mentally retarded, and another is deaf. According who differentiate their instruction have been described as
to the Department of Health and Human Services, the child leveraging knowledge about their students’ varying experi-
with mental retardation and two other students in the class ences, interests, learning styles, and readiness levels; con-
have been physically or sexually abused. veying information in multiple sensory modalities; grouping
The teacher of this imaginary but arguably representa- children flexibly; varying the pace of their instruction; and
tive (see Headden, 1995; Hodgkinson, 1991, 1995; Jenkins, assessing student learning with varied and balanced mea-
Jewell, Leicester, Jenkins, & Troutner, 1990; Natriello, sures and procedures (cf. Kapusnick & Hauslien, 2001;
McDill, & Pallas, 1990; Puma, Jones, Rock, & Fernandez, Tomlinson, 1999). Differentiated instruction has been ad-
1993) urban class is Mr. Stasis, who believes it is his job to vanced by some as a tested strategy for accelerating student
present information, his students’ job to listen and learn. His learning and for celebrating their diversity (e.g., Carolan
stand-and-deliver approach reflects the view that teaching & Guinn, 2007)—promoted even as a biological impera-
is a centralized and unidirectional phenomenon. Mr. Stasis tive. In this last regard, Tomlinson and Kalbfleisch (1998)
uses the texts in reading, mathematics, social studies, and wrote, “the amassed understandings about how the brain
science that were adopted by his district’s central office. works have added to our considerable research base on the
And, on orders from this office, his students get these books importance of … curriculum and instruction … responsive
regardless of their reading level and math skills. to individual learning needs” (p. 53).

362
 Peer Mediation 363

Enthusiasm for differentiated instruction notwithstand- teachers cannot produce the kind of learning demanded
ing, there is persuasive evidence that most classrooms are by the new reforms—not because they do not want to, but
bereft of it, a fact undiminished by the occasional descrip- because they don’t know how, and the systems in which
tion of exemplary instructors (cf. Pressley, Allington, they work do not support them in doing so” (p. 78; also see
Wharton-McDonald, Block, & Morrow, 2001). Baker and Leithwood, Leonard, & Sharratt,1998). Irrespective of why
Zigmond (1990), for example, conducted interviews and teachers typically do not provide differentiated instruction,
observations in reading and math classes in an elementary its absence clearly contributes to the school failure of many
school to explore whether teachers implement routine at-risk children. Findings from numerous studies docu-
adaptations (e.g., differentiating instruction by creating ment that many low-achieving children, including those
multiple reading groups to accommodate weak-to-strong with special needs, not only fail to obtain differentiated
readers at the start of the school year). The researchers instruction but receive less undifferentiated instruction and
found no evidence of routine adaptations. Rather, they re- practice than their more accomplished classmates (e.g.,
ported that teachers typically taught to large groups, using Delquadri, Greenwood, Whorton, Carta, & Hall, 1986;
lessons incorporating little or no differentiation based on Hall, Delquadri, Greenwood, & Thurston, 1982; Lesgold
student needs. McIntosh, Vaughn, Schumm, Haager, and & Resnick, 1982; McDermott & Aron, 1978; O’Sullivan,
Lee (1994) described similar results from their observa- Ysseldyke, Christenson, & Thurlow, 1990).
tions of 60 social studies and science classrooms across Helping teachers differentiate their instruction is surely
Grades 3 to 12. one of the most important and difficult challenges facing
L. Fuchs, Fuchs, and Bishop (1992) explored whether public schools in the 21st century. There are various reasons
general and special educators used specialized, not routin- for this. One is definitional, which is to say that “differenti-
ized, adaptations (i.e., instruction deliberately customized ated instruction” is often defined so broadly as to become
in response to an individual student’s difficulty). They ambiguous. Hall’s (2002) conceptualization is typical:
administered a Teacher Planning Questionnaire to 25 gen- “To differentiate instruction is to recognize students [vary
eral educators and 37 special educators whose responses in] background knowledge, readiness, language, [modes
reflected a view that individualized instruction and small- of learning], [and] interests…. The intent of differentiat-
group instruction were not important to their students’ ing instruction is to maximize each student’s growth…by
academic success—a result also found by Baker and Zig- meeting each student where he or she is, and assisting in
mond (1990), D. Fuchs, Fuchs, and Fernstrom (1993), D. the learning process.”
Fuchs, Roberts, Fuchs, and Bowers (1996), Peterson and Whereas Hall (2002) and others identify or promote vari-
Clark (1978), and Zigmond and Baker (1994). Others have ous components of differentiated instruction—components
expressed a different take on why educators often fail to that address instructional content, processes, and products—
differentiate instruction. This perspective sometimes begins there is no consensus on which components are necessary
with the fact, dramatized at the start of this chapter, that and sufficient. There is no agreed upon understanding of
many classroom teachers, especially those in large urban what exactly it is. Additionally, there is little evidence that
school districts, are faced with a considerable diversity anyone’s proposed components—alone or in combination—
of languages and cultures and a broad range of academic positively effect students’ academic achievement. Hall
performance. Peterson and Clark (1978), Brown and Saks remarks, “Based on [my] review…the ‘package’ itself [i.e.,
(1981, 1987), and Gerber and Semmel (1984) have written differentiated instruction] is lacking empirical validation.
that teachers typically react to this student heterogeneity by There is an acknowledged and decided gap in the literature
ignoring it; that is, by monitoring student performance in in this area and future research is warranted. [Nevertheless]
selective fashion, and by teaching to the more academically there [is] a generous number of testimonials and classroom
accomplished students. examples.…” Without a clear conception of the construct
According to Schumm and Vaughn and their colleagues, and an absence of research that connects specific and
teachers in Grades 3 through 12, whom they interviewed in replicable implementations to student achievement, it is
focus groups and observed in classrooms, are unresponsive impossible to provide classroom teachers with meaningful
to this student diversity because they believe themselves professional development and support.
lacking in necessary knowledge and skills (e.g., Schumm One promising approach is peer-mediated instruction,
& Vaughn, 1992; Schumm, Vaughn, Gordon, & Rothstein, whereby children work together to support each others’
1994). Further, say their teachers, even if they were more learning. The connection between peer-mediation and dif-
knowledgeable and skillful, providing differentiated instruc- ferentiated instruction is that peer-mediation represents an
tion would be nearly impossible because of inadequate important re-organization of the conventional classroom; an
resources for the necessary comprehensive and systematic alternative to the “sage-on-stage” and “stand-and-deliver”
monitoring of student performance. approach to learning and teaching; a decentralized learning
More recently, Tomlinson and Allan (2003) struck the environment. This decentralization provides teachers (and
very same note by quoting Darling-Hammond: “After a students-as-teachers) with opportunities for customizing
decade of reform, we have finally learned in hindsight what goals, activities, supports, and accountability that do not
should have been clear from the start: Most schools and exist in more conventional classrooms. Below we discuss
364 Douglas Fuchs, Lynn S. Fuchs, Adina Shamir, Eric Dion, Laura M. Saenz, and Kristen L. McMaster

several research-backed peer-mediated programs for the into a series of age- and capacity-adjusted statements and
elementary grades, emphasizing Peer-Assisted Learning questions directed at children’s learning experiences: Below
Strategies (PALS; e.g., Fuchs, Fuchs, Mathes, & Sim- is the transcript of a partial interaction between a media-
mons, 1997). Because most of these programs are explicit, tor (M; or tutor) and learner (L; or tutee) concerning math
they address the vagueness associated with many current computation. The mediator’s (tutor’s) use of MLE criteria
approaches to differentiated instruction; because they are are shown in parentheses.
scripted (or partially scripted), they speak to teachers who
complain they lack requisite knowledge; and because they Researcher: Which topic would you like to choose?
are inexpensive, they connect to teachers’ concerns that (Focusing on the problem)
they don’t have adequate resources. L: (Points at the screen.)
M: This is the 100 range (Meaning) Wow…good for you!
(Mediation of feelings of competence)
Peer-Mediated Approaches to Instruction
L: (Chooses a game.)
Broadly speaking, there have been two groups develop- M: 42 divided by 7?
ing peer-mediated approaches to teaching and learning: L: (Immediately states the answer and types it.)
a socio-cultural group and cognitive-behavioral group. M: Very good. (Mediation of feelings of competence)
Many in the socio-cultural group base their R&D on M: Press the block 6 times 8?
Vygotsky’s (1978) theorizing, which reflects a belief that L: That’s hard.
mastery of complex skills and the development of under- M: Do it like this: 8 plus 8 plus 8 plus… (Transcendence)
lying cognitive processes occur as a result of repeated L: 8 plus 8 is 16.
inteactions between novice and expert. The expert initially M: Think again before answering…16 plus 16?
compensates for the novices weaknesses by accomplishing (Regulation of behaviour)
parts of a task, but gradually pushes the novice toward L: That’s hard….
more autonomous and mature performance through a M: Check, how much is 10 plus 10?
series of scaffolded interactions. The cognitive-behavioral L: 20. Ah, the answer is 32.
group, as the term implies, taps either cognitive theories M: Good, you checked and succeeded. (Mediation of
(e.g., Palincsar & Brown, 1984) or Direct Instruction feelings of Competence).
principles (e.g., Carnine, Silbert, Kameenui, & Tarver, M: Now, 32 plus 16.
2004; Delquadri et al., 1986) or a combination of the two L: 45.
(e.g., Fuchs et al., 1997). M: Think again. (Regulation of behavior)
L: 46. (Types the answer. The computer’s response—
A Sociocultural Approach The Peer Mediation with think again).
Young Children (PYMC; Shamir & Tzuriel, 2002, 2004) M: Think about the rule. (Regulation of behavior)
program is based on Vygotsky’s (1929, 1962, 1978, 1981) L: 48. (Types the answer.)
sociocultural theory and Feuerstein’s “mediated learning M: Wow … It’s good you work according to the rules.
experience” (MLE) theory (Feuerstein, Rand, & Hoffman, (Mediation of feelings of competence)
1979). According to Vygotsky, learning takes place through M: Press the block. 7 times 7?
interactions between children and more competent persons, L: 49.
whether adults or peers. For Feuerstein, MLE helps children M: Good! You did it! (Mediation of feelings of
adapt previously learned principals and competencies to competence)
new circumstances and, in so doing, “children learn how M: 9 times 9?
to learn.” Although Feuerstein characterized MLE in terms L: 80 … 1 … (Types an answer.)
of 12 interaction-based criteria, only the first five have been M: Good!. 7 times 9? That’s like nine sevens.
proceduralized. They are: (a) focusing on the problem; (b) (Transcendence)
attaching meaning to the stimulus and its characteristics L: 7 times 9 is… (L is about to press the wrong answer.)
by labeling an object; (c) transcendence, or the application M: No! You have to think again; think how we did it
of acquired information to new knowledge domains by before. (Regulation of behaviour)
employing principles and procedures already learned; (d) L: Oops. (Types an answer.)
regulation of behavior through attempts to control responses M: Great! You solved it correctly. (Mediation of feelings
before, during, and after task performance or problem- of competence)
solving; and (e) mediation of feelings of competence by M: And 56 divided by 8?
providing positive feedback while explaining successful
performance. The PMYC program is delivered in heterogeneous class-
These criteria were used in the development of the rooms by means of cross-age tutoring; that is, involving an
PMYC program because they have been found in research older child as tutor and younger child as tutee. The program
to predict cognitive modifiability and self-regulation. In is conducted for 3 weeks, and is divided into 7 lessons, each
the PMYC program, the five MLE criteria were translated of which is constructed to include 3 basic components: (a)
 Peer Mediation 365

directly teaching MLE principles, (b) observing and dis- Mediation Instrument. The tutors also completed a Dynamic
cussing a film in which the principles are demonstrated, and Assessment Analogies Test.
(c) practicing peer mediation using multimedia and more When compared to controls, tutors with LD in the PMYC
conventional materials. The videotaped demonstrations group improved their mediation style, cognitive modifiabil-
are used to reinforce internalization of the peer-mediation ity and self-regulated learning and performance, expressed
principles. The multi-media and more conventional learning in improved scores on an analogies test across the pre-
aids include special computer programs, games, posters, intervention, adult mediation, and post-intervention phases
stickers with visual symbols of the principles, verbal slogans of the study. Findings demonstrate the contribution peer
and work sheets. The tutor’s experience with the MLE crite- tutoring can make when applied in academically-diverse
ria is structured by a metacognitive training process (Brown, general education classrooms. The fact that the tutors with
1987; Flavell, 1979) embedded in the PMYC program. The LD successfully participated in active peer-assisted learning
training is consequently meant to nurture metacognitive likewise lends support to the model’s relevance for children
knowledge about mental processes, task characteristics, with special needs.
and performance-oriented cognitive strategies; metacogni-
tive experience, or self-awareness and monitoring of one’s Cognitive-Behavioral Approaches
own mental processes; and metacognitive control of mental Reciprocal teaching. Palincsar and Brown’s (1984)
processes (self-regulation) directed at the construction and reciprocal teaching method is a small-group intervention
application of strategies appropriate for the completion of designed to improve low achievers’ reading comprehension.
learning tasks. In the course of the program, these processes Students read a passage of expository material, paragraph
are gradually internalized as integrated cognitive mecha- by paragraph. While reading, they learn and practice how
nisms to be activated during learning. to generate questions, summarize, clarify word meanings
The PMYC program, consequently, is designed to help and confusing text, and predict subsequent paragraphs. Vy-
tutors apply MLE criteria to their own learning experiences. gotsky’s influence may be seen equally clearly in Reciprocal
They are expected to achieve this by exercising associated Teaching as in the PMYC program. In the early stages of
skills in a peer-mediated context. In other words, participa- Reciprocal Teaching, the teacher models these strategies;
tion in the PMYC program and subsequent peer tutoring then students practice them on the next section of text as
promotes a cognitive reconstruction of the child’s meta- the teacher tailors feedback through modeling, coaching,
cognitive skills together with the MLE principles acquired hints, and explanations. The teacher also invites students to
during the PMYC program (for further details see Shamir react to peers’ statements by elaborating or commenting,
& Lazerovitz, 2007). Research has indicated positive effects suggesting other questions, requesting clarifications, and
of the PMYC program on tutors’ mediation style, cognitive helping to resolve misunderstandings. In the course of this
modifiability and self-regulated learning in general domains guided practice, the teacher gradually shifts responsibility
(Shamir & Tzuriel, 2002, 2004; Shamir, Tzuriel, & Guy, to the students for mediating discussions, as the teacher
2007; Shamir & Van der Aalsvoort, 2004; Tzuriel & Shamir, observes and helps as needed. At this point, sessions become
2007) as well as in specific domains such as math (Shamir, dialogues among students as they support each other and
Tzuriel, & Rozen, 2006). alternate between prompting the use of a strategy, apply-
Recently, the PMYC program was implemented with ing and verbalizing that strategy, and commenting on the
children with LD (Shamir & Lazerovitz 2007). On the application.
basis of previous studies, it was assumed that tutors with Palincsar and Brown (1986) have successfully popular-
LD, once exposed to the program and later peer tutoring, ized the notion that reading comprehension can and should
would demonstrate improved self-regulation and perfor- be taught explicitly, and they have developed an imaginative
mance. The tutors’ self-regulated learning was measured by and apparently effective means of doing so. At the same
modifications in their mediation style (process of tutoring) time, some concern has been expressed about Reciprocal
and capacity to benefit from adult mediation for analogical Teaching’s feasibility and usability. Its relatively complex
thinking (outcomes of tutoring). The study involved 162 and unfamiliar strategic comprehension strategies can be
pupils, demonstrating considerable diversity of academic difficult for teachers and students to master (Pressley, 1997),
needs: 81 (tutors) from Grade 5 and 81 (tutees) from Grade with the result that many low-achieving students may be
2. Tutors were chosen from classes of children with LD inconsistently involved (Hacker & Tenant, 2002). In addi-
as defined by the National Joint Committee on Learning tion, the program may be more appropriate for older than
Disabilities and adopted by Israel’s Ministry of Education younger elementary age children, where its effects are less
(Margalit, 2000). Tutees were randomly selected from clear (e.g., Rosenshine & Meister, 1994).
regular classes. Tutor and tutee pairs were assigned ran-
domly to either an experimental (PMYC) or control (No Cooperative Integrated Reading and Composi-
PMYC) group. (Control children, however, practiced peer tion (CIRC; e.g., Stevens, Madden, Slavin, & Farnish,
tutoring without experiencing the PMYC intervention.) 1987). Cooperative learning, according to Slavin (1994),
During the final tutoring session, the children’s interactions relies on teamwork with group rewards that are dependent on
were videotaped and later assessed with the Observation of a team score reflecting all members’ achievement. The team
366 Douglas Fuchs, Lynn S. Fuchs, Adina Shamir, Eric Dion, Laura M. Saenz, and Kristen L. McMaster

whose members obtain the highest average on individual Classwide Peer Tutoring (CWPT; e.g., Delquadri,
weekly quizzes is declared classroom “team of week.” The Greenwood, Whorton, Carta, & Hall, 1986). Organizing
idea is to encourage mutual helping among team-mates so students into same-age dyads is the instructional format ad-
that all learn. Student groups are deliberately heterogeneous opted by those who have explored peer-tutoring activities.
with high- and low-achievers (including students with LD), Delquadri and his colleagues have done much to validate
distributed evenly among them. A well-researched example this approach and generate interest in it—specifically, by
of cooperative learning programs is CIRC. their work on CWPT. They designed CWPT activities to
CIRC replaces all regular reading and composition facilitate rote learning (e.g., word spelling) by allowing
activities of second- to sixth-grade elementary classrooms students ample practice in a fast-paced, supportive context
(Stevens et al., 1987). It comes with its own materials, as with immediate corrective feedback (e.g., Delquadri et
well as detailed lesson plans for teachers. Each new reading al., 1986). At the beginning of each week, students in a
text is introduced to the class during a teacher-led activity, given classroom are paired randomly with a new partner
which is followed by peer-mediated activities, includ- and given lists of spelling words, simple mathematical
ing oral story reading and answering of comprehension problems and reading assignments from their basal text.
questions. For some of these activities, students work in For a few minutes each day, partners alternate roles of
pairs rather than in small groups. At the end of the cycle tutor and tutee, asking each other questions and reading
of activities, students take individual quizzes and teams aloud. The pair earns points for correct answers, reading
are rewarded if they meet the criterion. Text composition without errors, and correcting their mistakes. Each pair is
is also taught by the teacher and practiced by students assigned to one of two classroom teams and the points the
during a cycle of drafting and editing with feedback from pairs accumulate go to their team. A winner is declared
peers. Students accumulate points for their team by being each week. Points and teams are meant to serve only as
productive writers. motivation.
Several teams of investigators exploring the effectiveness A majority of teachers and students conduct these activi-
of CIRC have demonstrated positive results for students ties well enough to bring about notable improvement in
with and without disabilities (Slavin, Madden, & Leavey, basic skills mastery (Greenwood, Terry, Arreaga-Mayer,
1984; Stevens et al., 1987; Stevens, Slavin, & Farnish, & Finney, 1992). In the most ambitious study of the ef-
1991). Especially impressive are Stevens and Slavin’s fectiveness of CWPT, Greenwood, Delquadri, and Hall
(1995) results. In this study, teachers mainstreamed stu- (1989) randomly assigned first-grade classrooms to either
dents with LD and, with the help of their special education experimental or control conditions. Experimental students
colleagues, implemented CIRC for two consecutive school participated in CWPT activities from first to fourth grade.
years. At study’s end, students with LD in CIRC classes out- At the end of their fourth-grade year, experimental students
performed students with LD in non-CIRC classes on reading demonstrated superior reading, language, and mathemat-
comprehension, vocabulary, and basic writing skills. Similar ics scores on a standardized test. Furthermore, students in
results were obtained for non-disabled students. CWPT classes were less likely to have been given a high-
There is more to the story, however, about cooperative incidence disability label (e.g., LD or behavioral disorders;
learning and students with disabilities. McMaster and Greenwood, Terry, Utley, Montagna, & Walker, 1993).
Fuchs (2002) searched for published studies between 1990 The effectiveness of CWPT for mainstreamed students
and 2000, inclusive, whose authors’ examined effects of with disabilities has also been examined in multiple case
cooperative learning on the academic achievement of main- studies, with generally positive results (e.g., Sideridis et
streamed students with LD. Only studies that employed an al., 1997). A drawback of CWPT seems to be its focus on
experimental or quasi-experimental design were considered. basic skills. To be sure, repeated practice of basic skills with
Less than half of the studies meeting inclusion criteria immediate corrective feedback is essential for many low
reported statistically significant differences in favor of achievers and students with disabilities (e.g., Torgesen et
students with LD in cooperative learning classes. That is, in al., 1999). But such exclusive focus de-emphasizes higher-
a majority of studies, cooperative learning did not promote order skills (e.g., conceptual mathematical understanding),
the academic achievement of students with LD beyond what which may make CWPT seem somewhat non-aligned with
they would have achieved in business-as-usual classes. current curriculum reform (Gersten & Baker, 1998).
One explanation of these outcomes has focused on Peer-Assisted Learning Strategies (PALS), to which we
the inconsistent involvement of low achievers, including now turn, were developed with the goal of combining the
students with LD, in team activities. Low achievers are supportive, engaging, and practical dyadic format of CWPT
sometimes inadvertently or purposefully excluded from with some of the rich, challenging content of Reciprocal
these activities by other team members who ignore their Teaching and CIRC. If we had to place PALS and the
contributions or give them answers without explanations three cognitive-behavioral approaches just described on a
(Jenkins & O’Connor, 2003). One way to circumvent this continuum of “most opportunity” and “least opportunity”
exclusion is to reduce group size to two members, creating for differentiated instruction, we would locate Reciprocal
a situation in which paired students have little choice but Teaching towards “most”; PALS towards “least.” This is
to work together. because PALS is more strictly routinized; more directive in
 Peer Mediation 367

terms of permissible student action and language. And yet, implementation (see Fuchs, Fuchs, Mathes, & Simmons,
PALS still affords participants opportunity for modifying 2008, for the teacher manual).
instructional materials, activities, rewards, and expectations During PALS, like CWPT, every student in the class is
for performance. One dyad in a class of fourth graders, for paired; each pair includes a higher- and lower-performing
example, may include a student reading on a second grade student. The teacher determines pairs by first ranking stu-
level and, because of this, she and her partner are reading dents from strongest to weakest reader, then calculating a
text reflecting this skill level. Another pair in the same class, median split, and finally pairing the strongest reader from
however, may be reading at a fifth grade level. Because the top half of the rankings with the strongest reader from
the class is divided into multiple dyads, this variation in the bottom half and so on. Although tutoring roles are
instructional material can be accommodated. Because reciprocal, the higher-performing student reads first for
of the opportunity for this kind of general flexibility and each activity to serve as model for the lower-performing
modification of tasks, teachers have been able to include student. Both students read from material appropriate for
virtually all their students in PALS. the lower reader, which typically is literature selected by
PALS programs in reading have been developed and the teacher.
field-tested for preschool (D. Fuchs et al., 2004), kindergar- Pairs are assigned to one of two teams for which they
ten (D. Fuchs, Fuchs, Thompson, Al Otaiba, Yen, McMaster, earn points. Students give points to themselves for complet-
et al., 2001; D. Fuchs, Fuchs, Thompson, Al Otaiba, Yen, ing reading activities correctly and teachers award points
Yang, et al., 2001; D. Fuchs et al., 2002), first grade (D. to pairs who demonstrate good tutoring behavior. Each
Fuchs, Fuchs, Svenson, et al., 2001; D. Fuchs, Fuchs, Yen, pair keeps track of points on a consecutively numbered
et al., 2001), second through sixth grade (D. Fuchs, Fuchs, score card, which represents joint effort and achievement.
Mathes, & Martinez, 2002; Fuchs et al., 1996; D. Fuchs et Each time a student earns a point, the tutor slashes the next
al. 1997), and high school (L. S. Fuchs, Fuchs, & Kazdan, number. At the end of the week, each pair reports the last
1999). Following is a description of two of these reading number slashed as the pair’s total; the teacher sums each
programs: Grade 2–6 PALS and First-Grade PALS. team’s points; and the class applauds the winning team.
Every 4 weeks, the teacher creates new pairs and team
assignments. Thus, like CIRC, the motivational system
Grade 2–6 PALS: Overall Program Effects
combines competitive (team vs. team) and cooperative
In a series of quasi-experimental studies, Fuchs and col- (combined effort of the pair) structures.
leagues tested the contributions of various components The first activity in every PALS session is Partner Read-
of Grade 2–6 PALS. In one such study Simmons, Fuchs, ing. Each student reads connected text aloud for 5 minutes,
Fuchs, Pate, & Mathes (1994) determined that a relatively for a total of 10 minutes. The higher-performing student
complex set of peer-mediated activities supported greater reads first; the lower-performing student rereads the same
student learning than did a set of simpler CWPT peer- material. After both students read, the lower-performing
mediated activities. In the same study, they also found that student retells for 2 minutes the sequence of what occurred.
role reciprocity, where students of a pair serve as both tutor Students earn 1 point for each correctly read sentence and
and tutee in each session, promoted greater reading gains 10 points for the retell.
than a more static arrangement whereby tutors and tutees The second PALS activity, Paragraph Shrinking, was
did not exchange roles. Across several years, then, Fuchs inspired by Reciprocal Teaching. It is designed to develop
and associates frequently added and subtracted components comprehension through summarization and main idea
based on their relative effectiveness and feasibility, finally identification. Students read orally one paragraph at a
settling on a “package” they believed to boost reading per- time, stopping to identify its main idea. Tutors guide the
formance and which was perceived by teachers as practical identification of the main idea by asking readers to identify
for classrooms use. Below, we describe this PALS program who or what the paragraph is mainly about and the most
and two quasi-experimental investigations of its effective- important thing about the who or what. Readers put these
ness. The first was conducted with children whose primary two pieces of information together in 10 or fewer words.
language was English (Fuchs et al., 1996); the second, with For each summary, students earn 1 point for correctly
children with limited English proficiency (Saenz, Fuchs, & identifying who or what; 1 point for correctly stating the
Fuchs, 2005). most important thing about the who or what; and 1 point
for using no more than 10 words. Students continue to
The PALS Intervention Each week, teachers conduct monitor and correct reading errors, but points no longer are
three 35-minute PALS sessions as part of their allocated awarded for reading sentences correctly. After 5 minutes,
reading time, implementing PALS with all children in students switch roles.
their classes. Teachers begin the program by conducting The last activity is Prediction Relay. It extends Paragraph
seven lessons on how to implement PALS. Each of these Shrinking to larger chunks of text and requires students to
training lessons lasts 45 to 60 minutes and incorporates formulate and check predictions. Prediction Relay com-
teacher presentations, student recitation of information and prises five steps. The reader makes a prediction about what
application of principles, and teacher feedback on student will be learned on the next half page; reads the half page
368 Douglas Fuchs, Lynn S. Fuchs, Adina Shamir, Eric Dion, Laura M. Saenz, and Kristen L. McMaster

aloud while the tutor corrects reading errors; confirms or (2005) conducted a study paralleling the Fuchs et al. (1997)
disconfirms the prediction; and summarizes the main idea. investigation just described, with these important differ-
Students earn 1 point for each correct prediction; 1 point for ences. First, participants were 12 teachers in South Texas,
reading each half page; 1 point for accurately confirming working in schools that served a mostly LEP population.
each prediction; and 1 point for each summary component From each class, Saenz et al. sampled only students (n =
(identifying the who or what, what mainly happened, and 132) who were native Spanish speaking and who were
making the main idea statement in 10 words or less). After identified by their school district as LEP according to
5 minutes, students switch roles. Texas eligibility criteria. Second, in contrast to Fuchs et
al., Saenz et al. included high-achieving classmates (HA)
Effects on English-Proficient Students at Various Levels from each participating classroom so that 11 children were
of Achievement To study the effects of Grade 2–6 PALS pre- and post-tested from each class: 2 LD, 3 LA, 3 AA,
on English-proficient students at different achievement and 3 HA. PALS was implemented in English for 15 weeks
levels, Fuchs et al. (1997) assigned 12 schools, stratified on with strong fidelity.
academic achievement and family income, to experimental As with Fuchs et al. (1997), CRAB data supported PALS
(PALS) and control (No-PALS) groups. At Grades 2–6, 20 effectiveness. On CRAB questions answered correctly, for
teachers implemented PALS; 20 did not. PALS teachers im- example, PALS students outperformed No-PALS students,
plemented the treatment class-wide, but only three students and the effect sizes were large: 1.06 for LD, 0.86 for LA,
in each class were identified as study participants: one with 0.60 for AA, and 1.02 for HA (across student types, 1.02).
LD in reading, one low achiever never referred for special So, Saenz et al.’s findings extend those of prior work sup-
education (LA), and one average achiever (AA). Each of porting PALS by including both LEP students and students
these students was identified by the classroom teacher as who began their PALS participation reading better than
either typical of the children with LD or representative of their classmates (i.e., the HA students in PALS classrooms
LA and AA students in her class. All selected students spoke improved their reading comprehension in comparison to HA
English as their primary language. Each was tested with students in No-PALS classes). For those with interest in LEP
the Comprehensive Reading Assessment Battery (CRAB; children, also see McMaster, Kung, Han, and Cao (2008) for
Fuchs et al., 1997) before and after PALS implementation, an evaluation of the Kindergarten PALS program involving
which lasted 15 weeks. Fidelity data, collected 3 times dur- LEP children in the Minneapolis Public Schools.
ing classroom observations, indicated strong teacher and
student implementation. Teacher-completed instructional Across Both Efficacy Studies Across the Fuchs et al.
plan sheets revealed that PALS and No-PALS teachers al- (1997) and Saenz et al. (2005) studies, results demon-
located comparable time to reading instruction. strate the potential of PALS to enhance children’s reading
We analyzed student achievement data using treatment comprehension. The source, or “active ingredient,” of the
(PALS vs. No-PALS), trial (pretreatment testing vs. post- program’s apparent effectiveness may reside both in its
treatment testing), and student type (LD vs. LA vs. AA) as specific activities and in its overall organization. PALS-
factors. Treatment was a between-group factor and trial and related activities—taken from or inspired by Reciprocal
student type were within-group factors. Classroom was the Teaching, CIRC, and CWPT—encourage students to
unit of analysis. We found statistically significant treatment practice research-based strategies, which have been shown
by trial interactions on all CRAB scores. These interactions to strengthen reading comprehension when implemented
indicated that, compared to students in business-as-usual regularly on instructional-level text. With respect to orga-
No-PALS classrooms, PALS students grew more on read- nization, PALS organizes highly structured, reciprocal,
ing fluency, accuracy, and comprehension. Moreover, the one-to-one interaction, which (a) provides all students with
3-way interaction between treatment, trial, and student frequent opportunity to respond, (b) facilitates immediate
type was not statistically significant. So, PALS effects corrective feedback, (c) increases academic engaged time,
were not mediated by students’ initial achievement status. and (d) offers social support and encouragement, with all
Aggregated across the LD, LA, and AA students, effect students sharing the esteem associated with the tutoring
sizes were 0.22, 0.55, and 0.56, respectively, on the CRAB role. Moreover, with the PALS score-card system, students
words read correctly, CRAB questions answered correctly, work cooperatively with partners but compete in teams to
and CRAB maze blanks restored correctly. These effects earn points. We have often observed that this keeps stu-
compare favorably with more comprehensive and complex dents working in a focused, productive, and constructive
cooperative learning programs. As reported by Slavin manner.
(1994), the median effect size for 52 studies of coopera- Finally, PALS materials are concrete, specific, and user
tive learning treatments that lasted more than 4 weeks was friendly—important criteria if practices are to be imple-
0.32, a figure identical to the one reported by Rosenshine mented (see McLaughlin cited in Gersten, Vaughn, Deshler,
and Meister (l994) for Reciprocal Teaching. & Schiller, 1995). A comprehensive teacher manual guides
implementation; there is no need for teachers to develop
Effects on Students with Limited English Proficiency additional materials. Finally, PALS can complement most
(LEP) at Various Levels of Achievement Saenz et al. instructional approaches, including whole language as
 Peer Mediation 369

well as explicit phonics because it supplements, rather words” and reviews old “rocket words.” These words (e.g.,
than substitutes for, teachers’ ongoing reading practices. “playground,” “birthday party,” and “office”) were added
We know this because we have worked closely with many to First-Grade PALS stories to increase interest value. The
PALS teachers over the years, including strong advocates teacher reads the story as students follow on their lesson
of implicit approaches and others preferring more explicit sheets. The teacher emphasizes the importance of reading
strategies. quickly and correctly. Coaches then prompt their Readers
to read. Coaches use a correction procedure for oral read-
ing errors. When the story is completed, the Coach marks a
First-Grade PALS
happy face and five points. Partners switch roles and repeat
Over the past decade, Grade 2–6 PALS has been extended the activity. The story activity lasts 5 minutes. Coaches
downward to address the development of reading and pre- and Readers mark a star on a chart if they have read the
reading skills at preschool, kindergarten, and first grade (see story the number of times the teacher designates (never to
D. Fuchs & Fuchs, 2005, for a summary). First-Grade PALS exceed three times in one session). When all the stars on
parallels the organization of PALS at the higher grades, but the chart are marked, the student receives a bookmark and
its activities and content are different. a new chart.
After students have implemented Sounds & Words
Overview of First-Grade PALS All students in First- activities independently for 4 weeks, 10 minutes of Part-
Grade PALS classrooms are divided into pairs based on ner Reading is added. In Partner Reading, students apply
their rapid letter naming performance. A higher- and decoding skills and sight word knowledge to narrative text
lower-achieving student constitutes each pair. The higher- appropriate to their reading level. Teachers prepare students
performing student is always the Coach (tutor) first. When to participate in Partner Reading in two 20-minute sessions.
the pair completes an activity, the students switch roles The Coach reads the book’s title, pointing to each word.
and repeat the activity. Partners change every 4 weeks. Then the Reader reads the title, pointing to each word. The
In contrast to PALS in higher grades, First-Grade PALS Coach reads a page of the book, again pointing to each word.
sessions begin by the teacher conducting 5 minutes of The Reader then does the same on the same page. Partners
instruction: introducing new letter sounds and sight words proceed through the book in this manner, mark five points,
and leading students in segmenting and blending activities. and repeat the process, switching roles. Each book is read
Then, students participate in pairs in Sounds & Words and four times before the pair trades it for a new one. Partner
Partner Reading. Reading is conducted for 10 minutes per session.
The first Sounds & Words activity is letter-sound cor-
respondence, lasting 3 minutes. The Coach points to a let- PALS Effects on English- and French-Speaking Students
ter and prompts the Reader to say its sound. If the Reader of Varying Levels of Performance Previous work has in-
makes a mistake or does not know the sound of a letter, the dicated that First-Grade PALS promotes stronger gains than
Coach uses a correction procedure. When the Reader has business-as-usual reading instruction in decoding and word
said all of the sounds, the Coach marks a happy face on a recognition for LA students with and without disabilities
lesson sheet and five points on a point sheet. Partners then and average-achieving and high-achieving students in both
switch roles and repeat the activity. high-poverty Title I and middle-class schools (see Fuchs
The second Sounds & Words activity involves segment- & Fuchs, 2005, for a summary). More recently, Dion and
ing and blending the 8–10 words used during the teacher-di- colleagues (Dion, Borri-Anadon, Vanier, Potvin, & Roux,
rected instruction. The Coach prompts the Reader to sound 2005) developed a French version of First-Grade PALS
out a word, and then directs the Reader to “Say it fast.” The (“Apprendre a lire a deux”), and explored its importance
Reader responds by reading the word. If the Reader makes for boosting reading achievement among children in several
a mistake, the Coach uses a correction procedure. When the of Montreal’s lowest-income schools.
8–10 words have been segmented and blended, the Coach Dion, Roux, Landry, Fuchs, and Wehby (2007) randomly
marks a happy face on the lesson sheet and five points on assigned 58 first-grade classrooms to one of three study
the point sheet, and the partners switch roles and repeat the condition: controls, First-Grade PALS, or First-Grade PALS
activity. This task lasts 5 minutes. plus attention training. The attention training component
Sight word practice is the third Sounds & Words activity. was an adaptation of the Good Behavior Game, which
The Coach points to each word and prompts the Reader to teachers used every day during their reading instruction.
read it by saying, “What word.” If the Reader says the wrong Students in First-Grade PALS plus attention training classes
word, the Coach uses a correction procedure. The Coach were divided in two teams. Teachers reinforced attention
marks a happy face and five points. Partners then switch and penalized disruptions by adding or subtracting points
roles and repeat the task. Sight word practice is conducted to team total. End-of-first-grade outcomes (i.e., perfor-
for 4 minutes. mance on word recognition, decoding, and comprehension)
In the fourth Sounds & Words activity, students read were analyzed separately for low-achieving and average-
decodable words and sight words in First-Grade PALS short achieving students identified prior to treatment implemen-
stories. Beforehand, the teacher introduces new “rocket tation. Average-achieving students who participated in
370 Douglas Fuchs, Lynn S. Fuchs, Adina Shamir, Eric Dion, Laura M. Saenz, and Kristen L. McMaster

First-Grade PALS activities outperformed controls on all Second, in all the PALS studies just described, teach-
reading measures regardless of whether they also had the ers receive frequent on-site technical assistance, whereby
attention training; that is, attention training seemed to have research assistants observed teachers conduct PALS lessons
little value for these students. It appeared to have greater and helped them solve implementation problems. This, of
value for low-achieving students. These students in the course, provides opportunities for research staff to quickly
First-Grade PALS plus attention training group showed correct teachers’ misconceptions and ensure proper imple-
greater improvement in sight-word reading, decoding, mentation. Although study teachers consistently described
and reading comprehension than their counterparts in the PALS methods as practical, it remains unclear what level
control group and First-Grade PALS only group. Thus, it of technical support, if any, is required to guarantee accu-
appears attention training may be an important addition to rate implementation. An independent replication of PALS
First-Grade PALS activities for lower-performing young conducted by Vadasy, Jenkins, Antil, Phillips, and Pool
children in low-income schools. (1997) found that when teachers were given access to only
a teacher’s manual, few implemented it. And among those
who did, fewer did so with fidelity. Other independent PALS
What We Still Need to Know about Peer-Mediated
implementations, however, suggest that a 1-day workshop
Instruction
together with minimal ongoing encouragement may be
We have briefly described several approaches to peer- sufficient to ensure strong PALS implementation (e.g.,
mediated instruction. The PMYC program was highlighted Grimes, 1997; Raines, 1994). Several of us are currently
because we believe it is a viable alternative to perhaps funded by a grant from the Institute of Education Sciences
better known cognitive-behavioral approaches. We dis- to evaluate how much and what kind of technical assistance
cussed Reciprocal Teaching, CIRC, and CWPT because is required to scale up PALS in Nashville, South Texas, and
they are important and successful and, as mentioned, were Minneapolis-St. Paul (e.g., D. Fuchs, Saenz, McMaster,
a basis for the development of PALS. Despite the appar- et al., 2008; Kearns, Fuchs, Meyers, et al., in preparation;
ent effectiveness of these programs, peer mediation is an Stein, Berends, Fuchs, et al., 2008).
under-appreciated and still infrequently used approach to
differentiate and strengthen learning and teaching. This
References
is unfortunate for many obvious reasons, including that
numerous approaches to differentiated instruction are un- Al Otaiba, S., & Fuchs, D. (2003). Characteristics of children who are
validated and peer mediation is inexpensive and virtually unresponsive to early literacy instruction: A review of the literature.
Remedial and Special Education, 23(5), 300–316.
all schools should be able to afford it. Although we are Al Otaiba, S., & Fuchs, D. (2006). Who are the young children for whom
obviously bullish on it, we recognize, too, that important best practices in reading are ineffective? An experimental and longitu-
R&D remains. We express two caveats about PALS to dinal study. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 39(5), 414–431.
make this point. Baker, J. M., & Zigmond, N. (1990). Are regular education classes
equipped to accommodate students with learning disabilities? Ex-
First, the development of Grade 2–6 PALS in the 1990s
ceptional Children, 56, 515–526.
shows that, despite statistically significant and practically Brown, A. L. (1987). Metacognition, executive control, self-regulation and
important effects across low achievers with and without other more mysterious mechanisms. In F. E. Weinert & R. H. Kluwe
LD and average achievers, a small subset of children do not (Eds.), Metacognition, motivation and understanding (pp. 65–116).
profit. In the D. Fuchs et al. (1997) study, for example, 4 Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Brown, B. W., & Saks, D. H. (1981). The microeconomics of school-
of 20 of children with LD failed to make adequate growth.
ing. In D. C. Berliner (Ed.), Review of research in education (Vol.
These 4 children were the poorest readers among the 20, 9, pp. 217–254). Washington, DC: American Educational Research
and 3 of the 4 were also described by their teachers as Association.
often showing disruptive behavior. Clearly, some chil- Brown, B. W., & Saks, D. H. (1987). The microeconomics of the alloca-
dren require more intensive or different reading methods. tion of teachers’ time and student learning. Economics of Education
Review, 6, 319–332.
This underscores the importance of monitoring at-risk
Carnine, D. W., Silbert, J., Kame’enui, E. J., & Tarver, S. G. (2004). Direct
students’ reading progress throughout the school year to instruction reading (4th ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.
identify those who require program adjustments (L. Fuchs Carolan, J., & Guinn, A. (2007). Differentiation: Examining how mas-
& Fuchs, 1998b). In this regard, we support the relatively ter teachers weave differentiation into their daily practice can help
new policy of Responsiveness-To-Instruction (RTI), which, reluctant teachers take the plunge. Educational Leadership, 64(5),
44–47.
in principal, redefines general education as multiple levels
Delquadri, J. C., Greenwood, C. R., Whorton, D., Carta, J. J., & Hall,
of increasingly intensive prevention (cf. D. Fuchs, Fuchs, R. V. (1986). Classwide peer tutoring. Exceptional Children, 52(6),
& Vaughn, 2008; L. Fuchs & Fuchs, 1998). In addition, 535–561.
research is needed to examine the characteristics of these Dion, E., Borri-Anadon, C., Vanier, N., Potvin, M.-C., & Roux, C. (2005).
so-called treatment non-responders so that additional Apprendre à lire à deux. Manuel de l’enseignante et matériel de lecture.
[Apprendre à Lire à Deux Teachers’ Manual]. Unpublished manuscript,
methods, PALS or otherwise, can be developed to address
Université du Québec à Montréal, Montréal, Québec, Canada.
their educational needs (cf. Al Otaiba & Fuchs, 2003; Al Dion, É., Roux, C., Landry, D., Fuchs, D., & Wehby, J. (2007, July).
Otaiba & Fuchs, 2006; Duff et al.,2008; Nelson, Benner, Preventing reading disabilities among disadvantaged first-graders:
& Gonzalez, 2003). A two-pronged approach. Poster presented at the Fifteenth Annual
 Peer Mediation 371

Meeting of the Society for the Scientific Study of Reading, Prague, Fuchs, L. S., Fuchs, D., & Bishop, N. (1992). Teacher planning for students
Czech Republic. with learning disabilities: Differences between general and special
Duff, F. J., Fieldsend, E., Bowyer-Crane, C., Hulme, C., Smith, G., Gibbs, educators. Learning Disabilities Research & Practice, 7, 120–128.
S., et al. (2008). Reading and vocabulary intervention: Evaluation of Fuchs, L. S., Fuchs, D., & Kazdan, S. (1999). Effects of peer-assisted learn-
an instruction for children with poor response to reading intervention. ing strategies on high-school students with serious reading problems.
Unpublished manuscript. Remedial and Special Education, 20, 309–319.
Feuerstein, R., Rand, Y., & Hoffman M. B. (1979). The dynamic as- Gerber, M. M., & Semmel, M. I. (1984). Teacher as imperfect test:
sessment of retarded performers: The learning potential assessment Reconceptualizing the referral process. Educational Psychologist,
device, theory, instruments, and technique. Baltimore, MD: University 19(3), 137–148.
Park Press. Gersten, R., & Baker, S. (1998). Real world use of scientific concepts:
Flavell, J. H. (1979) Metacognition and cognitive monitoring: a new Integrating situated cognition with explicit instruction. Exceptional
area of cognitive developmental inquiry. American Psychologist, 34, Children, 65, 23–35.
906–911. Gersten, R., Vaughn, S., Deshler, D., & Schiller, E. (l995). What we know
Fuchs, D., & Fuchs, L. S. (2005). Peer-Assisted Learning Strategies: (and still don’t know) about utilizing research findings to improve prac-
Promoting word recognition, fluency, and reading comprehension in tice: Implications for special education. Unpublished manuscript.
young children. Journal of Special Education, 39(1), 34–44. Greenwood, C. R., Delquadri, J. C., & Hall, R. V. (1989). Longitudinal
Fuchs, D., Fuchs, L. S., Eaton, S., Young, T., Mock, D., & Dion, E. effects of classwide peer tutoring. Journal of Educational Psychology,
(2004). Hearing sounds in words: preschoolers helping preschoolers 81(3), 371–383.
in a downward extension of peer-assisted learning strategies. Paper Greenwood, C. R., Terry, B., Arreaga-Mayer, C., & Finney, R. (1992).
presented at the National Disabilities Association Annual Conference, The classwide peer tutoring program: Implementation factors mod-
Atlanta, GA. erating students’ achievement. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis,
Fuchs, D., Fuchs, L. S., & Fernstrom, P. (1993). A conservative approach 25, 101–116.
to special education reform: Mainstreaming through transenviron- Greenwood, C. R., Terry, B., Utley, C. A., Montagna, D., & Walker, D.
mental programming and curriculum-based measurement. American (1993). Achievement, placement, and services: Middle school ben-
Educational Research Journal, 30, 149–177. efits of classwide peer tutoring used at the elementary school. School
Fuchs, D., Fuchs, L. S., Mathes, P. G., & Martinez, E. A. (2002). Pre- Psychology Review, 22, 497–516.
liminary evidence on the social standing of students with learning Grimes, J. (1997). Implementing reading PALS in Iowa. [Unpublished
disabilities in PALS and NO-PALS classrooms. Learning Disabilities data]
Research & Practice, 17, 205–215. Hacker, D. J., & Tenant, A. (2002). Implementing reciprocal teaching
Fuchs. D., Fuchs, L. S., Mathes, P. G., & Simmons, D. C. (1996). Peer- in the classroom: Overcoming obstacles and making modifications.
assisted learning strategies: Reading methods for grades 2–6. Nash- Journal of Educational Psychology, 94(4), 699–718.
ville, TN: Vanderbilt University. Hall, T. (2002). Differentiated instruction. Wakefield, MA: National Center
Fuchs, D., Fuchs, L. S., Mathes, P. G., & Simmons, D. C. (1997). Peer- on Accessing the General Curriculum. Retrieved January, 13, 2009,
assisted learning strategies: Making classrooms more responsive to from http://www.cast.org/publications/ncac/ncac_diffinstruc.html
diversity. American Educational Research Journal, 34, 174–206. Hall, R. V., Delquadri, J. C., Greenwood, C. R., & Thurston, L. (1982). The
Fuchs, D., Fuchs, L.S., Simmons, D. C., & Mathes, P. G. (2008). Peer- importance of opportunity to respond in children’s academic success.
assisted learning strategies: Reading methods for grades 2–6. Nash- In E. Edgar, N. Haring, J. Jenkins, & C. Pious (Eds.), Mentally handi-
ville, TN: Vanderbilt University. capped children: Education and training (pp. 107–140). Baltimore,
Fuchs, D., Fuchs, L. S., Svenson, E., Yen, L., Thompson, A., McMaster, K. MD: University Park Press.
L., et al. (2001). Peer-assisted learning strategies: First grade reading. Jenkins, J. R., & O’Connor, R. (2003). Cooperative learning for students
Nashville, TN: Vanderbilt University. with learning disabilities: Evidence from experiments, observations,
Fuchs, D., Fuchs, L. S., Thompson, A., Al Otaiba, S., Yen, L., McMaster, and interviews. In L. Swanson, S. Graham, & K. Harris (Eds.), Hand-
K. L., et al. (2001). Peer assisted learning strategies: Kindergarten book of learning disabilities (pp. 417–430). New York: Guilford.
reading. Nashville, TN: Vanderbilt University. Kapusnick, R. A., & Hauslein, C. M. (2001). The ‘silver cup’ of differen-
Fuchs, D., Fuchs, L. S., Thompson, A., Al Otaiba, S., Yen, L., Yang, N. J., tiation. Kappa Delta Pi Record, 37, 156–159.
et al. (2001). Is reading important in reading-readiness programs? A Kearns, D., Fuchs, D., Meyers C. V., Berends, M., McMaster, K. L., Saenz,
randomized field trial with teachers as program implementers. Journal L., et al. (in preparation). Factors contributing to teachers’ sustained
of Educational Psychology, 93, 251–267. use of kindergarten peer-assisted learning strategies.
Fuchs, D., Fuchs, L. S., Thompson, A., Al Otaiba, S., Yen, L., Yang, N. Leithwood, K., Leonard, L., & Sharratt, L. (1998). Conditions fostering
J., et al. (2002). Exploring the importance of reading programs for organizational learning in schools. Education Administration Quar-
kindergartners with disabilities in mainstream classrooms. Exceptional terly, 34(2) 243–276.
Children, 55, 295–311. Lesgold, A. M., & Resnick, L. (1982). How reading difficulties develop:
Fuchs, D., Fuchs, L. S., & Vaughn, S. (2008). Response to intervention: A Perspectives from a longitudinal study. In J. Das, R. Mulcahy & A.
framework for reading educators. Newark, DE: International Reading Wall (Eds.), Theory and research in learning disabilities. New York:
Association. Plenum.
Fuchs, D., Fuchs, L. S., Yen, L., McMaster, K. L., Svenson, E., Yang, N. Margalit, M. (2000). Learning disabilities in the classroom: Educational
J., et al. (2001). Developing first-grade reading fluency through peer dilemmas of the new reality [in Hebrew]. Tel Aviv, Israel: The Mofet
mediation. Teaching Exceptional Children. 34, 90–93. Institute.
Fuchs, D., Roberts, P. H., Fuchs, L. S., & Bowers, J. (1996). Reintegrating McDermott, R. P., & Aron, J. (1978). Pirandello in the classroom: On the
students with learning disabilities into the mainstream: A two-year possibility of equal educational opportunity in American culture. In
study. Learning Disabilities Research & Practice, 11(4), 214–229. M. C. Reynolds (Ed.), Futures of education for exceptional students
Fuchs, D., Saenz, L., McMaster, K., Yen, L., Fuchs, L., Compton, D., et (pp. 41–64). Reston, VA: Council for Exceptional Children.
al. (2008). Scaling up an evidence-based reading program for kinder- McIntosh, R., Vaughn, S., Schumm, J. S., Haager, D., & Lee, O. (1994).
gartners. In L. Fuchs (Chair), Feasibility and effectiveness of early Observations of students with learning disabilities in general education
preventive reading interventions. Symposium presented at the Society classrooms. Exceptional Children, 60(3), 249–261.
for the Scientific Study of Reading conference, Asheville, NC. McMaster, K. N., & Fuchs, D. (2002). Effects of cooperative learning on
Fuchs, L. S., & Fuchs, D. (1998). Treatment validity: A unifying concept the academic achievement of students with learning disabilities: An
for reconceptualizing the identification of learning disabilities. Learn- update of Tateyama-Sniezek’s review. Learning Disabilities Research
ing Disabilities Research and Practice, 13, 204–219. and Practice, 17(2), 107–117.
372 Douglas Fuchs, Lynn S. Fuchs, Adina Shamir, Eric Dion, Laura M. Saenz, and Kristen L. McMaster

McMaster, K. L., Kung, S. H., Han, I., & Cao, M. (2008). Peer-Assisted Sideridis, G. D., Utley. C. A., Greenwood, C. R., Delquadri, J., Dawson,
Learning Strategies: A “tier 1” approach to promoting English learners’ H., Palmer, P., et al. (1997). Classwide peer tutoring: Effects on the
response to intervention. Exceptional Children, 74, 194–214. spelling performance and social interactions of students with mild
Nelson, R. J., Benner, G. J., & Gonzalez, J. (2003). Learner characteristics disabilities and their typical peers in an integrated instructional setting.
that influence the treatment effectiveness of early literacy interven- Journal of Behavioral Education, 7, 435–462.
tions: A meta-analytic review. Learning Disabilities Research and Simmons, D. C., Fuchs, D., Fuchs, L. S., Hodge, J. P., & Mathes, P. G.
Practice, 18, 255–267. (1994). Importance of instructional complexity and role reciprocity to
O’Sullivan, P. J., Ysseldyke, J. E., Christenson, S. L., & Thurlow, M. classwide peer tutoring. Learning Disabilities Research & Practice,
L. (1990). Mildly handicapped elementary students’ opportunity to 9, 203–212.
learn during reading instruction in mainstream and special education Slavin, R. E. (1994). Cooperative learning: Theory, research, & practice
settings. Reading Research Quarterly, 25, 131–146. (2nd ed.). Boston: Allyn & Bacon.
Palincsar, A. S., & Brown, A. L. (1984). Reciprocal teaching of compre- Slavin, R. E., Leavey, M. B., & Madden, N., A. (1984). Combining learn-
hension-fostering and comprehension-monitoring activities. Cognition ing and individualized instruction: Effects on student mathematics
and Instruction, 1, 117–175. achievement, attitudes, and behaviors. Elementary School Journal,
Palincsar, A. S, & Brown, A. L. (1986). Interactive teaching to promote 84, 409–422.
independent learning from text. Reading Teacher, 39, 771–777. Slavin, R. E., Madden, N. A., & Leavey, M. B. (1984). Effects of team
Peterson, P. L., & Clark, C. M. (1978). Teachers’ reports of their cognitive assisted individualization on the mathematics achievement of academi-
process during teaching. American Educational Research Journal, cally handicapped and nonhandicapped students. Journal of Educa-
15, 555–565. tional Psychology, 76, 813–819.
Pressley, M. (1997). Remarks on reading comprehension. Notes prepared Stein, M. L., Berends, M., Fuchs, D., McMaster, K., Saenz, L., Yen. L., et
for the Chesapeake Institute, Washington, DC. al. (2008). Scaling up an early reading program: Relationships among
Pressley, M., Allington, R. L., Wharton-McDonald, R., Block, C. C., & teacher support, fidelity of implementation, and student performance
Morrow, L. (2001). Learning to read: Lessons from exemplary first- across different sites and years. Educational Evaluation and Policy
grade classrooms. New York: Guilford. Analysis, 30(4), 368–388.
Raines, R. (l994). Implementing reading PALS in Bakersfield, CA. [Un- Stevens, R. J., Madden, N. A., Slavin, R. E., & Farnish, A. M. (1987).
published data] Cooperative integrated reading and composition: Two field experi-
Rosenshine, B., & Meister, C. (1994). Reciprocal teaching: A review of ments. Reading Research Quarterly, 22, 433–454.
research. Review of Educational Research, 64, 479–530. Stevens, R., & Slavin, R. (1995). The cooperative elementary school effects
Saenz, L. M., Fuchs, L. S., & Fuchs, D. (2005). Effects of peer-assisted on students’ achievement, attitudes, and social relations. American
learning strategies on English language learners with learning dis- Educational Research Journal, 32(2), 321–351.
abilities: A randomized controlled study. Exceptional Children, 71, Stevens, R. J., Slavin, R. E., & Farnish, A. M. (1991). The effects of
231–247. cooperative learning and direct instruction in reading comprehen-
Schumm, J. S., & Vaughn, S. (1992). Planning for mainstreamed special sion strategies on main idea identification. Journal of Educational
education students: Perceptions of general classroom teachers. Ex- Psychology, 83, 8–16.
ceptionality, 3(2), 81–98. Tomlinson, C. (1999). Mapping a route toward differentiated instruction.
Schumm, J. S., Vaughn, S., Gordon, J., & Rothstein, L. (1994). General Educational Leadership, 57(1), 12–16.
education teachers’ beliefs, skills, and practices in planning for main- Tomlinson, C., & Allan, S. D. (2003). Leadership for differentiating
streamed students with learning disabilities. Teacher Education and schools and classrooms. Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision
Special Education, 17, 22–37. and Curriculum Development.
Shamir, A., & Lazerovitz, T. (2007). A peer mediation intervention for Tomlinson, C. A., & Kalbfleisch, M. L. (1998). Teach me, teach my
scaffolding self-regulated learning among children with learning dis- brain: A call for differentiated classrooms. Educational Leadership,
abilities. European Journal of Special Needs Education. 56(3), 52–55.
Shamir, A., & Silvern, S. (2005). Effects of peer mediation with young Torgesen, J. K., Wagner, R. K., Rashotte, C. A., Lindamood, P., Rose,
children on autonomous behavior. Journal of Cognitive Education and E., Conway, T., et al. (1999). Preventing reading failure in young
Psychology, 5(2), 199–215. children with phonological processing disabilities: Group and indi-
Shamir, A., & Tzuriel, D. (2002). Peer mediation: A novel model for vidual responses to instruction. Journal of Educational Psychology,
development of mediation skills and cognitive modifiability of young 91, 579–593.
children. In W. Resing, W. Ruijssenaars, & D. Aalsvoort (Eds.), Tzuriel, D., & Shamir, A. (2007). The effects of peer mediation with
Learning potential assessment and cognitive training: Actual research young children (PMYC) on children’s cognitive modifiability. British
perspectives in theory building and methodology (pp. 363–373). New Journal of Educational Psychology.
York: JAI Press/Elsevier. Vadasy, P. F., Jenkins, J. R., Antil, L. R., Phillips, N. B., & Pool, K. (1997).
Shamir, A., & Tzuriel, D. (2004). Characteristics of children’s mediational The research to practice ball game: Classwide peer tutoring and teacher
teaching style as a function of intervention for cross-age peer mediation interest, implementation, and modifications. Remedial and Special
with computers. School Psychology International, 25(1), 59–78. Education, 18, 143–156.
Shamir, A., Tzuriel, D., & Guy, R. (2007) Computer-supported collab- Vygotsky, L. S. (1929). The problem of the cultural development of the
orative learning: cognitive effects of intervention for peer mediation child. Journal of Genetic Psychology, 36, 415–434.
tutoring. Peer-assisted learning: state of the art as we turn towards the Vygotsky, L. S. (1962). Thought and language. Cambridge, MA: MIT
future [Special issue]. Journal of Cognitive Educational Psychology, Press.
6, 433–455. Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). Mind in society: The development of higher psy-
Shamir, A., Tzuriel, D., & Rozen, M (2006). Peer mediation: The effects chological process. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
of program intervention, math level, and verbal ability on mediation Vygotsky, L. S. (1981). The genesis of higher mental functions. In J.
style and improvement in math problem solving. School Psychology V. Wertsch (Ed.). The concept of activity in Soviet psychology (pp.
International, 27(2), 209–231. 144–188). Armonk, NY: Sharpe.
Shamir, A., & Van der Aalsvoort, G. (2004). Children’s mediational Zigmond, N., & Baker, J. (1994). Is the mainstream a more appropri-
teaching style and cognitive modifiability: A comparison between ate educational setting for Randy? A case study of one student with
first and third graders in Holland and Israel. Educational Practice and learning disabilities. Learning Disabilities Research & Practice,
Theory, 26(2), 61–85. 9(2), 108–117.
 33
Reading Instruction Research for English-Language
Learners in Kindergarten through Sixth Grade
The Last Twenty Years
STEVE AMENDUM
North Carolina State University

JILL FITZGERALD
The University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill

Researchers and practitioners alike understand the central to support English learning, supporting vocabulary develop-
importance, promise, and challenge of facilitating literacy ment, or appraising oral language and content knowledge
learning for English-language learners. Undeniably, read- separately (cf. Goldenberg, 2008). Researchers continue to
ing education for English-language learners has gained consider effects of culturally accommodated instruction,
prominent attention in both policy and practice (cf. August and the debate over the comparative benefits of bilingual
& Shanahan, 2006; Slavin & Cheung, 2005). In February of versus English-only instruction persists. Perhaps among the
2008 the International Reading Association released its 12th most pressing practitioner concerns is the need for enhanced
annual list of “what’s hot?” in the literacy field. Twenty- understanding of how teachers’ interactions with English-
five nationally known literacy leaders rated English-as-a- language learners during reading instruction impact their
second-language/English-language learners as one of nine reading development and achievement.
“very hot” topics in the literacy field. In the present review, we specifically focused on research
In recent decades the number of English-language learn- involving teacher action or teacher-student interaction dur-
ers attending schools in the United States has increased ing reading instruction. We defined English-language learn-
significantly. For example, between the 1990–1991 and ers as individuals from homes where a language other than
2000–2001 school years the percentage of English-language English was actively used and who had an opportunity to
learners increased by 105% (Kindler, 2002), while during learn a language other than English (cf. August & Shanahan,
same period total school enrollment increased by only 12%. 2006). Our goal in writing the present chapter has been to
More and more, English-language learners spend most or all document, interpret, and critique research on United States
of their school day in general education classrooms (General and Canadian kindergarten through sixth-grade reading in-
Accounting Office, 2001; Thomas & Collier, 2002). Ap- struction for English-language learners published between
proximately 43% of all teachers have at least one English- January 1st, 1987, and December 31st, 2007.
language learner in their class (Zehler et al., 2003).
The significant English-language learner and bilingual
Methods for the Review
student presence in United States schools has given rise to
an ever-widening set of reading education issues. Recent Keywords in searches were: English-language learner
research has supported some contentions related to English- reading instruction, English-learner reading instruction,
language learner English literacy teaching and learning: English-as-a-second-language reading instruction, L2
teaching and learning in the home language positively (a common abbreviation for second language) reading
impacts English reading achievement; literacy abilities can instruction, bilingual reading instruction, limited-English
transfer across languages; and explicit teaching in phonemic proficient reading, Latino reading instruction, Hispanic
awareness, phonics, vocabulary, comprehension, and writ- reading instruction, Spanish reading instruction, and various
ing can benefit English-language learners as well as native combinations of the preceding, also combined with special
English speakers (cf. Goldenberg, 2008). At the same time education and learning disabilities. ERIC (for published
we continue to be faced with many challenges. For instance, research only) and PsychInfo databases were searched, and
little is known about best avenues for: using home language as articles were retrieved and read, reference lists contained

373
374 Steve Amendum and Jill Fitzgerald

in them were sources for additional articles. Given the need we found none that met our criteria for inclusion. In a few
to restrict the focus of our review, we decided that we would cases, authors referenced the participants as at risk, but they
review research reported only in peer-refereed journal were not referencing a special education label.
articles on reading instruction. We excluded research on We use the following organizational structure for each
tutoring or commercial programs. category of studies in the present section. First, in one sub-
Methodological standards for inclusion were as follows. section we provide study particulars including the number
For experiments or quasi-experiments, a control or com- of studies in the category, the number of participants in
parison group, or normative data had to be included. Where the studies, the study methodologies, and the theoretical
comparison groups were used, at least four subjects had bases for the studies. In a second subsection we provide
to be present. For quasi-experiments, outcomes of interest information about the instructional content, describing what
had to be pretested (with the exception of regression dis- teachers and students did during their actions/interactions,
continuity designs). Samples in correlational studies had to and we synthesize the main finding(s) across studies to
have at least 20 participants. Criteria for rigor in qualitative the extent possible. In addition, we provide further study
studies were dependent on the particular paradigm used. In details in Table 33.1. It is possible that study outcomes
general, qualitative research reports had to include: meth- were affected by selected features of the studies, such as
odological detail (e.g., an audit trail); revelation of multiple the degree of native-to-new language linguistic differences,
perspectives; researcher reflectivity; documentation that participant situations such as whether they were immigrants
alternative explanations were addressed; primary data, immersed in new language culture, and/or the extent of
quotes, stories, and/or the like; conclusions that reflected knowledge about and experience with both native and new
evidence of learning from the study rather than having language. At the same time, it is likely that much can be
the study validate the author(s)’ prior beliefs; and discus- learned about multilingual reading by considering research
sion of how what was learned from the study related to a that is broadly situated. Therefore, as we conducted the
wider discourse (cf. G. Noblit, personal communication, work of the current review, we were mindful of the pos-
January 18, 2004). sible impact of diverse situations within which the research
The chapter is divided into three major sections. In the was conducted while drawing conclusions across studies.
first section, Results of the Review, in five categories, we Readers of this review might also find it helpful to keep
portray research findings from the 26 studies that met our the research situations in mind, and referring to Table 33.1
criteria for inclusion. In the second section, we provide cri- might assist in this regard.
tique and recommendations for future theory development
and research. Implications for classroom practice follow How Might English-Language Learner Reading Develop-
in the third section. ment Be Described in the Context of Particular Forms of
Reading Instruction?
Study particulars and theoretical grounding. Eight
Results of the Review
sets of researchers addressed English-language learner
Twenty-six studies met our criteria for inclusion. Re- English-reading development over time in the context of
searchers addressed questions that fell into five broad classroom reading instruction, such as conduct of “whole
categories. One set of researchers examined English- language” or “balanced reading.” Although the investiga-
language learner reading development in the context of tors in the present group of studies included teacher-student
particular forms of reading instruction. Another set of interaction during reading instruction, the studies in the
studies focused on whether instruction in specific reading present category were not “intervention” studies. Rather
subprocesses impacted English-language-learner reading the main goal of the studies was to examine children’s
in those subprocesses. A third set focused on the impact of reading development over time. On the whole, but not in
simultaneous instruction in multiple reading subprocesses every case, the instructional context for such examination
on learning the collective subprocesses. A fourth set high- was secondary.
lighted instructional issues teachers should consider other Half of the studies were set in kindergarten or first
than reading subprocess instruction for English-language grade, and half were in grades three through five. Seven
learners. Finally, we provide a fifth category of studies— of the studies had small numbers of participants—from 2
“Other”—which includes studies that were unrelated to to 20. One (D’Anguilli, Siegel, & Maggi, 2004) included
the preceding ones and which did not form a particular 1,108 students.
category on their own. Spanish was the English-language learners’ native lan-
As our chapter is appearing in the Handbook of Reading guage in six of the studies (Fitzgerald & Noblit, 1999, 2000;
Disability Research, we think it important to especially Kucer, 1999; Kucer & Silva, 1999; Neufeld & Fitzgerald,
note here that in spite of an intensive search of the litera- 2001; Pérez, 1994); two of those six studies (Fitzgerald
ture for studies in which researchers addressed instruction & Noblit, 1999, 2000) also included a student whose na-
for English-language learners who were taught in special tive language was Tarascan Indian; Portuguese was the
education settings and/or were labeled with a special edu- native language in one study (Aarujo, 2002), and native
cation label, such as a reading disability label, remarkably, language(s) was/were not provided in one study (D’Anguilli
TABLE 33.1
Selected Information for Reports
Author(s) Grade/Age (N) Label (Country/Native English-Language Proficiency Reading Measures (Reliability estimate) or Data Sources Methodology
Language) Level
Development within the Context of Reading Instruction
Araujo, L. K (20), 1 classroom ESL (Portugal, Brazil/ 7.4 out of 26 possible pts. on “Artifacts” such as report cards, “test scores,” “workbook sheets” Descriptive
(2002) Portugese) Language Assessment Battery
(NY Public Schools, no reference
provided)
D’Anguilli, K, followed through 5th (1,108, ELL (Not provided) Not provided Wide Range Achievement Test—3 (Wilkinson, 1993) Descriptive,
Siegel, &Maggi N for ELL and for native-English gradient and
(2004) speakers not provided) in 30 growth mixture
schools model trajectory
analysis
Fitzgerald & 1st (2), 1 classroom ELL (Mexico, Spanish At study onset, “limited English” Informal measures of alphabet name and phonics knowledge Descriptive, case
Noblit (1999) for 1; Tarascan Indian and on 5 measures Slosson Oral Reading Test (Slosson, 1963) (.99 test-retest) analysis
Spanish for the 2nd) San Diego Quick Test (LaPray & Ross, 1986) (.72)
Running records (see Clay, 1993) using Ekwall’s (1986) passages
and Bader and Weisendanger’s (1994) (.92 for identifying
miscues, .92 for determining instructional level, .90–.97 for
determining percentages of meaning, syntax, visual, and self-
correction miscues)
Peabody Picture Vocabulary Test-Revised (Dunn & Dunn, 1981)
(.77)
Fitzgerald & 1st (20, of which 11 were ENL), 1 ENL (Mexico, Columbia, 5 “non-English-speaking,” 5 Same as Fitzgerald & Noblit, 1999 Descriptive
Noblit (2000) classroom El Salvador, Guatemala, “limited-English,” 1 “fluent
Nicaragua; Spanish for 10, English” on the ITPI (Dalton et al.,
Tarascan Indian for 1) 1991)
Kucer, 1999 3rd (2), 1 classroom Bilingual (Mexico, “Fluent” English (no measure Oral reading, miscue analysis using story selections Descriptive
Spanish) cited)
Kucer & Silva, 3rd (26), 1 classroom Bilingual (Mexico, Scored 3 or better on scale of Oral reading, miscue analysis, and retelling of a story Descriptive, pre-
1999 Spanish) 1=least English proficient, and post statistical
5=most proficient, on Bilingual analyses
syntax Measure II Test (Burt et al.,
1978)
Neufeld & 1st (3), 1 classroom ELL (Mexico, Spanish) 1 “non-English-speaking,” 2 Same as Fitzgerald & Noblit, 1999 Descriptive, case
Fitzgerald, 2001 “limited-English” on the ITPI analysis
(Dalton et al., 1991)
Pérez, 1994 K (4), 1st (6), 2nd (6), 4th (4), 4 Bilingual (Not provided, Not provided. All students were Oral reading during reading lessons, miscue analysis Descriptive
bilingual classrooms Spanish) “Spanish dominant” (Language
Assessment Scale, reference not
provided)
(continued)
TABLE 33.1
Continued
Author(s) Grade/Age (N) Label (Country/Native English-Language Proficiency Reading Measures (Reliability estimate) or Data Sources Methodology
Language) Level

Instruction in Specific Reading Subprocesses

Carlo et al. 5th; 254 bilingual and Bilingual (Not provided) Not provided PPVT-R (Dunn & Dunn, 1981) (not provided) Quasi-
(2004), monolingual children (142 ELLs, Polysemy production (α=.64) experimental
112 EOs), (intervention: 94 ELLs, Cloze Task (α=.73)
75 EOs, comparison: 48 ELLs, 37 Word Association (.94)
EOs); 9 bilingual or mainstream Morphology (.94)
classes in 4 schools
Kucer (1992) 3rd (6 students, 1 teacher) Bilingual (Not provided; Two “fairly” proficient, two Videotaped observations of modified cloze reading lessons Descriptive
bilingual, biliterate “somewhat” proficient, two Field notes of the observed lessons Literacy artifacts
Columbian teacher) “nonproficient” Interviews with both the teacher and her students
Pollard- K (43) from 2 classrooms, 2 Not reported for students; Not reported Videotaped reading lessons coded with Elements of Word Descriptive, case
Durodola, teachers Teachers were bilingual Identification Instruction (EWII; Denton, Mathes, & Anthony, analysis
Cedillo, & Spanish-English 2002; interrater reliabilities 83%, 82%, 63%, 74% for
Denton (2004) instructional strategies, linguistic units, for teacher one and two,
respectively)
Semi-structured teacher interviews
Word Attack subtest from Woodcock Language Proficiency
Battery-Revised Spanish Form (Woodcock, 1991) (not reported)
Saunders & 4th, 5th; 116 students from 5 Not reported Fluent-English proficient (52), Researcher designed: Experimental
Goldenberg classrooms Limited-English proficient (64) Factual Comprehension (interrater reliability, 96.5%)
(1999) Interpretive Comprehension (interrater reliability, 88%)
Theme-Explanation Essay (interrater reliability, 81%)
Theme-Exemplification Essay (interrater reliability, 79%)
Silverman K; 72 students and 5 teachers (44 English Language Learners Not provided Test of Language Development (TOLD) (Newcomer & Hammill, Quasi-
(2007) EOs; 28 ELLs) in 3 mainstream (13% spoke an East Asian 1997) (not reported) Experimental
English classrooms, 1 structured language, 10% spoke Researcher Vocabulary Assessment (interrater reliability, .95)
immersion classroom, 1 Spanish- Spanish, 7% spoke Creole, Observation Survey (Clay, 2002) (not reported)
English bilingual classroom 9% spoke other languages)
Simultaneous Instruction in Multiple Reading Subprocesses
Linan- Kindergarten; 128 students (70 Not labeled except for Not reported Tejas Lee (Texas Education Agency, 2000). Constructs assessed Quasi-
Thompson, experimental, 58 control) “at-risk” (all Spanish- were print knowledge, phonological awareness, word experimental
Bryant, Dickson, speaking) recognition, letter knowledge, and listening comprehension
& Kouzekanani (.78–.91 for subtests)
(2005) Rapid Spelling Text (Tindal & Marston, 1990) (not reported)
Vaughn et al, Grade 1; 91 ELL students Not labeled except for “at- Not reported All measures were administered in both English and Spanish Experimental
(2006) assigned to English intervention risk” (all Hispanic English- Letter Naming (α=.94–.97)
(43 treatment, 48 comparison), language learners) Letter Sound Identification (α=.90–.95)
and 80 ELL students assigned Seven subtests (Elision, Blending Words, Blending Non-words,
to Spanish intervention (35 Segmenting Words, Sound Matching, Nonword Repetition,
treatment, 45 comparison) Rapid Letter Naming) from the Comprehensive Test of
Phonological Processing (CTOPP; Wagner, Torgesen &
Rashotte, 1999) (median α=.83; α=.70–.93 for subtests)
Seven subtests (same as CTOPP) from the Test of Phonological
Processing—Spanish (TOPP-S) (α=.93–.97 for subtests)
Six subtests (Letter Word Identification, Word Attack, Passage
Comprehension, Listening Comprehension, Picture Vocabulary,
Verbal Analogies) from the Woodcock Language Proficiency
Battery—Revised: English and Spanish Forms (Woodcock,
1991; Woodcock & Munoz-Sandoval, 1995) (for English Form,
median α=.89, α=.77–.95 for subtests; for Spanish form, median
α=.89, α=.68–.95 for subtests)
Dynamic Indicators of Basic Early Literacy Skills fluency
(DIBELS; Good & Kaminski, 2002)/Indicadores Dinámicos del
Exito en la Lectura fluency (Good, Bank, & Watson, 2003) (.97,
correlation between English and Spanish passage)
Word Reading Efficiency subtest from Test of Word Reading
Efficiency (Torgesen, Wagner, & Rashotte, 1999) (.83–.93 for
English, test/retest; .90–.94 for Spanish, test/retest) Spelling
(α=.88–.93)
Vaughn et al, Grade 1; 64 students (31 Not labeled except for Not reported Letter Naming (not reported) Experimental
(2006) experimental, 33 control) “at-risk” (all Spanish- Letter Sound Identification (not reported)
speaking) Seven subtests (Elision, Blending Words, Blending Non-words,
Segmenting Words, Sound Matching, Nonword Repetition,
Rapid Letter Naming) from the Comprehensive Test of
Phonological Processing (CTOPP; Wagner, Torgesen &
Rashotte, 1999) (median α=.83; α=.70–.93 for subtests) Seven
subtests (same as CTOPP) from the Test of Phonological
Processing—Spanish (TOPP-S) (α=.93–.97 for subtests) Six
subtests (Letter Word Identification, Word Attack, Passage
Comprehension, Listening Comprehension, Picture Vocabulary,
Verbal Analogies) from the Woodcock Language Proficiency
Battery—Revised: English and Spanish Forms (Woodcock,
1991; Woodcock & Munoz-Sandoval, 1995) (for English Form,
median α=.89, α=.77–.95 for subtests; for Spanish form, median
α=.89, α=.68–.95 for subtests) Dynamic Indicators of Basic
Early Literacy Skills fluency (DIBELS; Good & Kaminski,
2002)/Indicadores Dinámicos del Exito en la Lectura fluency
(Good et al., 2003) (Not reported)
(continued)
TABLE 33.1
Continued
Author(s) Grade/Age (N) Label (Country/Native English-Language Proficiency Reading Measures (Reliability estimate) or Data Sources Methodology
Language) Level
Vaughn et al. Grade 1; 41 ELL students (22 Not Labeled except for “at- Not reported Letter Naming (α=.94–.97) Experimental
(2006) intervention; 19 contrast) risk” (all Hispanic English- Letter Sound Identification (α=.90–.95)
language learners) Seven subtests (Elision, Blending Words, Blending Non-words,
Segmenting Words, Sound Matching, Nonword Repetition,
Rapid Letter Naming) from the Comprehensive Test of
Phonological Processing (CTOPP; Wagner, Torgesen &
Rashotte, 1999) (median α=.83; α=.70–.93 for subtests)
Seven subtests (same as CTOPP) from the Test of Phonological
Processing—Spanish (TOPP-S) (α=.93–.97 for subtests)
Six subtests (Letter Word Identification, Word Attack, Passage
Comprehension, Listening Comprehension, Picture Vocabulary,
Verbal Analogies) from the Woodcock Language Proficiency
Battery—Revised: English and Spanish Forms (Woodcock,
1991; Woodcock & Munoz-Sandoval, 1995) (for English Form,
median α=.89, α=.77–.95 for subtests; for Spanish form, median
α=.89, α=.68–.95 for subtests)
Dynamic Indicators of Basic Early Literacy Skills fluency
(DIBELS; Good & Kaminski, 2002)/Indicadores Dinámicos del
Exito en la Lectura fluency (Good et al.,2003) (.97, correlation
between English and Spanish passage)
Instructional Issues Teachers Should Consider
Gersten (1996) Grade 3; 27 teachers who taught 8 bilingual teachers, 19 Not reported Observations of reading/language arts instruction Descriptive
language minority students English-only teachers Interviews with teachers, administrators, and other school
personnel
Gersten (1999) Grades 4, 5, 6; four teachers who Not reported Not reported Observations of reading lessons Descriptive
were relatively inexperienced Multiple interviews with each teacher
working with ELLs
Gersten & Grades 3, 4, 5; three teachers Not reported Not reported Observations of classroom instruction Descriptive
Jiménez (1994) Interviews with the teachers
Jiménez & Grades 4–6; two teachers: one in Students in both Not reported Classroom observations Descriptive
Gersten (1999) a 4th/5th transition classroom, classrooms were Latino/a, Multiple interviews with each teachers
and one in a 5th/6th bilingual of Mexican descent; both
classroom teachers were bilingual, of
Mexican descent
Padrón & Grades 4, 5 from 3 schools; 126 Not reported Not reported Surveys of students’ perceptions of their classroom learning Descriptive
Waxman (1999) students surveyed, 117 students environment
and 15 teachers observed Classroom observations of teachers’ use of five standards during
literacy instruction
Classroom observations of students’ behavior during literacy
instruction
Other Studies
Graves, Gersten, Grade 1; (186), 3 schools, 14 English learners (Unclear/ Not provided Dynamic Indicators of basic early literacy skills, Oral reading Correlational,
& Haager classrooms English, Cambodian, fluency (6th ed.) (Good & Kaminski, 2002) (Not provided) with descriptive
(2004) Cantonese, French, Observations of teachers’ instruction, resulting in a score for teacher profiles
Hmong, Lao, Somali, the teachers’ instructional effectiveness (1 = not effective, to 4
Spanish, Sudanese, = very effective) (internal consistency median subscale alpha
Tagalog, Vietnamese) = .89 and subscale range = .80 to .95, median inter-observer
agreement on item-by-item basis = 74%, range not given,
criterion-related validity median coefficient = .60, with range =
.49 to .65)
Koskinen et al. Grade 1; 162 students (105 ELL, English-as-a- Using the PRE-Language Clay’s Oral Reading Assessment (.83, cited in Clay, 1993) Quasi-
(2000) 57 EO) and 16 teachers second-language. Assessment Scale (PRE-LAS): 44 Clay’s Writing Vocabulary Assessment (.88, interrater) experimental
Primary languages proficient, 61 eligible for language Oral Story Retelling Assessment (.94, interrater)
for communication: support services Me and My Reading Scale (.68, test/retest)
English (65), Spanish Teacher Survey of Child Behavior (α=.89)
(46), Vietnamese (23), Individual Child Interview Parent Survey (α=.64)
Korean (5), Amharic (4), Teacher Questionnaire/ Interview
Cantonese (4), Urdu (3),
Arabic (2), Somali (2),
Turkish (2), other (6)
Padrón (1994) Grades 4 and 5; 166 students (90 Hispanic/LEP schools Not reported Observations of teachers and students coded with the Classroom Descriptive,
from Hispanic/LEP schools, 76 were mostly Hispanic Observation Schedule (COS; Waxman, Wang, Lindvall, & statistical
from Other Inner-City schools), (96.5%) and had many Anderson, 1988) and the Teacher Roles Observation Schedule analyses
and 47 teachers from 15 schools LEP students (50.3%); (TROS; Waxman, Wang, Lindvall, & Anderson, 1983b) (.94 and
(8 Hispanic/LEP, 7 Other Inner- Other Inner-City schools .96, respectively; interrater)
City) had 29.7% Hispanic,
38.1% African-American,
26.3% White, and 6%
other and a smaller number
(17.9%) LEP students
Yoon (2007) Grade 6; 4 ELL students and 2 English-language learners Not reported Observations of classroom reading instruction Descriptive
teachers (Not reported) Interviews with teachers and students
380 Steve Amendum and Jill Fitzgerald

et al., 2004). Students were labeled: English-language section the instruction was more of a backdrop to the in-
learners in three studies (D’Anguilli et al., 2004; Fitzgerald terest in how the students’ reading knowledge progressed.
& Noblit, 1999; Neufeld & Fitzgerald, 2001); English-as- Because there is no clear way to link student outcomes to
a-second-language learners in one study (Araujo, 2002); the classroom instruction so as to attribute causality, in all
English-as-a-new-language learners in one study (Fitzgerald cases, student maturation alone could have accounted for
& Noblit, 2000); and bilingual in three (Kucer, 1999; Kucer any witnessed growth.
& Silva, 1999; Pérez, 1994). Second, because many features of teacher action/interac-
Oral English proficiency was measured in five studies. tion were reported, student reading-growth results could not
Table 33.1 shows the specific instruments used to measure be directly attributed to particular facets of, or particular
English proficiency in studies where instruments were activities in, the instructional contexts described in the stud-
reported. Reading measures addressed a broad range of ies. However, in one study (Neufeld & Fitzgerald, 2001), a
literacy abilities and are also presented in Table 33.1. strong case was made that selected teacher inaction and/or
Descriptive methodology was used in all eight studies. action might have influenced outcomes. The teacher did not
Two sets of researchers additionally labeled their studies provide small-group reading instruction for the three low-
as case studies (Fitzgerald & Noblit, 1999; Neufeld & performing English-language learners, and they showed
Fitzgerald, 2001). D’Anguilli and colleagues (2004) used little reading progress. However, she did include them in
gradient and growth mixture model trajectory analyses, and whole-class writing lessons, and they demonstrated greater
in addition to the descriptive work, Kucer and Silva (1999) growth in writing than they did in reading.
used pre-post statistical analyses. Third, a wide variety of reading measures was used,
Four sets of researchers explicitly provided a theoreti- making it difficult to coalesce outcomes. In most cases,
cal perspective. Three (Araujo, 2002; Fitzgerald & Noblit, the measures were informal classroom measures that were
1999, 2000) explained their social constructivist or con- done as part of regular classroom instruction. In four studies
structivist position related to children’s learning about (D’Anguilli et al., 2004; Fitzgerald & Noblit, 1999, 2000;
literacy knowledge, language and teaching in learning in Neufeld & Fitzgerald, 2001) at least some standardized
general, and/or the reading process. A fourth set (Neufeld & reading assessments focused on isolated word recognition.
Fitzgerald, 2001) based their study on a theory of emergent Most researchers included some form of oral reading as-
reading. Other researchers created rationales for their work, sessment, using miscue analysis, sometimes to determine
but did not state a particular theoretical outlook. approximate reading level, following procedures outlined
in Clay (2002). Reliabilities were reported in only three
Instructional content and synthesis of main find- studies (Fitzgerald & Noblit, 1999, 2000; Neufeld &
ings. As has been stated earlier, the studies in the pres- Fitzgerald, 2001).
ent category focused on students’ reading development What are the main findings from the studies about
while providing some information about teachers’ actions/ reading instruction and English-language learner reading
interactions—rather than focusing on the direct impact of development? First, children’s construction of reading
the teachers’ actions/interactions. The instructional content tended to mirror what they were taught. For instance, where
in all of the studies involved collections of many activities. teachers used balanced reading instruction (Araujo, 2002;
Three (Kucer, 1999; Kucer & Silva, 1999; Pérez, 1994) Fitzgerald & Noblit, 1999, 2000), students improved in
were about whole language instruction, all involving some both word recognition and comprehension abilities, and
degree of teacher-student interaction, but little, if any, ex- in whole language bilingual Spanish-reading instruction
plicit instruction. Kucer and his colleague described the (Pérez, 1994), where explicit instruction in word recognition
whole language program in their two studies as consisting was absent, there was little evidence to support the belief
of four components—themes, teacher reading, free reading, that print exposure and invented spelling alone helped the
and free writing. Two (Fitzgerald & Noblit, 1999, 2000) students to improve “code” breaking.
were about balanced reading instruction (defined as instruc- Second, where reading trajectories were closely ex-
tion which distributed weight across several features of amined (e.g., Araujo, 2002; Fitzgerald & Noblit, 1999;
reading and which arose from a set of guiding principles, Neufeld & Fitzgerald, 2001), developmental patterns
resulting in four central instructional components—word paralleled trajectory descriptions already detailed in the
study, responding to literature, writing, and guided and native-language emergent reading literature. For instance,
unguided reading). Two (D’Anguilli et al., 2004; Neufeld phonological awareness and understandings about word
& Fitzgerald, 2001) seemed to be an eclectic mix of types recognition developed in ways similar to development for
of instruction, and one (Araujo, 2002) was called both native-language readers.
balanced and literature-based. Third, when young English-language learners were
It was difficult to synthesize results related to teacher taught English reading, some, but not all, students were
instruction across the eight studies for three main reasons. able to grow to perform in English reading on a par with
First, there was no intention on the part of the researchers their monolingual peers (Araujo, 2002; D’Anguilli et al.,
in the present group to infer causality relating outcomes 2004; Fitzgerald & Noblit, 1999, 2000).
to instruction. Rather, in most of the studies in the present Fourth, English-oral-language development may not be
 Reading Instruction Research for English-Language Learners in Kindergarten through Sixth Grade 381

a critical predecessor to English reading development— Instructional content and synthesis of main find-
at least for the youngest children studied (Araujo, 2002; ings. Across the five studies teacher instructional action/
Fitzgerald & Noblit, 1999, 2000). interaction direct instruction was used. Meaning vocabulary
in two studies included lessons with targeted vocabulary
What Impact Does Instruction in One Specific Reading words over the course of a week which integrated books,
Subprocess Have on Learning That Reading Subpro- explicit instruction in target word meanings, questioning to
cess? aid children’s thinking, examples of target words in other
Study particulars and theoretical grounding. Five sets contexts, occasions for children to act out word meanings,
of researchers focused on instruction for English-language visual aids to demonstrate word meanings, opportunities
learners, each for one reading subprocess—meaning vo- for students to pronounce words, cloze lessons where stu-
cabulary (two studies), comprehension (one study), word dents used contextual information to infer word meanings,
recognition (one study) or phonological/phonemic aware- discussion of target words spellings, and opportunities for
ness (one study). Two of the studies were set in kindergarten students to compare and contrast words (Carlo et al., 2004;
(Pollard-Durodola, Cedillo, & Denton, 2004; Silverman, Silverman, 2007).
2007), and three were in grades three through five (Carlo In another study (Kucer, 1992), the teacher used a series
et al., 2004; Kucer 1992; Saunders & Goldenberg, 1999). of modified cloze strategy lessons to improve students’ word
Some researchers included small numbers of participants in recognition through use of context. For both narrative and
descriptive case studies (Kucer, 1992; Pollard-Durodola et expository texts, words were deleted at selected points in the
al., 2004), while other researchers used larger numbers of text where there was adequate textual information for stu-
participants in experimental or quasi-experimental studies dents to generate meaningful predictions. The teacher began
(Carlo et al., 2004; Saunders & Goldenberg, 1999; Silver- with a small group lesson based on a one of the cloze texts
man, 2007). and through modeling, student responses, and discussion,
In one study, teacher participants’ native language worked through the entire text. Then, in cooperative pairs,
was Spanish (Pollard-Durodola et al., 2004), in one study students worked on a second cloze text and then shared and
participants’ native languages were East Asian languages, discussed their responses with other student pairs.
Spanish, and Creole (Silverman, 2007), and in three studies While teaching kindergarten students to read in Spanish,
participants’ native languages were not provided. In three a language with consistent phoneme-grapheme correspon-
of the studies participants were labeled as bilingual (Carlo dence, in another study (Pollard-Durodola et al., 2004) two
et al., 2004; Kucer, 1992; Pollard-Durodola et al., 2004), in teachers used direct instruction in sight word recognition,
one they were labeled English-language learners (Silver- the alphabetic principle, and phonics-based strategies (e.g.,
man, 2007), and in one study no label was reported. “sounding out”). Across the school year, teachers began
Oral English proficiency was informally reported in two with emphasis on phonics-based strategies, and by midyear
studies. Table 33.1 shows the reports of English proficiency shifted to more “global-visual” (p. 343) strategies such as
in studies where reported. Reading measures are also pre- sight word recognition, or locating whole words in text.
sented in Table 33.1. In the final study in the present category (Saunders
Three of the studies were experimental or quasi-experi- & Goldenberg, 1999) teachers used literature logs and
mental (Carlo et al., 2004; Saunders & Goldenberg, 1999; instructional conversations with fourth- and fifth-grade
Silverman, 2007), while the other two were qualitative in students to affect comprehension. During literature logs
nature (Kucer, 1992; Pollard-Durodola et al., 2004). Three instruction teachers met with groups of students and asked
sets of researchers used statistical analyses which included students to write about personal experiences related to the
multivariate analysis of variance, analysis of variance, and main character’s experiences from a story. Students wrote
hierarchical linear modeling (Carlo et al., 2004; Saunders & independently, read their logs aloud, and then the teacher
Goldenberg, 1999; Silverman, 2007). One set of researchers facilitated a discussion about similarities and differences
employed a microanalysis to synthesize data from multiple among the students’ log entries and the story character’s
sources (Pollard-Durodola et al., 2004), and one set used experiences. During instructional conversations teach-
qualitative analysis methodology (Kucer, 1992). ers facilitated small-group discussion about the story to
Three sets of authors explicitly stated theoretical bases clarify factual content from a story and develop students’
for their studies. One set (Carlo et al., 2004) explained a understandings of more sophisticated concepts (e.g., “giv-
theory of the complexity of word meanings which informed ing” can refer to the giving of one’s self). Instructional
the vocabulary intervention design. Another set (Pollard- conversations allowed the teacher the opportunity to hear
Durodola et al., 2004) explained a theory of Spanish read- small groups of students express their understanding of
ing acquisition, and a final set (Saunders & Goldenberg, story themes and related personal experiences, and during
1999) explained theoretical premises assumed to facilitate discussion facilitation teachers could both challenge and
first- and second-language acquisition and achievement. deepen students’ understandings. Ultimately, instructional
The other two sets of authors (Kucer, 1992; Silverman, conversations allowed students to listen to, recognize the
2007) provided rationales for their studies in the form of value of, and build upon others’ experience, knowledge,
research reviews. and understandings.
382 Steve Amendum and Jill Fitzgerald

It was difficult to synthesize results related to teacher 2006). All four studies were part of a larger longitudinal
instruction across the five studies for three reasons. First, effort across first, second, and third grades addressing early
there was a small number of studies with disparate out- reading intervention outcomes for a cohort of bilingual
come measures. Since the current set of studies focused Spanish-speaking English-language learners. One study
on three different reading subprocesses, outcome mea- was set in kindergarten (Linan-Thompson et al., 2005),
sures represented three conceptually different reading and the remaining were set in first grade. Across the four
subprocesses—meaning vocabulary, comprehension, or studies the number of participants ranged from 41 to 128. In
phonological/phonemic awareness. In many cases the all four studies student participants were labeled “at-risk,”
outcome measures were researcher-designed measures but the label was not a special education label. In one study
intended to reflect important features of teacher instruc- (Linan-Thompson et al., 2005) the at-risk label meant low
tion or intervention programs specific to each study which performance on a phonological awareness subtest from
limited generalization. a individually administered Spanish reading inventory.
Second, causality could only be inferred from a subset In the three remaining the at-risk label referenced low
of two studies (Carlo et al., 2004; Saunders & Goldenberg, performance on an English and/or a Spanish letter/word
1999) where random assignment was utilized. Even when identification subtest from a standardized test coupled with
causality could be addressed in the two studies, the out- the inability to read more than one word from a list of five
come measures were conceptually different, again making common English and/or Spanish sight words. Additionally,
synthesis across the studies difficult. in one study (Linan-Thompson et al., 2005) classroom
Third, the small number of studies addressing instruction teachers provided instruction to at-risk English-language
in each of the reading subprocesses made synthesis of the learners, while in the three remaining studies instructors
research findings difficult. from the research team provided instruction to at-risk
What are the main findings from such a set of studies English-language learners.
about instruction in specific reading subprocesses and In all four studies students’ native language was Spanish,
English-language learners’ reading? First, instruction in and students were labeled as Hispanic English-language
specific reading subprocesses benefited English-language learners or as Spanish-speaking English-language learners.
learners’ achievement in those processes. Meaning vocabu- Oral English proficiency was not reported in any of the stud-
lary instruction was equally effective for improving reading ies. Reading measures are presented in Table 33.1.
comprehension outcomes for English-language learners as One study was quasi-experimental (Linan-Thompson
for English-only students (Carlo et al., 2004). In addition, et al., 2005), and the remaining studies were experimental
bilingual students who received modified cloze strategy (Vaughn, Cirino, et al., 2006; Vaughn, Linan-Thompson,
lessons to improve word recognition through context use et al., 2006; Vaughn, Mathes, et al., 2006) and employed
were able to perform well on similar cloze tasks, suggesting random assignment and control groups. All four sets of re-
their word recognition was enhanced (Kucer, 1992). searchers employed statistical analyses designed to examine
Second, the following instruction formerly found ef- group mean differences including analysis of covariance
fective with English-only students were shown to also and analysis of variance.
be effective for English-language learners: instruction in One set of authors (Vaughn, Mathes, et al., 2006) explic-
meaning vocabulary (Carlo et al., 2004; Silverman, 2007), itly stated a theoretical base for their study and provided a
phonological/phonemic awareness (Pollard-Durodola et theory of emergent reading in addition to a research review
al., 2004), cloze strategies (Kucer, 1992), as well as lit- for their study specific to the study intervention. The other
erature logs and instructional conversations (Saunders & three sets of authors provided a conceptual framework
Goldenberg, 1999). integrating research on effective interventions for the at-
From two vocabulary interventions, English-language risk English-language learners, the phonology of printed
learners learned targeted vocabulary words at the same or Spanish, and the higher incidence of multisyllabic words
even a faster rate than English-only students (Carlo et al., in Spanish than in other alphabetic languages (Vaughn,
2004; Silverman, 2007), and in one case, English-language Linan-Thompson, et al., 2006); a rationale for the study
learners also learned general vocabulary at the same or a (Linan-Thompson et al., 2005), or a research review and
faster rate. rationale (Vaughn, Cirino, et al., 2006).

What Impact Does Simultaneous Instruction in Multiple Instructional content and synthesis of main findings. In
Reading Subprocesses Have on Learning Those Reading one study (Linan-Thompson et al., 2005) teachers provided
Subprocesses? kindergarten English-language learners at risk for read-
Study particulars and theoretical grounding. Four ing problems with supplemental focused Spanish reading
studies focused on instruction for English-language learn- instruction in several reading subprocesses three times per
ers in which multiple reading subprocesses were simulta- week for 20 minutes for 4 weeks. Each focused session
neously targeted (Linan-Thompson, Bryant, Dickson, & contained direct instruction in phonological awareness,
Kouzekanani, 2005; Vaughn, Cirino, et al., 2006; Vaughn, phonics, word/sentence reading, and writing/spelling, but
Linan-Thompson, et al., 2006; Vaughn, Mathes, et al., not on reading comprehension. Phonological awareness
 Reading Instruction Research for English-Language Learners in Kindergarten through Sixth Grade 383

instruction focused on phoneme-level blending and seg- designed for English-language learners throughout each
menting skills, and phonics instruction focused on use of instructional session. Language support activities included
phoneme-grapheme correspondences to encode and decode any or all of using visuals, motion, or facial expressions
words. Word/sentence reading allowed students to read in meaning vocabulary instruction; clarifying meanings;
words in the context of sentences using familiar sounds and provided direct instruction in English-language use; and
words, and writing/spelling instruction focused on fluency elaborating on students’ responses. Lectura Proactiva les-
and employed fast writes at the letter and word level. All sons were also supplemented with a book reading activity
instruction was delivered via a direct instruction model designed to enhance oral Spanish skills and Spanish vo-
through highly structured activities. cabulary development.
In the other three studies (Vaughn, Cirino, et al., 2006; Across the four studies, synthesis of results related to
Vaughn, Linan-Thompson, et al., 2006; Vaughn, Mathes, et teacher instruction was both straightforward and problem-
al., 2006), intervention instructors provided supplemental atic. On the positive side, since all four studies were derived
direct instruction (Carnine, Silbert, & Kame’enui, 1997) in from a larger longitudinal study, outcome measures and
multiple reading subprocesses to first-grade English-lan- teacher instruction were closely aligned which facilitated
guage learners at risk for reading problems in either English synthesis of results. Also, causality could be inferred from
or Spanish (matched to the language of instruction) using three of the four studies that employed random assignment
a modified version of what the researchers/creators termed (Vaughn, Cirino, et al., 2006; Vaughn, Linan-Thompson, et
Proactive Reading (Mathes, Torgesen, Wahl, Menchetti, al., 2006; Vaughn, Mathes, et al., 2006), which facilitated
& Grek, 2004), a set of effective instructional intervention synthesis of results. At the same time, on the negative side,
activities, or Lectura Proactiva (Mathes, Linan-Thompson, there was only a small number of studies, and selected
Pollard-Durodola, Hagan, & Vaughn, 2003), a parallel features of the small number of studies themselves made
Spanish intervention curriculum which used a slightly synthesis of the research findings difficult. First, with only
different scope and sequence but similar instructional four studies there was little depth within the present cat-
design and delivery as Proactive Reading. Both Proactive egory of studies. Second, instructional continuity across
Reading and Lectura Proactiva are pre-determined sets of all four studies makes synthesis difficult because in two
instructional strategies used as interventions that had been studies instructional activities were conducted in students’
used in a series of prior research studies (e.g., Mathes, et native language of Spanish, and in the other studies activi-
al. 2004; Mathes, et al. 2003). Across all three studies, ties were conducted in students’ second language—English.
members of the research team developed lesson plans based However, replication of results across the two studies within
on the researcher-termed Proactive Reading or Lectura language could be examined.
Proactiva scope and sequence comprised of 6 to 10 short What are the main findings from the studies? First,
activities representing five areas—phonemic awareness, instruction conducted simultaneously targeting multiple
letter knowledge, word recognition, connected text fluency, reading subprocesses (phonemic awareness, phonics, word
and comprehension strategies. Each instructional session identification, fluency, and comprehension) in either
incorporated all five areas and lasted approximately 40 min- students’ native or second language benefited English-
utes. The goal of the interventions was for students to learn language learners’ reading achievement in the multiple
to read connected text rapidly and with comprehension. subprocesses. English-language learners at risk for reading
Phonemic awareness instruction focused on blending and difficulties who received Spanish reading instruction in
segmenting at the phoneme level and ended when students phonemic awareness, letter knowledge, word recognition,
were proficient at blending and segmenting words with connected text fluency, and comprehension strategies out-
consonant blends. Letter knowledge instruction focused performed comparison students on measures of Spanish
on automatic recognition of graphemes and the sound each letter-sound identification, phonological awareness, oral
represented. Word recognition instruction focused on facili- language, decoding, comprehension, and fluency (Vaughn,
tating decoding phonetically regular and irregular words. Cirino, et al., 2006; Vaughn, Linan-Thompson, et al., 2006).
Connected text fluency instruction focused on application English-language learners at risk for reading difficulties
of word recognition skills in decodable texts to improve who received English reading instruction in phonemic
both rate and accuracy. Comprehension strategy instruction awareness, letter knowledge, word recognition, connected
focused on making predictions, setting a purpose for read- text fluency, and comprehension strategies outperformed
ing, sequencing, summarizing, story grammar elements, or comparison students in measures of English rapid letter
identifying new information learned. All instruction was naming, letter/sound identification, phonemic awareness,
delivered to small groups of three to five students by an decoding, spelling, and passage comprehension (Vaughn,
intervention instructor for 50 minutes per day in addition Cirino, et al., 2006; Vaughn, Mathes, et al., 2006).
to students’ core reading instruction. A direct instruction Second, language support instruction, such as oral lan-
model was used to provide the instruction through highly guage and meaning vocabulary development, integrated
structured activities. with reading instruction targeting multiple reading subpro-
The research and intervention team modified Proac- cesses benefited students’ language development. English-
tive Reading with additional language support activities language learners considered at risk for reading problems
384 Steve Amendum and Jill Fitzgerald

who received Spanish reading instruction in phonemic were small numbers of participants (Gersten, 1999; Gersten
awareness, letter knowledge, word recognition, connected & Jiménez 1994; Jiménez & Gersten, 1999).
text fluency, and comprehension strategies supplemented In one study participants’ native language was Spanish
with Spanish oral language and vocabulary instruction (Jiménez & Gersten, 1999), and in the other four studies
outperformed comparison students in a composite measure native languages were not reported. In two studies partici-
of Spanish oral language (Vaughn, Linan-Thompson, et pants were labeled as bilingual (Gersten, 1996; Jiménez &
al., 2006) and on a measure of Spanish verbal analogies Gersten, 1999), and in the three remaining studies no label
(Vaughn, Cirino, et al., 2006). was reported. No measures of oral-English proficiency were
Finally under the conditions in one study, when pro- reported. Reading measures are presented in Table 33.1.
vided with supplemental Spanish reading instruction, All five studies were descriptive in nature. Four sets
English-language learners considered at risk acquired of researchers employed qualitative analysis and theme
Spanish reading skills at a faster rate than higher per- development (Gersten, 1996, 1999; Gersten & Jiménez
forming English-language learners who did not receive 1994; Jiménez & Gersten, 1999), and one set of researchers
such instruction. At-risk English-language learners who used descriptive statistical analyses (Padrón & Waxman,
received Spanish reading instruction in phonological 1999).
awareness, phonics, word/sentence reading, and writing/ In two studies the same set of authors provided an ex-
spelling made greater gains across a 12-week intervention plicit conceptual frame. In both studies (Gersten & Jiménez
period in Spanish phonemic awareness, word identifica- 1994; Jiménez & Gersten, 1999) the authors described a
tion, and letter/sound knowledge than higher performing conceptual framework based on three relevant knowledge
English-language learners within the same classrooms bases for conceptualizing effective second-language reading
(Linan-Thompson, et al., 2005). instruction which framed their data collection and analysis.
The authors described the conceptual frame as an integration
Aside from Specific Instruction in Reading Subprocesses, of three key bodies of work: cognitive strategies, bilingual
What Instructional Issues Should Teachers Consider? education and language acquisition, and effective instruc-
Study particulars and theoretical grounding. Four sets tion for students at risk. The authors stated the integration of
of researchers studied classroom instruction for English- these three knowledge bases was essential to frame literacy
language learners to learn about effective instructional instruction for language-minority students as the knowledge
practices during reading instruction, but the practices stud- bases facilitated high student engagement, opportunities
ied were not about teaching specific reading subprocesses for extended English discourse, and higher order cognitive
(Gersten, 1996; Gersten & Jiménez 1994; Jiménez & Ger- processes. The other three sets of authors (Gersten, 1996,
sten, 1999; Padrón & Waxman, 1999). In addition, one re- 1999; Padrón & Waxman, 1999) provided rationales for
searcher studied challenges to providing reading instruction their studies in the form of research reviews.
to English-language learners (Gersten, 1999). The set of
studies in the present category were different from those in Instructional content and synthesis of main find-
the other categories in that nearly all of the five researchers ings. Researchers conducted observations and interviewed
conducted observations of classroom instruction in order teachers who provided innovative instruction for English-
to describe effective instruction or barriers to instruction language learners in order to provide exemplars of effective
for English-language learners, and/or interviewed teachers instructional practices for English-language learners. The
and students to learn their perceptions of such instructional researchers observed a wide array of instructional content—
issues. In one study (Padrón & Waxman, 1999) classroom instruction that was carried out with English-language learn-
observations were coded to examine the extent to which ers with varying levels of English-reading achievement.
previously determined standards of effective teaching Some examples were: Scaffolding literacy development
(Dalton, 1998) were present during reading instruction. In across the curriculum, developing meaning vocabulary,
the remaining studies on effective instruction, teachers who teacher mediation and feedback to assist students’ expan-
were nominated by school administrators and researchers sion and expression of ideas in English, and instruction in
as providing innovative instruction for English-language cognitive strategies/complex thinking (Gersten & Jiménez
learners were observed and interviewed. These teachers’ 1994; Jiménez & Gersten, 1999; Padrón & Waxman, 1999).
observed practices and interview responses were considered As well, teachers and students perceived a wide array of
in relation to the knowledge base (at the time of the studies) instructional practices to be effective for advancing stu-
on effective instruction for English-language-learners, to dents’ English-reading knowledge. Based on the classroom
result in the researchers’ beliefs about effective ways that observations and teacher interviews, one researcher (Ger-
the teachers taught reading to language-minority students sten, 1999) also described challenges to providing reading
(cf. Gersten, 1996). instruction to English-language learners.
One study was set in third grade (Gersten, 1996), and It was again a challenge to synthesize results across
four studies were set in third through sixth grade (Gersten, the five studies for two reasons. First, selected features of
1999; Gersten & Jiménez 1994; Jiménez & Gersten, 1999; the small number of studies themselves made synthesis of
Padrón & Waxman, 1999). In three descriptive studies, there the research findings difficult. One author, Gersten, was
 Reading Instruction Research for English-Language Learners in Kindergarten through Sixth Grade 385

involved with four of the five studies (Gersten, 1996, 1999; Gersten, 1999). For example, the researchers suggested
Gersten & Jiménez, 1994; Jiménez & Gersten, 1999), so that Latino students’ behavior and learning might have
the concepts were not generalizable across even a small been influenced by a teachers’ use of praise or criticism, or
number of different researchers. Second, there was very by the degree to which a teacher demonstrated respect for
little methodological variation in the five studies. All five students as individuals, knowledge of cultural sensitivity,
studies were descriptive in nature and used very similar and viewed diversity as an asset (Gersten & Jiménez, 1994;
data sources (classroom observations in all five studies, Jiménez & Gersten, 1999). Latina/o teachers’ instructional
and teacher interviews in four studies). practices may be influenced by their cultural identities re-
What are the main findings from the studies in the present lated to attitudes toward students’ classroom language use,
category? First, certain instructional practices often used implementation of classroom discipline, and expressions of
with English-only readers were effective with respect to affection (Jiménez & Gersten, 1999).
language minority students’ reading achievement when
used with sensitive modulation (Gersten, 1996; Gersten & What Else Is Known about Reading Instruction for
Jiménez, 1994; Padrón & Waxman, 1999). For example, English-Language Learners?
instruction in cognitive strategies/complex thinking in- Study particulars and theoretical grounding. Four
cluded teacher “think-aloud” models which augmented sets of researchers conducted studies in reading instruction
and explicated students’ ideas, use of graphic organizers for English-language learners which fell into an “other”
to aid students in information organization, and/or provid- category. Two studies were in grade one (Koskinen et al.,
ing students with background information. In one study 2000), another study was in grades four and five (Padrón,
(Gersten & Jiménez, 1994), one teacher provided instruc- 1994), and the final study was in grade six (Yoon, 2007).
tion in cognitive strategies/complex thinking by displaying One set of researchers used a small number of participants
charts in her classroom from reading lessons and modeling in a descriptive study (Yoon, 2007), two sets of researchers
“think-alouds” during reading by asking questions, and used larger numbers of participants in descriptive or quasi-
making inferences aloud. experimental studies (Koskinen et al., 2000; Padrón, 1994),
Second, researchers described how one of two teachers in and one used a relatively large number in a correlational
their study successfully integrated new ideas and principles study in which student descriptive profiles were also pro-
about effective instruction for English-language learners vided (Graves, Gersten, & Haager, 2004).
with her established knowledge of effective instruction In two studies participants’ native languages were var-
(Jiménez & Gersten, 1999). Based on observations and ied (Amharic, Arabic, English, Cambodian, Cantonese,
interviews the researchers explained how the teacher used French, Hmong, Italian, Korean, Laotian, Somali, Spanish,
what they termed an “infusion” model (cf. Guskey, 1990; Sudanese, Tagalog, Tibetan, Turkish, Vietnamese, Urdu;
Smylie, 1988) to integrate her new knowledge with her Graves et al., 2004; Koskinen et al., 2000). In another
established knowledge of effective instruction (Jiménez & study participants’ native languages could be inferred as
Gersten, 1999). In the infusion model, teachers attach and mainly English or Spanish (Padrón, 1994), and in the final
relate new pedagogical knowledge and learning to their study participants’ native languages were not reported.
established instructional practices and beliefs. The research- Participants were labeled as English learners (Graves et
ers concluded the infusion model facilitated a balanced al., 2004), English-as-a-second-language (Koskinen et
approach (comparable amounts of explicit instruction and al., 2000), limited-English-proficient (Padrón, 1994), or
cooperative learning activities) to literacy instruction within English-language learners (Yoon, 2007).
the teacher’s classroom. In a related study with three other Oral English proficiency was reported in only one study
teachers, the same researchers (Gersten & Jiménez, 1994) (Koskinen et al., 2000) where the PRE-Language Assess-
discovered a similar learning process for two other teachers. ment Scale (PRE-LAS) (Duncan & De Avila, 1985) was
The researchers found that the teachers integrated new ideas used.
and principles of instruction for English-language learners, Reading measures addressed a broad range of literacy
such as respect for cultural diversity, with their existing abilities and are also presented in Table 33.1.
understandings about pedagogy (Gersten & Jiménez, 1994), Two of the studies were quasi-experimental (Koskinen
rather than replace their traditional effective principles of et al., 2000; Yoon, 2007), one was descriptive in nature
literacy instruction. (Padrón, 1994), and one was correlational with descrip-
Third, effective teachers showed respect for cultural tive student profiles. One set of researchers used statistical
diversity during reading/language arts instruction, and it analysis of variance (Koskinen et al., 2000), one set used
was considered beneficial for English-language learners’ descriptive statistics (Padrón, 1994), and one set used
English literacy learning (Gersten & Jiménez, 1994; Jimé- qualitative data analysis (Yoon, 2007).
nez & Gersten, 1999). Based on classroom observations and None of the authors provided explicit theoretical bases
interviews of two teachers considered effective, one set of for their studies. In two studies (Koskinen et al., 2000;
researchers concluded that Latino/a culture likely influences Padrón, 1994), the authors provided rationales and extensive
not only students’ behavior and responses, but in the case research reviews. The third and fourth study authors (Graves
of Latino/a teachers, their instruction as well (Jiménez & et al., 2004; Yoon, 2007) provided study rationales.
386 Steve Amendum and Jill Fitzgerald

Instructional content and synthesis of main find- ment is needed. The number of studies in our five categories
ings. Because the present category is a collection of four of research questions ranged from three to eight, and none
unrelated studies, it is not possible to provide a synthesis. were deeply researched. However, a rich and detailed under-
Also, it was not possible to impute causality to teacher ac- standing of English-language learners’ reading trajectories,
tions or interactions because the studies were descriptive, how instruction in specific reading subprocesses impacts
correlational, or quasi-experimental. Instead of providing learning, and instructional issues teachers should consider
synthesis, we report the instructional content and main for English-language learner reading instruction can help
findings for three of the studies, and then the findings for to form a basis for educators’ instructional decisions. If
the fourth correlational study (Graves et al., 2004). English-language learners’ reading trajectories lead to
First, English-language learners in urban schools with reading achievement that mirrors their monolingual peers’,
large Hispanic/LEP student populations often received teachers’ expectations can be raised. If there are typical
whole group instruction in a very passive setting (Padrón, phases of development for English-language learners, and
1994). Second, the teacher was the most important factor in if teachers know about them, they might better nurture
promoting English-language learners’ classroom participa- children from one phase to the next. Likewise, if instruc-
tion (Yoon, 2007). Yoon suggested that the finding demon- tion in reading subprocesses is beneficial for both English-
strated the importance of teachers examining the content of language learners and English-only students, researchers
English-language learner reading instruction and working and practitioners can infuse their current understandings of
to ensure students’ involvement in active learning and re- instructional issues teachers should consider for English-
sponding during reading instruction, perhaps by teachers only students with new learning about teaching reading/
responding to students’ cultural and social needs in an active language arts for English-language learners for the benefit
manner. Third, book-rich classrooms paired with a home of all students.
reading component with audiotapes may be particularly
beneficial for English-language learners’ comprehension Theory In only 8 of the 26 reports did researchers provide
and motivation (Koskinen et al., 2000). explicit discussion of theoretical bases for the studies. If
Three main sets of conclusions arose from the fourth research on instruction for English-language-learner read-
study (Graves et al., 2004). First, the researchers did class- ing is to make a difference, it is highly likely that greater
room observations during reading/language arts instruction, reliance on theory building will be important. As others
resulting in a rating of how effective the teacher’s instruction have advocated, “When researchers specifically focus
was. They obtained students’ oral reading fluency at two on the theoretical relationships that might occur between
different points in time, and created a gain score. The cor- particular instructional variables or constructs and specific
relation of the teacher ratings with the gain score was .65, student outcomes, the studies are most likely to be clearly
suggesting that more effective teacher practice was related focused on the hypothesized relationships in ways that
to students’ growth in oral reading fluency. Second, nine enable greater precision in design and methodology” (Al-
of the 186 students in the sample were referred for special vermann, Fitzgerald, & Simpson, 2006, p. 443). The eight
education evaluation during the study, and eight were ulti- sets of researchers who grounded their work in theoretical
mately labeled learning disabled. Third, by exploring and propositions did not necessarily hypothesize relationships
contrasting patterns of instructional practice for two teach- between key instructional features and specific, or even
ers rated very effective (and whose students had, on average, general student outcomes, but by positioning their work
extremely oral fluency gain scores) to a teacher rated low in theory, they did elevate possibilities for interpretation
in instructional effectiveness (and whose students had, on of outcomes. For instance, by explaining a theory of how
average, very low oral fluency gain scores) the researchers early reading develops for native-English speakers, devel-
suggested that patterns of practice and pedagogical knowl- opmental results for young English-language learners can
edge, not years of experience, were different across the com- be better situated, as comparisons can be made.
parison. Key instructional practices for the more effective When considering the eight sets of researchers’ theo-
teachers included: using a structured reading program that retical bases as a whole, we are not able to now describe
was called “comprehensive” and “systematic,” “with special a sort of over-arching theory that might hypothetically
emphasis on phonological awareness and phonics;” having explain the relationships between and among particular
a scope and sequence for teaching reading; and providing features of teacher instruction and specific student read-
explicit instruction in critical domains of reading (e.g., ing outcomes. Again, as others have said about reading
phonological awareness, phonics, comprehension). instruction in general, “In the ideal, some ‘grand’ theory
detailing a host of instructional variables as they relate to
a wide array of particular child reading outcomes and pro-
Critique and Recommendations for Future Theory
cesses would be useful for guiding a program of research
Development and Research
…” (Alvermann et al., 2006, p. 443). Stated differently, to
Notably, the paucity of relatively rigorous research on move the field forward forcefully, it may be that we need
our topic suggests that greater attention to examination of to be able to encapsulate hypothetical answers to ques-
English-language learners’ reading instruction and develop- tions such as: How and why might particular instructional
 Reading Instruction Research for English-Language Learners in Kindergarten through Sixth Grade 387

features relate to specific English-language learner reading to accomplish in a meaningful way because teasing out
outcomes; how and why might native-language oral and parts of the instruction can be difficult. Might it be possible
reading ability mediate such relationships; how and why though to create a set of predictors for the “components”
might new-language oral ability mediate such relationships, of instruction, such as instruction in phonemic awareness
or perhaps we should ask, how and why might particular or word recognition, measure time spent on each, and
instructional features mediate the relationship between and then include each as a predictor variable in general linear
among native-language oral and reading ability, and new- repeated measures model or a hierarchical linear model?
language oral and reading ability? Creating such a grand If such studies and analyses were conducted it would be
theory may be an impossible task, but at the least, if more crucial to examine effects on English-language learners’
researchers work from a theoretical stance that addresses overall reading achievement/growth as well as achievement/
hypothetical relationships between constructs under study, growth in reading subprocesses.
there is stronger possibility that, over time, our collective It would be very useful if designs more closely linked
knowledge about high quality English-language learner specific teacher actions (or lack thereof) to children’s per-
reading instruction will advance. formance. While it is not possible to make causal attribution
of results to teacher activities in descriptive studies, close
Design The predominance of descriptive studies is notable examination of instructional events and/or sequences of
(17 of 26 studies). We held reasonably stringent criteria for instructional events at multiple time points, paired with
inclusion of qualitative studies in the present review. One reading assessments accomplished at multiple time points,
point to make about level of rigor, however, is that few of can lend helpful contextual understandings.
the studies documented that alternative explanations were Particular to the category of studies on English-language
explored. Examples of researchers who did provide such learner development within the context of instruction, a
documentation were Araujo (2002), Fitzgerald and Noblit positive feature of the studies was that all but one of the
(1999, 2000), and Kucer (1992). Increased attention provi- studies lasted for at least one academic year. D’Anguilli and
sion of alternative explanations could be useful in adding colleagues (2004) followed kindergarten students through
to our knowledge base. fifth grade—an admirable undertaking.
Time series quasi-experimental and experimental stud- The paucity of rigorous research on English-language
ies which include teachers’ instruction as an independent learner reading for children with identified disabilities
variable—as a nod to enhanced causal inference—could was surprising. One reason for the lack of studies however
further our knowledge. Such designs could benefit the field might be that, in general, children are rarely identified as
because researchers could examine how teachers’ instruc- having reading disabilities at very young ages, and for
tion is related to students’ reading development or growth English-language learners, it is especially important that
over time. While the group of reading-development studies language difference not be confounded with a disability
included in the present review point to development in the (cf. Klingner, Artiles, & Barletta, 2006). As a result, it is
context of instruction that leads to reading attainment that possible that, on average, English-language learners who
approximates monolingual peers’, other time-series studies do have English reading disabilities are not identified until
of development alone tend to suggest that young English- later in the elementary years.
language learners’ reading growth may parallel that of their It may also be important to conduct more studies with
peers, but that for some aspects of reading, such as reading students who speak native languages other than Spanish.
level, at least in the span of 1 to 3 years, on average, the Twenty-three of 26 studies (one did not report participants’
English-language learners do not catch up to their peers nationality) included students who were native-Spanish
(e.g., Fitzgerald, Amendum, & Guthrie, 2008). The contrast speakers. While Spanish is the predominant language
in findings suggests that the different study methodologies amongst English-language learners in the United States,
may be at play. Perhaps time-series analyses that include at the extent to which developmental results would differ by
least some teacher instructional characteristics could help native language is not readily discernable.
us to document which teacher behaviors matter most for Greater attention to instruction for particular features
children’s reading development. of reading knowledge, such as inclusion of measures of
In quasi-experimental and experimental studies, creat- word recognition, comprehension, vocabulary meaning,
ing designs which enable us to tease out which parts of and fluency, could lead to improved understandings of
instruction matter most would be very useful. The descrip- which aspects of teacher instruction are associated with
tive studies provide some support for the belief that whole which sorts of learning about reading. In the category on
language instruction and balanced instruction, for instance, instruction for English-language learners in reading sub-
provide contexts within which English-language learners processes we found no studies about fluency instruction
can progress to approximate their monolingual peers’ read- for English-language learners which met our criteria, only
ing attainment. The category of studies on simultaneous one about phonological/phonemic awareness instruction for
instruction in multiple reading subprocess provides sup- English-language learners which met our criteria, and only
port for the efficacy of such instruction, but which facets two each about comprehension and meaning vocabulary
of such matter most? Such designs could be complicated instruction for English-language learners.
388 Steve Amendum and Jill Fitzgerald

In addition, investigators might more extensively con- our review addressed questions that fell into five distinct
sider cultural factors as they design and implement reading categories. In the present section, for each of the five cat-
instruction for English-language learners (cf. Arzubiaga, egories, at the risk of oversimplification, we first briefly
Artiles, King, & Harris-Murri, 2008; Harris, Baltodan, state the main findings from the studies in a nutshell. Next,
Artiles, & Rutherford, 2006). Can students “find them- following our nutshell statements of findings, we highlight
selves” in the materials they read? Are the assessments promising practices.
chosen by researchers culturally sensitive?
How Might English-Language Learner Reading Develop-
Assessments As for the reading assessments used in the ment Be Described in the Context of Particular Forms of
studies, a notable point is that many researchers failed Reading Instruction?
to provide reliability and validity information about as-
sessments. Reliability estimation and some indication • Children’s construction of reading tended to mirror what
of measurement validity are very important for enabling they were taught. (Four studies)
confidence in the results of a study. • Developmental patterns for very young English-lan-
In general, common classroom informal measures were guage learners paralleled trajectory descriptions already
administered. Such informal measures help us to better detailed in the native-language emergent reading litera-
understand the students’ performance in relation to every ture. (Three studies)
day classroom activities. In particular, determination of • When taught English reading, some English-language
students’ instructional reading levels, provided as grade learners’ reading growth was on a par with their mono-
level, through students’ oral reading of successively dif- lingual peers. (Four studies)
ficult passages in some studies was a helpful anchor to • At least for the youngest children, English-oral-language
understanding English-language learners’ performance development may not be a critical predecessor to English
against the unwritten norm of what might be expected for reading development. (Three studies)
typically developing monolingual English speakers.
At the same time, researchers included standardized From the development-in-the-context-of-instruction
reading measures, and where they were included, they studies, we might suggest that if children’s construction
tended to address a narrow aspect of reading—the ability to of reading tends to mirror what they are taught, and if we
read letters or words in isolation. Standardized assessments propose to assist our children in learning a wide spectrum
are helpful in that they provide a national norm against of reading processes and attitudes, then it could be impor-
which students’ performance can be judged. tant that teachers imagine a broad conception of reading
Another point to be made about assessments is that report and reading subprocesses—such as the robust conception
readers must completely understand what tests were used, of cognitive and social processes delineated in August and
what procedures were done with participants, illustrative Shanahan’s (2006) Developing Literacy in Second-Lan-
items, and how variables were created. Not all researchers guage Learners: Report of the National Literacy Panel on
included sufficient assessment information. Language Minority Children and Youth. The panel worked
Without this information, it is not possible to gauge from a framework for reading development that included
what constructs were actually measured, or whether the the importance of individual cognitive abilities such as
measures were valid for the constructs claimed by the re- phonological awareness and word recognition ability, but
searchers. Moreover, interpretation of results is dependent which also included serious attention to sociocultural and
on such issues. contextual influences, such as school-wide level of funding
Some factors embedded in the research situation may and community and school outlook on the social status of
be critical to interpretation of findings. For instance par- students.
ticipants’ language proficiency is undeniably linked to the Also, teachers who understand the developmental phases
meanings of findings. Only nine sets of researchers provided of reading, such as ones defined in some of the studies
at least some information about English proficiency, though reviewed here, will be more likely to understand how to
not all of the nine reported the measure used to determine nurture students from one phase to the next, and they will
proficiency. Only two sets of researchers obtained measures more likely know which critical features to emphasize at
of native-language proficiency (Fitzgerald & Noblit, 1999; which phases of development.
Jiménez & Gersten, 1999). If young English-language learner reading trajectories
can parallel typically developing native-English-speaking
children’s, then teachers can implement, and modulate as
Recommendations for Instruction
needed, the sound reading instruction practices they already
We now turn to implications for practice, but do so cau- use for monolingual English-speaking children. If teachers
tiously. As we have shown, using our standards for study thoughtfully adjust effective practices for English-speaking
inclusion, the evidence base for effective reading instruc- students, such as modifying lesson pacing or overempha-
tion for English-language learners lacks breadth, and it sizing certain facets of instruction, the same practices
especially lacks depth within topic areas. Study authors in often used with English-only students can be effective for
 Reading Instruction Research for English-Language Learners in Kindergarten through Sixth Grade 389

English-language learners’ reading achievement (cf. August What Impact Does Simultaneous Instruction in Multiple
& Shanahan, 2006). Reading Subprocesses Have on Learning Those Reading
Subprocesses?
What Impact Does Instruction in One Specific Reading
Subprocesses Have on Learning That Reading Subprocess? • Instruction targeting multiple reading subprocesses can
benefit English-language learners’ reading in the targeted
• Again, we saw that children tended to learn what they subprocess areas. (Three studies)
were taught. Instruction in specific reading subprocesses • Supporting oral language development in the language
benefited English-language learners’ achievement in of instruction (Spanish) while implementing instruction
those subprocesses. Instruction formerly found to be also benefited students’ language development in that
effective with English-only students was also shown to language. (Two studies)
be effective for English-language learners: instruction in • Supplemental Spanish reading instruction can facilitate
meaning vocabulary, phonological/phonemic awareness, a faster rate of growth in Spanish reading outcomes
cloze strategies to assist word recognition, literature logs, for at risk English-language learners than for higher-
and instructional conversations—a discussion format. performing English-language learners who did not
(Five studies) receive supplemental Spanish reading instruction.
• Kindergarten and fifth-grade English-language learners (One study)
learned vocabulary words at the same or even faster rate
than English-only students. (Two studies) All four studies in the present category provided some
evidence for the efficacy of supplemental Spanish- or
Here we highlight the kind of instruction accomplished English-reading instruction in multiple reading subpro-
in a rigorous experimental study conducted by Carlo and cesses for English-language learners at-risk for reading
colleagues (2004). Teachers provided meaning vocabulary problems. In a previous section, we detailed the instruc-
instruction to fifth-grade English-language learners who tional model used by the researchers is this category—a
achieved greater growth on knowledge of target words, model of direct instruction based on Proactive Reading
depth of meaning vocabulary knowledge, and understanding (Mathes et al., 2004) or Lectura Proactiva (Mathes et al.,
of multiple meanings than students in control classrooms. 2003). Within our description we depicted how instruc-
Structured meaning vocabulary lessons were taught us- tion was comprised of 6 to 10 short activities representing
ing a direct instruction model and included introduction five areas—phonemic awareness, letter knowledge, word
of 10–12 target words per week during 30- to 45-minute recognition, connected text fluency, and comprehension
lessons each day. The lessons were all organized around strategies. Additional language support activities designed
immigration as the topic, and a different topic-related text for English-language learners were integrated into each
was used each week. On day one, students received the instructional session. Each 50-minute instructional session
written and audiotaped text in Spanish to preview before with three to five students incorporated all five areas and
the text was introduced the next day in English. On day lasted approximately 40 minutes.
two the text and target words were presented in English The derived successful outcomes of the studies lead us
and target word meanings that could be surmised from the to suggest that teachers might consider the same or similar
text were examined. On day three, small groups of four to instruction. Also teachers could set high expectations for
six students completed two types of cloze tasks: a task with at-risk English-language learners with respect to targeted
sentence contexts parallel to the instructional text, and a task reading subprocesses.
with a dissimilar sentence context. The day four lesson was
comprised of activities designed to promote depth of word Aside from Specific Instruction in Reading Subprocesses,
knowledge, such as word association tasks, synonyms and What Instructional Issues Should Teachers Consider?
antonyms, and/or analysis of semantic features. On day five,
lesson activities varied in focus, but included activities to • Teachers considered to be innovative teachers of English-
facilitate word polysemy and cognate awareness in general, language learners used practices such as teacher think-
and may not have been specific to target words. alouds to model comprehension strategies and graphic
It is possible that classroom teachers and special resource organizers to facilitate students’ information organiza-
teachers at large might find the same or similar type of in- tion. (Three studies)
struction helpful. The results of the study suggest that teach- • Teachers may become effective reading instructors for
ers might expect young English-language learners’ meaning English-language learners by integrating new learning
vocabulary to develop along with that of their English-only about such methods with established knowledge of
peers. As well, teachers might set high expectations for their effective reading instruction. Teachers may be able to
English-language learners’ acquisition of targeted meaning change the way they teach reading for English-language
vocabulary words and could begin meaning vocabulary learners by understanding and using such an infusion
instruction with English-language learner students when model. (Two studies).
they enter the classroom. • Culture impacts teaching and learning. Teachers’ and
390 Steve Amendum and Jill Fitzgerald

students’ cultural identities may influence instructional practice (Research Report No. 4). Santa Cruz, CA: Center for Research
practices. (Two studies) on Education, Diversity, and Excellence (CREDE).
D’Anguilli, A., Siegel, L. S., & Maggi, S. (2004). Literacy instruction,
SES, and word-reading achievement in English-language learners and
The infusion model for learning about effective English- children with English as a first language: A longitudinal study. Learn-
language learner instruction described by Gersten and Jimé- ing Disabilities Research and Practice, 19, 202–213.
nez (1994; Jiménez & Gersten, 1999) might prove helpful Denton, C., Mathes, P., & Anthony J. (2002, June). Word identification
for our readers. If such a model can allow teachers to attach strategies in two early reading intervention models. Paper presented
at the meeting of the Society for the Scientific Study of Reading,
and relate new pedagogical knowledge and learning to their Chicago, IL.
established instructional practices and beliefs, teachers can Duncan, S. E. & De Avila, E. A. (1985). PRE-LAS English Form A.
learn new instructional techniques for English-language Monterey, CA: College Testing Bureau/McGraw-Hill.
learners and anchor the techniques within their conventional Dunn, L. M. (1990). Peabody picture vocabulary test. Circle Pines, MN:
pedagogy of effective reading instruction. For example, American Guidance Service.
Dunn, L. M., & Dunn, L. M. (1981). Peabody picture vocabulary test-
a teacher might integrate a new, unfamiliar instructional revised. Minneapolis, MN: American Guidance Service.
technique, like using teacher think-alouds as models of com- Fitzgerald, J., Amendum, S., & Guthrie, K. (2008). Young Latino stu-
prehension strategies to teach English-language learners dents’ reading growth in all-English classrooms. Journal of Literacy
cognitive strategies/complex thinking, into her customary Research, 40, 59–94.
thinking about a direct instruction model of comprehension Fitzgerald, J., & Noblit, G. (1999). About hopes, aspirations, and un-
certainty: First-grade English-language learners’ emergent reading.
strategy instruction. Or, a teacher might integrate graphic Journal of Literacy Research, 31, 133–182.
organizer use within her customary instructional thought Fitzgerald, J., & Noblit, G. (2000). Balance in the making: Learning to read
and practice on text structure instruction. in an ethnically diverse first-grade classroom. Journal of Educational
Psychology, 92, 1–20.
Gambrell, L. B. (1993). The impact of RUNNING START on the reading
Closure motivation and behavior of first-grade children. Unpublished manu-
script, University of Maryland, National Reading Research Center.
While practitioners and researchers alike suggest that General Accounting Office (2001). Meeting the needs of students with
English-language learners’ reading instruction and reading limited English proficiency. Washington, DC: Author.
development deserve significant attention, there is little Gersten, R. (1996). Language instruction of language-minority students:
The transition years. The Elementary School Journal, 96, 227–244.
research on what regular classroom teacher-student interac-
Gersten, R. (1999). Lost opportunities: Challenges confronting four teach-
tion matters most for English-language learners’ reading ers of English-language learners. The Elementary School Journal,
growth. Much needs to be accomplished before we will have 100, 38–56.
a serious evidence-based understanding of which forms of Gersten, R., & Jiménez , R. (1994). A delicate balance: Enhancing literature
reading instruction have the greatest impact. instruction for students of English as a second language. The Reading
Teacher, 47, 438–449.
Goldenberg, C. (2008). Teaching English-language learners. What the re-
References search does—and does not—say. American Educator, 32(2), 8–44.
Good, III, R. H., Bank, N., & Watson, J. M. (Eds.). (2003). Indicadores
Alvermann, D. E., Fitzgerald, J., & Simpson, M. (2006). Teaching and Dinámicos del Exito en la Lectura [Dynamic indicators of reading
learning in reading. In P. A. Alexander & P. H. Winne (Eds.), Hand- success]. Eugene, OR: Institute for the Development of Educational
book of Educational Psychology (2nd ed., pp. 427–455). Mahwah, Achievement.
NJ: Erlbaum. Good, III, R. H., & Kaminski, R. A. (Eds.) (2002). Dynamic indicators
Araujo, L. (2002). The literacy development of kindergarten English- of basic early literacy skills (6th ed.) Eugene, OR: Institute for the
language learners. Journal of Research in Childhood Education, 16, Development of Educational Achievement.
232–247. Graves, A. W., Gersten, R., & Haager, D. (2004). Literacy instruction in
August, D., & Shanahan, T. (2006). Developing literacy in second-lan- multiple-language first-grade classrooms: Linking student outcomes
guage learners: Report of the National Literacy Panel on Language to observed instructional practice. Learning Disabilities Research &
Minority Children and Youth. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum. Practice, 19, 262–272.
Arzubiaga, A. E., Artiles, A. J., King K. A., & Harris-Murri, N. (2008), Guskey, T. R. (1990). Integrating innovation. Educational Leadership,
Exceptional children, 74, 309–327. 47(5), 11–15.
Burt, M., Dulay, H., & Hernandez-Chavez, E. (1978). Bilingual syntax Harris, P. J., Baltodano, H. M., & Artiles, A. J. (2006). Integration of
measure II. San Francisco, CA: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich. culture in reading studies for youth in corrections: A literature review.
Carlo, M. S., August, D., McLaughlin, B., Snow, C. E., Dressler, C., Lipp- Education and treatment of children, 29, 749–778.
man, D. N., et al. (2004). Closing the gap: Addressing the vocabulary Jiménez , R., & Gersten, R. (1999). Lessons and dilemmas derived from
needs on English-language learners in bilingual and mainstream the literacy instruction of two Latina/o teachers. American Educational
classrooms. Reading Research Quarterly, 39, 188–215. Research Journal, 36, 265–301.
Carnine, D. W., Silbert, J., & Kame’enui, E. J. (1997). Direct instruction Kindler, A. E. (2002). Survey of the states of limited English proficient
in reading (3rd ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Merrill/Prentice Hall. students and available educational programs and services 2000–2001
Clay, M. M. (1993). An observation survey of early literacy achievement. summary report. Washington, DC: National Clearinghouse for English
Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann. Language Acquisition and Language Instruction Educational Programs.
Clay, M. M. (2002). An observation survey of early literacy achievement Retrieved February 22, 2006, from http://www.ncela.gwu.edu
(2nd ed.). Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann. Klingner, J. K., Artiles, A. J., & Barletta, L. M. (2006). English language
Dalton, E. G., Tighe, P. L., & Ballard, W. S. (1991). IPTI: Oral: IDEA learners who struggle with reading: Language acquisition or LD?
oral language proficiency test, English. Brea, CA: Educational Journal of Learning Disabilities, 39, 103–128.
IDEAS, Inc. Koskinen, P. S., Blum, I. H., Bisson, S. A., Phillips, S. M., Creamer, T.
Dalton, S. S. (1998). Pedagogy matters: Standards for effective teaching S., & Baker, T. K. (2000). Book access, shared reading, and audio
 Reading Instruction Research for English-Language Learners in Kindergarten through Sixth Grade 391

models: The effects of supporting literacy learning of linguisticallyl Snow, C. E., Tabors, P. O., Nicholson, P. A., & Kurland, B. F. (1995).
diverse students in school and home. Journal of Educational Psychol- SHELL: Oral language and early literacy skills in kindergarten and
ogy, 29, 23–36. first-grade children. Journal of Research in Early Childhood Educa-
Kucer, S. B. (1992). Six bilingual Mexican-American students’ and their tion, 10, 37–48.
teachers’ interpretations of cloze literacy lessons. The Elementary Texas Education Agency. (2000). Tejas Lee. Austin, TX: Author.
School Journal, 92, 557–572. Tharp, R. G. (2005). Activity Setting Observation System rule book.
Kucer, S. B. (1999). Two students’ responses to, and literacy growth in, Center for Research on Education, Diversity & Excellence, Research
a whole language curriculum. Reading Research and Instruction, Reports, Paper ASOS. Retrieved from http://repositories.cdlib.org/
38, 233–253. crede/rsrchrpts/ASOS
Kucer, S. B., & Silva, C. (1999). The English literacy development of Thomas, W. P., & Collier, V. P. (2002). A national study of school effective-
bilingual students withina transition whole-language curriculum. ness for language minority students’ long-term academic achievement,
Bilingual Research Journal, 23, 319–245. Final report: Project 1.1. Santa Cruz, CA: University of California,
LaPray, M., & Ross, R. 1986). The graded word list: Quick gauge of Center for Research on Education, Diversity, and Excellence.
reading ability. In E. E. Ekwall (Ed.), Ekwall reading inventory (2nd Tindal, G., & Marston, D. (1990). Classroom-based assessment: Evaluat-
ed., pp. 28–29). Boston: Allyn & Bacon. ing instructional outcomes. Columbus, OH: Merrill.
Linan-Thompson, S., Bryant, D. P., Dickson, S. V., & Kouzekanani, K. Torgesen, J., Wagner, R., & Rashotte, C. (1999). Test of word reading
(2005). Spanish literacy instruction for at-risk kindergarten students. efficiency. Austin, TX: PRO-ED.
Remedial and Special Education, 26, 236–244. Vaughn, S., Cirino, P. T., Linan-Thompson, S., Mathes, P. G., Carlson, C.
Mathes, P. G., Linan-Thompson, S., Pollard-Durodola, S. D., Hagan, D., Hagan, E. C., et al. (2006). Effectiveness of a Spanish interven-
E. C., & Vaughn, S. (2003). Lectura Proactiva para principiantes: tion and an English intervention for English-language learners at risk
Intensive small group instruction for Spanish speaking readers. for reading problems. American Educational Research Journal, 43,
Dallas, TX: P. G. Mathes, Institute of Reading Research, Southern 449–487.
Methodist University. Vaughn, S., Linan-Thompson, S., Mathes, P. G., Cirino, P. T., Carlson, C.
Mathes, P. G., Torgesen, J., Wahl, M., Menchetti, J. C., & Grek, M. L. D., Pollard-Durodola, S. D., et al. (2006). Effectiveness of Spanish
(2004). Proactive beginning reading: Intensive small-group instruction intervention for first-grade English language learners at risk for reading
for struggling readers. Unpublished manuscript. difficulties. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 39, 56–73.
Neufeld, P., & Fitzgerald, J. (2001). Early English reading development: Vaughn, S., Mathes, P. G., Linan-Thompson, S., Cirino, P. T., Carlson, C.
Latino English learners in the “low” reading group. Research in the D., Pollard-Durodola, S. D., et al. (2006). Effectiveness of an English
Teaching of English, 36, 64–105. intervention for first-grade English language learners at risk for reading
Newcomer, P., & Hammill, D. (1997). Test of language development (3rd problems. The Elementary School Journal, 107, 153–180.
ed.). Austin, TX: Pro-Ed. Wagner, R., Torgesen, J., & Rashotte, C. (1999). Comprehensive Test
Padrón, Y. N. (1994). Comparing reading instruction in Hispanic/limited- of Phonological Processing (CTOPP). Bloomington, MN: Pearson
English-proficiency schools with other inner-city schools. Bilingual Assessments.
Research Journal, 18, 49–66. Waxman, H. C., Wang, M. C., Lindvall, C. M., & Anderson, K. A. (1983a).
Padrón, Y. N., & Waxman, H. C. (1999). Classroom observations of the Classroom Observation Schedule technical manual. Pittsburgh,
five standards of effective teaching in urban classrooms with English PA: University of Pittsburgh, Learning Research and Development
language learners. Teaching and Change, 7, 79–100. Center.
Pérez, B. (1994). Spanish literacy development: A descriptive study Waxman, H. C., Wang, M. C., Lindvall, C. M., & Anderson, K. A. (1983b).
of four bilingual whole-language classrooms. Journal of Reading Teachers Roles Observation Schedule technical manual. Pittsburgh,
Behavior, 26, 75–94. PA: University of Pittsburgh, Learning Research and Development
Pollard-Durodola, S. D., Cedillo, G. D., & Denton, C. A. (2004). Linguistic Center.
units and instructional strategies that facilitate word recognition for Waxman, H. C., Wang, M. C., Lindvall, C. M., & Anderson, K. A. (1988).
Latino kindergarteners learning to read in Spanish. Bilingual Research Classroom observation schedule technical manual (Rev. ed.). Philadel-
Journal, 28, 319–354. phia: Temple University, Center for Research in Human Development
Saunders, W. M., & Goldenberg, C. (1999). Effects of instructional and Education.
conversations and literature logs on limited- and fluency-English- Wilkinson, G. S. (1993). The wide range achievement test—3. Wilmington,
proficient students’ story comprehension and thematic understanding. DE: Jastak Associates.
The Elementary School Journal, 99, 277–301. Woodcock, R. W. (1991). Woodcock language proficiency battery-revised,
Silverman, R. D. (2007). Vocabulary development of English-language English and Spanish forms. Itasca, IL: Riverside.
and English-only learners in kindergarten. The Elementary School Woodcock, R. W. (1995). Woodcock Language Proficiency Battery-
Journal, 107, 365–383. Revised, Spanish form: Supplemental manual. Itasca, IL: Riverside.
Slavin, R. E. & Cheung, A. (2005). A synthesis of research on language Yoon, B. (2007). Offering or limiting opportunities: Teachers’ roles and
of reading instruction for English language learners. Review of Edu- approaches to English-language learners’ participation in literacy
cational Research, 75, 247–284. activities. The Reading Teacher, 61, 216–225.
Slosson, R. L. (1963). Slosson oral reading test. East Aurora, NY: Slosson Zehler, A., Fleischman, H., Hopstock, P., Stephenson, T., Pendzick, M.,
Educational Publications. & Sapru, S. (2003). Descriptive study of services to LEP students and
Smylie, M. A. (1988). The enhancement function of staff development: LEP students with disabilities, Volume 1A: Research report. Develop-
Organization and psychological antecedents to individual teacher ment Associates, Inc. Retrieved January 15, 2004, from http://www.
change. American Educational Research Journal, 25, 1–30. devassoc.com/devassoc/vol_1_text.pdf
 34
Interventions for the Deaf and Language Delayed
KIMBERLY A. WOLBERS AND HANNAH M. DOSTAL
University of Tennessee

This chapter provides a synthesis of previous literacy transformational grammar after the age of 12 (Yoshinaga-
research with deaf students, and it suggests a number of Itano et al., 1996).
future directions. Much attention throughout the chapter Dismal literacy outcomes persist even though advance-
is given to one subpopulation of deaf students—those with ments in the field of deaf education over the past several
severe to profound losses who are less likely to develop decades should have logically led to greater literacy achieve-
oral language skills and who encounter unique barriers ment. Some developments of recent times include: techno-
to reading and writing development when compared to logical improvements such as cochlear implants and digital
their hearing or hard of hearing peers. There is a need for hearing aids; early identification and intervention programs
specialized literacy instruction of the deaf in order to be that are increasingly screening babies at birth for hearing
responsive to the specific language and literacy challenges loss and providing services to the families by 6 months of
they encounter. Two main areas are discussed in this chapter: age (National Center for Birth Defects and Developmental
(a) the occurrence of delays in development of expressive Disabilities, 2005); the explosion of bilingual/ bicultural
language and (b) the effect of having a visually and spatially educational programs; higher qualifications and standards
based language as one’s primary mode of communication. for educational interpreters and teachers of the deaf; legal
Instructional interventions that address these specific chal- mandates such as IDEA that give students with hearing
lenges and attempt to positively impact reading or writing loss access to the general education curriculum; heightened
in English are highlighted throughout. awareness of Deaf1 culture and the Deaf community. Yet,
making a difference in the literacy achievement of deaf
The reading achievement outcomes of deaf students have students has proven to be a formidable task despite these
illustrated a lack of literacy progress since the late 1960s developments, for simply exposing a deaf child to the gen-
(Yoshinaga-Itano & Snyder, 1985). Recent data released by eral education curriculum with more qualified professionals
the Gallaudet Research Institute (2003) confirms stagnate and better amplification may not necessarily ensure that
reading levels; the median reading comprehension score for learning takes place.
17- and 18-year-old deaf students corresponds with a 4.0 Discussed less frequently is the 50% of deaf students
grade reading level of hearing students. This indicates that (with diverse backgrounds and experiences) achieving
half of the deaf and hard of hearing students tested in this beyond a fourth-grade reading level upon graduation. Ap-
age range are reading below the typical hearing student who proximately 5% of seniors with hearing loss demonstrate
is beginning the fourth grade level. Even more striking, deaf reading comprehension abilities at or above the level of their
students have been known to make only 1 year of gain in hearing peers (Kelly & Barac-Cikoja, 2007). At Gallaudet
reading comprehension and vocabulary development over a University, a liberal arts college for the Deaf, reading and
10-year period from age 12 to 21 (Yoshinaga-Itano, Snyder, writing levels of incoming freshman have been rising each
& Mayberry, 1996), and they experience a writing “plateau” year (Fernandes, 2003). This may indicate a widening gap
with both semantics and syntax in adolescence (Musselman between students who are armed with successful reading
& Szanto, 1998). Writing achievement similarly plateaus and writing strategies, have had sufficient language and
around this age for children in general (Bereiter, 1980), yet literacy experiences, and have a balanced repertoire of
deaf children exhibit substantial troubles with lower level literacy skills (both text-based and higher-level), and those
skills and, for instance, make little to no progress in rules of students who are still struggling with basic (even primary)

392
 Interventions for the Deaf and Language Delayed 393

reading, writing, and language skills. Now more than ever, guage, there has been little attempt at theorizing a course
we live in a technological and global society where there is of literacy development (cf. Mayer & Wells, 1996). The
heavy reliance on print-based literacy skills to accomplish current chapter gives consideration to students’ exceptional
everyday tasks and access information (Luckner, Sebald, language and literacy histories including experiences of (a)
Cooney, Young, & Muir, 2006). Knowing the educational language delays and life occurrences devoid of language
factors and effective literacy instruction that contribute to mediation and (b) having a visually and spatially based
deaf students’ literacy achievement is vital. primary language. Specialized literacy approaches are
necessary to make a difference in the reading and writing
achievement of these deaf students. The current deaf edu-
Prior Literacy and Deafness Research
cation literature as well as future intervention studies are
Unfortunately, the field of deaf education has very little discussed, especially instruction that ameliorates delays of
knowledge aggregated in terms of effective literacy inter- a first language while building an understanding for English
ventions with school-aged deaf persons. Antia, Reed, and language and literacy.
Kreimeyer (2005) conducted a regression analysis to find
the predictors of writing achievement among students which
Unique Language Factor #1: Language Delays and
resulted in a model that could explain an unsatisfying 18%
Life Occurrences Devoid of Language Mediation
of the variance with variables like grade, degree of hear-
ing loss and gender. Language ability has been known to For severe to profoundly deaf individuals, there are lan-
correlate with literacy achievement (Izzo, 2002) but was guage barriers that stand in the way of making sufficient
not a predictor in this study. The authors posit that the in- literacy progress. First, early language exposure and
structional approach of the teacher likely impacted student language learning practices are often inaccessible to deaf
achievement, yet this research and other research have children through auditory approaches alone. If a mutually
been unable to reveal more descriptively the approaches understandable means of communication, such as sign lan-
that make a difference in student achievement. The paucity guage, is not adopted early in the home, deaf children are
of existing literacy research additionally complicates our at great risk for language delays. Even when sign language
ability as a field to drawn certain conclusions. is utilized in the home, deaf children still may not have full
Luckner et al. (2006) found that only 964 articles relative access to language due to the challenges parents face in
to literacy and deafness have appeared in peer-reviewed learning sign language (Marschark, 2001). And, the current
journals over the past 40 years; on average, that equates to educational system often perpetuates a home problem by
a meager 24 a year. Of those 964 articles, only 22 could be providing communication-poor learning environments for
considered evidence-based; that is, the study used a control deaf learners, e.g., children placed in isolation where there
group and provided quantitative and statistical information are no same-aged deaf peers or proficient adult signers
needed for calculation of effect sizes. Qualitative research (Siegel, 2000).
studies can provide rich information about how, when, or In addition to a lack of proficient language models, deaf
why something works (Pressley, 2005). Yet, over half of children are not engaged in rich and authentic conversation.
the articles published are not research studies at all but are When family members are not fluent and experience fre-
position papers, practitioner articles, or literature reviews. quent errors in language expression/reception, interactions
The majority of the work in the area of deaf education and are severely thwarted. Conversations necessitate more time
literacy has been opinion-based and governed by one’s own for repetition and clarification, which leads to less respon-
persuasions rather than by science (Bailes, 2001; Easter- siveness, less complex forms of language being used, and
brooks, 2005). Needless to say, there is considerable need more directed conversations (Schlesinger, 1988). This prob-
for increased quantity and quality research. This chapter lem may again be perpetuated at school when classrooms
provides a discussion of the unique factors affecting literacy are dominated by teacher talk (Cazden, 2001), whereby
achievement of the deaf, a synthesis of the few intervention student opportunities for interaction are often controlled
research studies that respond to these factors, and sugges- (Mehan, 1979) and require no real thought or interpreta-
tions for future research directions as well as instructional tion (Nystrand, 1997). Poor early home interactions lead to
implications. deficient language development in deaf children (Calderon,
Because there is great diversity among deaf and hard 2000), and this is carried forward through education with
of hearing students (e.g., degree of hearing loss, affiliation classroom instruction that does nothing to remediate stu-
with the Deaf community, mode of communication, etc.) dents’ limited early language exposure.
and their instructional needs, specific attention will be By the time deaf children reach school, they have had sig-
given to one subgroup of children—those having severe nificantly fewer opportunities to learn and use language, and
to profound hearing losses which have greatly impacted many are at beginning one-word stages of language develop-
the development of speech and the use of oral language ment (Gilbertson & Ferre, 2008). This is in comparison to
to support reading and writing. With respect to successful hearing children who, by the age of 5, have a vocabulary
deaf readers having significant hearing losses and using repertoire of approximately 10,000 words and sophisticated
American Sign Language (ASL) as their expressive lan- use of syntax and morphology, including the production
394 Kimberly A. Wolbers and Hannah M. Dostal

of embedded clauses, compound and complex sentences certain experiences or activities. Then, this newly adopted
(Nippold, 2007). Without consistent language input and and utilized language becomes a bridge into reading and
modeling, there are a narrower set of contexts through writing. The LEA will likely lead to greater understanding
which deaf children learn words (Lederberg & Spencer, that expressed language can be written and read. It also of-
2001). Poor early language indicates poor literacy skills to fers a natural way for deaf children to expand and develop
follow, expressive and receptive language deficiencies are their first language, for language is utilized in tandem with
subsequently followed by reading and writing struggles daily experiences. Yet, there is little evidence to support
(Larney, 2002). Further, young children without involve- any claims that it leads to greater language and literacy
ment in complex interactions or less directed dialogues (e.g., outcomes (cf. Johnson & Roberson, 1988).
practice with why or how questions) experience troubles It is suggested that future research examine the impact
with reading in adolescence (Schlesinger, 1988). of using LEA with deaf children. When more structured
Lastly, children learn about the world through lan- approaches to word decoding are infused in the LEA,
guage, negotiating and constructing meaning of childhood hearing students have shown greater literacy benefit (Stahl
experiences (Nystrand, 1997). Oftentimes, however, deaf & Miller, 2006); therefore, attention should be given to
children have experienced the world around them absent language and literacy growth provided variations of the
of accessible conversation that involves sense-making, LEA. The LEA traditionally involves the teacher capturing
explanation or inquiry (Easterbrooks & Baker, 2002). the students’ language and oral message in written text.
Vocabulary knowledge as well as prior knowledge work to Approaches that require greater student thinking, problem-
support reading comprehension, therefore, deaf children solving and involvement with the writing may also provide
are disadvantaged without proper early intervention and more benefit.
language-mediated experiences (Luckner et al., 2006). One consideration for teachers using the LEA is to ensure
they have accurate details for the child’s experiences prior to
Instructional Interventions and Future Directions A building language and capturing the message in written text.
natural intervention approach based on principals of lan- When children are language delayed—and especially when
guage acquisition (e.g., experiential learning paired with children are only providing one or two word utterances—the
language, language and play opportunities, purposeful experience can be reconstructed inaccurately if the teacher
communication) may be ideal for early language learning makes assumptions about what happened or if she leads the
when children arrive to school with severe delays (Luetke- child in a particular direction and the child merely mimics
Stahlman, 1993). However, teachers are increasingly under language. There may be misunderstandings that unfold due
pressure to additionally cover the grade level curriculum and to the limitations of the child’s communication. It is strongly
get students prepared for high-stakes tests in reading and suggested that the teacher be firmly aware of the details of
other subject areas. Oftentimes, deaf children are learning the experience; shared experiences can, for instance, be
to read and write while simultaneously learning to express readily utilized for reading and writing extensions (Wolbers,
themselves through language (Luckner et al., 2006). 2008) since the teacher witnessed the activity. Language
modeling and use happens in tandem with the activity from
Language experience approach. A highly touted and which the reading and writing then builds. Teachers of the
frequently utilized instructional practice is the Language deaf may also have students draw or role play instances
Experience Approach (McAnally, Rose, & Quigley, 1999), to arrive at an accurate message. In this case, expressive
whereby students’ reading material is constructed from their language may be developed first by moving from visual
own oral narratives and experiences. For the general popula- and gestured representations to greater infusion of signs
tion, there is little evidence to suggest that this practice is (cf. Loeterman, Paul, & Donahue, 2002).
any more effective than other kinds of reading instruction
(e.g., basal or teaching explicit word decoding strategies). Dialogic and interactive approaches. As children
There may be slightly more benefit for reading readiness and become older, there may still be a need for instructional
initiation to print objectives at the kindergarten level but less approaches that attend to expressive and receptive language
in the way of reading mastery skills at the older ages (Stahl development while simultaneously meeting reading and
& Miller, 2006). And, for disadvantaged populations such writing objectives. It is not uncommon to meet deaf students
as students coming from low SES backgrounds, the Lan- in the older grades who exhibit varying levels of language
guage Experience Approach (LEA) is more hard-pressed delay (cf. Lederberg & Spencer, 2001; Singleton, Morgan,
to show significant impact when compared to systematic DiGello, Wiles, & Rivers, 2004). There may have been a
word decoding and word study skills. lack of accessible adult language models and same-aged
For deaf children who are still developing a first language peers (Siegel, 2000) in the child’s life, or even a lack of
through which they can share their experiences with others, instructional approaches that attend to the language needs.
the LEA may have additional language and communication In one literacy intervention study, a class of middle school
benefit (Stauffer, 1979). Children are first supported with students is described as having minimal language skills;
the help of more competent language users in development most of the students had transferred to a residential school
of the expressive and receptive language that accompanies from other educational programs where students were
 Interventions for the Deaf and Language Delayed 395

isolated from other deaf and signing individuals or where child initiations, writing for a purpose, and the provision
program philosophies solely emphasized oral approaches of adult modeling of linguistic structures within context—
(Wolbers, 2007). Whatever the reason, teachers in the later the students’ writing improved. Craig, Carr, and Latham
elementary, middle, and high school grades encounter deaf (1964) also evidenced that early elementary students re-
children evidencing mild to severe delays in their expressive ceiving a more natural language approach (modeled after
and receptive language development. Therefore, instruc- oral language development) to teach writing resulted in
tional approaches to delivering grade level curriculum significantly improved grammar outcomes when compared
must recognize the limitations of students in expressing to students receiving structured and analytic systems of
or receiving content-related information through language grammar instruction (i.e., the Fitzgerald Key). In this
which has not fully developed. One response to this has research, new vocabulary and forms of expression were
been the use of pictorial materials and visual scaffolds, embedded into larger phrasal units rather than taught as
which prove to be effective tools in mediating the literacy isolated pieces. Further, the phrases were aligned with
learning of deaf children (Schneiderman, 1995; Walker, pictorials. Learning was therefore situated within meaning-
Munro, & Richards, 1998; Wilson & Hyde, 1997; Wolbers, ful and visual contexts through which deaf children could
2007). Yet, there is additional need for instruction that match new language with experiences and activity. These
ameliorates language delays while simultaneously building studies were purposely designed to juxtapose natural and
content understanding. analytic kinds of instruction, thereby making it unclear
Dialogic modes of teaching, for instance, have been whether structured approaches could be embedded in or
linked with greater literacy and academic achievement as combined with natural interactive approaches to provide
well as higher cognitive capacities and critical thinking for greater benefit to the student.
all students (Burbules, 1993; Hillocks, 2002; Nystrand, For example, Wolbers (2008) infused structured ap-
1997; Ward, 1994). When using dialogic kinds of instruc- proaches to teaching English grammar within the co-con-
tion with deaf children, there is an additional opportunity struction of authentic pieces of writing. Students engaged in
to practice and use language, especially in conjunction with purposeful and meaningful writing tasks with an established
higher levels of thinking. Research by Mayer, Akamatsu, audience, and were active participants in the collabora-
and Stewart (2002) looked extensively into the dialogue tive creation of meaning and problem-solving. Addition-
used by teachers of the deaf across grade level and subject ally, when grammatical confusions surfaced among group
matter. They discovered that exemplary teachers of the deaf members (e.g., using “a” vs. “the”), the instructor utilized
used discourse strategies that encourage students to expand structured approaches to explicitly teach these skills. Yet,
on their linguistic and cognitive efforts. They “worked hard students went one step further by reapplying this skill to
to engage students in interactions which were meaningful their authentic text. The study examined elementary and
and encouraged knowledge-building” (p. 499). The teachers middle school student outcomes when writing instruction
were not the “tellers” of information but provided a stimu- was highly dialogic and also balanced (i.e., gave consider-
lating environment that encouraged students to actively ation to the teaching of higher and lower level objectives).
participate in learning. For instance, teachers asked open- The findings indicated that students made significant growth
ended and authentic questions such as “Why?” or “How can over a short 21-day instructional period with genre-specific
we find out about this?” that required students to explain, traits, contextual language writing skills (e.g., improved
justify, inquire, hypothesize, problem solve, or defend rather verb consistency, correct usage of prepositions), editing and
than recite memorized information. They additionally at- revising skills, and reading. Yet with each of these writing
tempted to respond to students’ comments and queries, no interventions utilizing an interactive or dialogic approach,
matter how seemingly off-track. This is done in a contingent there were no remarks on students’ expressive and receptive
manner, whereby the teacher has the ability to clarify or language growth as a result of the instruction.
weave together contributions. This is an important aspect of Dialogic and interactive approaches to writing instruc-
interactive educational environments—students are active tion are likely to provide language as well as literacy
thinkers who make tentative hypotheses or explanations, and benefit for students who are actively engaged in meaning
the teachers take up students’ exploratory talk and provide construction via an accessible communication mode. Yet,
appropriate scaffolding (Schoenfeld, 2002). All participants, research to date is lacking data to evidence the impact on
teachers and students alike, actively work together in a joint first language growth. When a highly dialogic and balanced
process of language and meaning construction. approach named Strategic and Interactive Writing Instruc-
Some writing instruction approaches implemented with tion (Wolbers, 2007) was utilized with the before mentioned
the deaf have built on highly interactive and experience- group of severely language delayed middle school students,
based approaches. Schneiderman (1995) found that struc- students made noticeable gains in language and communica-
tured and analytic approaches to grammar instruction were tive competence. There were no formal language measures,
not effective for fourth- to sixth-grade students because they however the author indicates that students became more
did not generalize to real writing. When situations required clear and complete in their ability to express themselves
meaningful and social interactions between teacher and through ASL, needed increasingly less language scaffold-
students (similar to parent-child interactions)—allowing ing from the teacher, obtained longer stints of eye contact
396 Kimberly A. Wolbers and Hannah M. Dostal

for communication purposes, and increased their attempts tive literacy instruction enables teachers to build on their
at responding to and building on others’ comments. Future students’ current expressions and understandings. When
research should include an evaluation of expressive and students become participants of the classroom learning and
receptive language in addition to other competencies. more readily express their thinking and ideas, teachers have
Other than writing interventions, some reading instruc- a greater ability to accurately assess their current levels of
tion approaches used with deaf children have incorporated understanding, which, in turn, leads to more responsive,
dialogic methods. Andrews, Creaghead, Kretschmer, and scaffolded, and extended communication from the teacher.
Weiler (1995) found that students recall more of a story’s “By building on children’s cultural and personal ways of
events and elements when the story is read to them in a interacting while at the same time providing new and ex-
group, and interaction occurs among group participants. panded opportunities for successful interactions, teachers
Similarly, Al-Hilawani (2003) compared three different can help children expand their participatory and linguistic
reading approaches used with groups of third-grade deaf repertoires” (Johnson, 1994, p. 189). Gioia, Johnston, and
students: a basic reading approach, a modified reciprocal Cooper (2001) discuss how teachers who make observations
teaching approach, and a key word strategy. In the basic and collect student data can provide more responsive lit-
reading approach, students responded to questions formu- eracy instruction at appropriate but challenging levels. With
lated by the teacher after reading a passage. The modified re- the to and fro of classroom communication represented in
ciprocal teaching approach additionally incorporated group dialogic instruction, teachers can not only evaluate the level
discussion and participation with summarizing, clarifying, of content understanding but can also assess communicative
and predicting. And, students using the key word strategy competence and expressive/receptive language ability.
selected key words in the passage and then took turns ask- Students may at times respond to the teacher’s question
ing the others what happened before and after. Each also with something inappropriate and seemingly off topic. And,
prepared written questions to ask the other students, and it is unclear whether this is the result of language limita-
when there was difficulty answering s/he provided guidance tions or if there is a lack of conceptual understanding. For
and hints. Both the modified reciprocal teaching and the key example in one of the classroom transcripts provided by
word strategy encouraged greater student participation in Mayer, Akamatsu, and Stewart (2002), a science teacher,
the activity and more interaction between members than the while holding up a beaker representing all the water in the
basic reading approach. The two methods were significantly world, asks her class how much of the world’s water can
more effective in promoting comprehension (i.e., knowing be used for drinking, and a student responds, “5, 6 days”
the main idea, responding to word meaning questions) than (p. 497). She repeats the question, the student responds
the basic reading approach. Yet, dialogic inquiry whereby in the same way, and she passes over his response. In this
students are co-constructors of knowledge was never fully case, the student may have misunderstood the question
implemented in this study; the author explains that teachers to be, “How long can a person survive on this amount of
were resistant to students assuming the teacher’s role as is drinking water?”
done in reciprocal teaching (Palincsar & Brown, 1984), Future research might examine instructional approaches
for teachers had a desire to control and structure the activ- that effectively decipher linguistic and conceptual stumbling
ity. Even though the modified reciprocal teaching and key blocks to student understanding. In terms of language bar-
word strategy students had significantly higher outcomes riers, this particular student (a) might simply understand
than those in the basic reading approach, students under lessons better when the teacher uses ASL visual and spatial
all conditions were still achieving below average (~60% grammar rather than the English-based sign that was used
on reading evaluation). or (b) may have a language delay whereby he utilizes more
Again, these studies did not evaluate the impact that dia- visual information (i.e., the beaker of water) to comprehend
logic approaches to reading have on language development. the teacher’s question rather than the teacher’s voiced and
There is evidence that dialogic reading positively impacts signed expression. When problems exist, teachers need a
vocabulary and language growth when used with hearing repertoire of strategies for how to work through the language
pre-school children (Hargrave & Senechal, 2000) and could difficulties to obtain clarity (Tye-Murray, 1994) while also
result in comparable or enhanced gains when used with deaf, providing a bridge to further language development. Future
language-delayed children. In one study by Fung, Chow research might examine instructional approaches that effec-
& McBride-.Chang (2005), parents incorporated dialogic tively decipher linguistic and conceptual stumbling blocks
approaches while reading with their deaf and hard of hear- to student understanding.
ing children. They encouraged active child involvement,
asked open-ended questions and prompted their children
Unique Language Factor #2: A Visual and Spatial
to comment on the text. When their children contributed
Expressive Language
to the interaction, the parents were responsive by using ex-
pansion techniques. After 8 weeks of intervention, children Deaf students may additionally encounter barriers to read-
demonstrated significantly greater vocabulary development ing and writing when using sign language as their primary
in comparison to the non-intervention children language, for there is a noted lack of correspondence be-
Similar to parent-child interactions, dialogic and interac- tween American Sign Language (ASL) and English text. For
 Interventions for the Deaf and Language Delayed 397

instance, a person speaking English might use the following has already indicated that there are several inches by stating
sentence: The cat fell out of the tree when the dog came a number, and that alone indicates plurality in ASL. Thus,
near and barked. A person using ASL would use their hands the student quite possibly is applying knowledge of her
to visually display each item (cat, dog, tree) and how they expressive language to her writing in English.
move and interact in space, as if producing a motion picture. Research has pointed out the linkages between one’s
The message would be constructed in a nonlinear fashion by expressive language and one’s written language. For in-
first displaying a cat in a tree. The tree remains in the space stance, in the mid-1970s Loban showed that oral language
in front of the body while the signer uses the opposite hand and written language seemed to develop in parallel (see
to show the dog approaching the tree and barking, which Applebee, 2000); once certain developments took place in
then sets up a situation for the cat to fall. one’s oral language such as the use of dependent clauses
To provide a comparison for readers between English or more complex vocabulary, these developments occurred
and ASL sentence structure, we reduce the complexity of in one’s writing approximately 1 year later. Already dis-
the ASL expression by setting aside elements such as facial cussed in this chapter is the case that many deaf children
and body grammar. The expression can be roughly repre- experience mild to severe delays with the development of
sented with a combination of signs (indicated by capital a primary language. In the writing sample above, the au-
letters) and classifiers2: TREE-CAT-classifier showing the thor used short, rigid and simple kinds of sentences, while
cat sitting in the tree- HAPPEN-DOG-classifier showing lacking more complex constructions such as dependent
dog coming near-BARK-classifier showing cat falling from or relative clauses. This is common among young deaf
tree. The syntactic and morphological differences between writers (Heider & Heider, 1941; Moores & Miller, 2001;
ASL and English are quite apparent. Deaf children who use Powers & Wigus, 1983; Yoshinaga-Itano et al., 1996) and
ASL as their primary means of communication but must may be indicative of the stage of language development
learn to read and write in English, may encounter difficul- if the primary form of communication still lacks the full
ties in making connections between the grammatical form complexity of language.
associated with one’s thoughts and English vocabulary and Bailes’ (2001) observations of first-grade deaf writers
grammar used for reading and writing. were that students in the earlier stages of ASL acquisition
The following story written by a seventh-grade deaf tended to struggle with written expression; native users of
student illustrates how features of one’s primary language ASL, on the other hand, had abundant English vocabulary
can surface in writing: which allowed them to read and write more independently.
Singleton et al. (2004) examined differences in the writing
February 7, Sara and I went to pet shop. I want the lizard. of low-ASL-proficient students and high-ASL-proficient
We buy the lizard, wood, little cave with plant, the crickets,
students and found that writing among the first group was
and water. We brought to my house. I feed the lizard. It eat
crickets. I pick the lizard Then pet to it. I said, “called Darsh
more formulaic and had mainly high-frequency words. Yet,
and Satch.” It is brown and yellow. Wow! The lizard’s long both groups wrote significantly fewer function words than
is 8 inch. I can tickle the lizard. I don’t know how old the their hearing peers. Deaf students also typically experience
lizard. (Wolbers, 2005) difficulty with the use of adverbs, pronouns, determiners,
conjunctions, passive constructions and conditional verbs
First, the student uses several present tense verbs (e.g., want, such as “could,” “should,” or “might” (Taeschner, 1988;
buy, eat, pick, pet) when the event clearly happened in the Yoshinaga-Itano et al., 1996). Some barriers to reading
past. Yet, it is appropriate in ASL to use present tense verbs and writing, then, are likely related to language delays,
when the speaker indicates at the beginning of an expres- while other barriers exist due to the lack of correspondence
sion that the event happened in the past. In the student’s between expressed and written language.
writing, she says at the start that they went to the pet store The inherent disconnect between the visual and spatial
on February 7, which would be a sufficient indicator of grammar of ASL and the linear form of English has led
tense in the signed mode. Also, the phrase, “the lizard’s some to assert that English-based signing (EBS) can serve
long is 8 inch,” demonstrates nonstandard English in a two as a better foundation for literacy learning in English
ways—“long” is an incorrect word choice for this context (Mayer & Akamatsu, 1999). EBS is an umbrella term for
and “inch” lacks plurality. While the sentence seems awk- several artificially contrived systems and some natural sign
ward to an English-speaking person, it looks correct to the expressions which utilize signs in English syntactical order
deaf child. There are reasonable explanations for the child’s (Stewart, 2006). Still, when produced in conceptual and
construction of such a sentence. First, one way a deaf child meaningful ways, EBS does not relay the full complexities
might express the concept of length in ASL is to use one’s of English grammar, nor the vocabulary. A frequently used
index finger and slide it up the length of the other arm. The EBS among deaf persons is pidgin or contact sign which has
word generally associated with this signed concept is “long” developed naturally from ASL and English for the purpose
and is perhaps the reason for the word’s appearance in the of communicating across languages. Pidgin sign does not
awkward sounding sentence above. Second, one typically serve well as a model for written English, for pidgin lan-
signifies plurality in ASL by using repetitive movements or guages by definition have simplified grammar and restricted
indicating how many. In the example, “8 inch,” the student vocabulary (Jackendoff, 1994). For example, the English
398 Kimberly A. Wolbers and Hannah M. Dostal

sentence provided earlier as an example might be expressed through structured and explicit instructional approaches.
in contact sign as: CAT FALL FROM TREE WHEN DOG These methods of teaching English grammar rely heavily
WALK-TO AND BARK. This expression relays the main on skill-drills that occur apart from any real writing context
concepts using ASL signs while placing them in English (McNaughton, 2002) and, thus, students have little opportu-
syntactical order. The expression is a closer representation nity to experience purposeful writing for an authentic audi-
of English, but there still remains a linguistic gap to over- ence. For other students, it has been shown that reductionist
come. In addition, the expression is missing the richness teaching of lower level skills separately from a larger sphere
of ASL, a fully complex language (Stokoe, 1978), due to of meaning provides no real benefit to students (Coleman,
drastically reduced visual and spatial grammar.. 1997; Hillocks, 1984). And with deaf students, there has
While some persons utilize classifiers and movement in been plenty of targeted instructional attention to English
space via contact sign for greater conceptual accuracy, the grammar in the classroom, yet students demonstrate little
expressions grow more distant from English grammar. Ar- progress in this area. They rarely achieve at a level com-
tificially contrived sign systems like Manually Coded Eng- mensurate with their hearing counterparts (Antia, Reed, &
lish can relay the grammatical components of the English Kreimeyer, 2005). For instance, by the age of 12 progress
language (e.g., suffixes) in a visual manner; however, they with transformational grammar has slowed considerably,
are largely disfavored because they are inefficient, cumber- and many students make only 1 year of gain over the next
some, and diminish conceptual accuracy (Fischer, 1998). 10 years (Yoshinaga-Itano et al., 1996). Structured writing
To date, and after decades of use in homes and schools, instruction used with deaf students such as application of the
there has been no evidence to suggest deaf children acquire Fitzgerald Key (Craig, Carr, & Latham, 1964), worksheets
proficiency in English solely through the use of EBS as their and drills of linguistic structures (Schneiderman, 1995),
primary mode of communication (Marschark, 2001; Stew- and learning the parts of speech and practicing them in
art, 2006). At the same time, EBS may serve as a mediator constructed sentences (Wolbers, 2007) have not proven to
between ASL and English for literacy learning purposes be as effective as other approaches.
(Marschark, 2001; Gioia et al., 2001; Wolbers, 2007). Even when students are encouraged to craft an original
story, there is often still an overemphasis on writing ac-
Instructional Interventions and Future Directions This curacy (Harrison, Simpson, & Stuart, 1991; McAnally,
section of the chapter will discuss methods through which Rose, & Quigley, 1994). One unintended consequence is
deaf children having visually and spatially based languages that students have been known to become frustrated with
of expression then develop English language knowledge in writing because a final, polished product seems unattainable
support of reading and writing. First it will demonstrate a to them (Albertini, 1996). Second, students may become
preoccupation with grammar and text-based interventions less likely to experiment with more complex uses of lan-
used to overcome students’ deficiencies in English, arguing guage (Antia et al., 2005, Kluwin & Kelly, 1992) for fear
a need for balanced approaches to teaching English. Then, of being critiqued. Third, a preoccupation with lower level
the section will consider research using metalinguistic skills has meant less instruction given to higher level writ-
approaches known to positively impact English language ing skills. And, there are important higher level skills that
and literacy knowledge. The roles of ASL and EBS in the sorely lack attention such as the development of coherence
development of English are further discussed. Last, the sec- in writing (Antia et al., 2005; Klecan-Aker & Blondeau,
tion will provide information on rereading English text to 1990; McAnally et al., 1999).
build automaticity and familiarity with the language. Deaf students have typically relied more on associative
kinds of writing techniques by introducing several topics
Balanced literacy instruction. For children in general, without elaboration (Yoshinaga-Itano et al., 1996), yet
the advantages of using balanced literacy instruction have skillful writers carefully weave together ideas instead of
been expressed and described (Pressley, 2005). Balanced introducing pieces of information that are independent of
literacy is the use of both whole language approaches and what was previously said. Factors such as these encourage
skills-based instruction which work together to encourage claims that a whole language and non-corrective approaches
development of higher level literacy skills (e.g., reading that give credit for approximations as well as growth can help
comprehension strategies, writing organization and co- blooming writers develop confidence and fluency of expres-
herence of text) and lower level or text-based skills (e.g., sion (French, 1999; Harrison, Simpson, & Stuart, 1991).
English syntactical constructions, decoding/encoding At the same time, academicians who research linguisti-
skills). For teachers of the deaf, however, providing a bal- cally diverse students (i.e., those with expressive languages
ance of instruction related to content as well as form has or home languages that are different from standard English)
been difficult. claim that whole language approaches are a disservice to stu-
Deaf students typically struggle more with text-based dents because instruction is not intense or strategic enough
and lower level skills (Gormely & Sarachan-Deily, 1987), (Delpit, 1986, 1988; Reyes, 1992). Linguistically diverse
and therefore instructional efforts that target English vo- children who are merely immersed or passively exposed to
cabulary and grammar tend to dominate many classrooms standard English text have evidenced very little progress with
(Mayer, 1999). This often means the teaching of grammar the contextual language and grammatical features of their
 Interventions for the Deaf and Language Delayed 399

writing. For instance, merely asking students to proofread With reading, deaf students similarly tend to struggle
their work and fix the mistakes often results in no improve- more with lower level and text-based skills. Figurative
ments. When a student’s expressed language surfaces in their language such as multiple meaning words and idioms are
writing, it looks and sounds right to them. Therefore, for typically difficult for deaf children since there are barriers
linguistically diverse students who have acquired a differ- to hearing these contextualized daily in English conversa-
ent first language, learning standard English is a conscious, tions (Luetke-Stahlman & Nielsen, 2003). Second, there
contrastive and analytic process (Gee, 1991). are sometimes difficulties with establishing an internal
Writing instruction using both natural and structured decoding system. This is partly due to the inaccessibility of
approaches is likely to hold much promise in develop- phonology and the inability to rely on sound-based strate-
ing a wide range of language and literacy skills among gies for deciphering text the way most hearing students do
deaf students. Balanced instruction can be accomplished (Musselman, 2000). And, as Luckner et al. (2006) state:
by teaching writing skills (lower-level and higher level) “Regrettably, many students who are deaf or hard of hearing
in the context of real writing experiences (French, 1999; continue to struggle with lower-level skills, such as word
McNaughton, 2002). For instance linguistically diverse recognition, syntactic parsing, and vocabulary comprehen-
students who receive feedback on the grammatical errors sion” (p. 445).
found within their individually constructed writing make There has traditionally been a similar preoccupation with
significantly greater improvement on grammatical accuracy reading instruction to be structured, skills-based and decon-
than those who do not receive feedback (Ferris & Roberts, textualized. As a result, deaf students do not often develop
2006). Additionally, guided and shared writing whereby reading strategies that will help them to comprehend written
students work collaboratively along with the teacher to text such as summarizing, activating prior knowledge, pre-
construct text provides opportunities to apprentice students dicting, making comparisons, visualizing, and monitoring
to be critical evaluators of both higher level and lower level understanding. Limited learning opportunities of higher
writing actions and to take increasing responsibility for the level skills as well as lower level difficulties (e.g., word
decision making (Calkins, 1986). With collaborative and identification, parsing sentence patterns) contribute to low
authentic writing (i.e., for a predetermined purpose and a reading comprehension among deaf readers (Kelly, 2001,
preselected audience), deaf students engage in the problem- 2003a). Students are more likely to rely on others or say,
solving and thinking associated with all writing activity “I don’t know” when asked to draw inferences from their
and have demonstrated gains with both high level (e.g., reading (Strassman, 1995). They are more likely to depend
providing details, coherence of text, having a clear conclu- on the teacher’s assistance when encountering an unfamiliar
sion) and low level (e.g., appropriate verb tense, reduction word in the text (Strassman, 1997). It has been shown that
of run-ons and fragments, appropriate use of prepositions) elementary deaf students do not activate as many strate-
objectives in writing (Wolbers, 2008). gies as hearing students when reading (Schirmer, 2004),
Guided and shared writing is further a way of engaging and with time, the reading comprehension gap between
students who are struggling with lower level skills (e.g., deaf and hearing readers continues to widen (Munro &
handwriting, encoding text, contextual language) in higher Rickards, 1998).
level learning, which is especially useful in teaching grade There is research to demonstrate that metacognitive
level curriculum to language and literacy delayed deaf strategy instruction is beneficial in promoting reading gains,
students. Guided and shared writing, for instance, has been yet there is a near absence of problem-solving and meta-
utilized with severely delayed deaf adolescents to teach ex- cognition during literacy activity (Marschark, Convertino,
pository writing; the teacher performed the task of writing & LaRock, 2006; Schirmer, 2001). Cerra, Watts-Taffe, and
or typing words so students were free to do the thinking Rose (1997) propose that it is beneficial to utilize higher
and problem-solving (Wolbers, 2007). At the conclusion level skills and comprehension strategies (e.g., taking a
of an 8-week intervention, post-interviews demonstrated reader stance, drawing from graphic information, using
increased student knowledge of higher level writing objec- prior knowledge, self-questioning) in the course of using
tives such as knowing the text structure. Students, at the real text. This gets students actively involved in constructing
same time, evidenced significant gains with writing fluency meaning as well as attending to breakdowns in meaning.
and contextual language. In the comparison group of the Yet, teachers of the deaf emphasize basic reading skills
same study, students received explicit grammar instruction instead of developing independent readers and thinkers
through which they learned the parts of speech and how to (Strassman, 1997). As with writing, this is likely in response
utilize them in sentences; yet they made no gains in lower to students’ struggle with lower order skills such as identify-
level skills and had very little exposure to higher level skills. ing words and ascertaining meaning of particular English
This suggests two things: (a) instruction and learning rela- syntactical construction which limit access to reading text.
tive to contextual language use and grammar happens best Certainly there is need for continued development of decod-
when situated in real writing contexts, and (b) teachers can ing, English vocabulary and syntactical skills to provide
provide grade level instruction for higher level objects even greater entry into text; however, this does not need to happen
though students may be operating at beginning reading and at the expense of developing higher level skills. Reading
writing stages with lower level skills. comprehension strategies and learning of story elements,
400 Kimberly A. Wolbers and Hannah M. Dostal

for instance, can be practiced through guided and shared Little is known regarding the language factors influ-
activity with reading while simultaneously incorporating encing deaf children’s literacy achievement other than the
word and grammar study. fact that limited or delayed development of an L1 impacts
Read it again and again, a reading instruction approach literacy development. It is not fully evident, for example,
developed out of the Laurent Clerc National Deaf Educa- the role ASL and EBS play in the development of English
tion Center at Gallaudet University, takes this instructional literacy skills. In Singleton et al. (2004), young deaf writers
approach. It is a shared reading method whereby a group with varying proficiencies in ASL (i.e., low, moderate and
of students repeatedly visits the same piece of authentic high) were compared with hearing ESL and monolingual
reading material for the purpose of targeting various skills students regarding their vocabulary use. Those students with
and strategies over time and providing greater familiarity low-ASL proficiency (i.e., receiving instruction through
with English text (Schleper, 1998). A story is first delivered EBS and the simultaneous use of speech) were significantly
to a group of students through ASL. This way students gain more likely than monolinguals to write frequently used
immediate access to the story line through a visually-based words rather than unique words. And, although they did
language representation and the storybook graphics. With demonstrate an ability to use function words, they did not
this aided entry into the text, there is opportunity for en- show much variation in their writing, for they repeatedly
gagement in higher-level reading skills such as predicting relied on the same few function words. Students in the
happenings, summarizing, asking and answering reading low-ASL proficiency group also exhibited a more limited
comprehension questions, or inferring meaning. There may English repertoire, for they consistently used a narrow set
be much teacher modeling at first of these higher-level of English forms. This may point to the inability of EBS to
skills, but over time strategies are increasingly appropri- serve as a model for written English, or it may indicate that
ated and utilized by students (Strassman, 1997). Then, with students have yet to develop a complete and complex L1.
additional readings of the text, there is increased study of Students with moderate and high-ASL proficiency shared
lower-level skills (e.g., specific English words, phrases and similar language experiences with the ESL group of stu-
sentences) within the context of a meaningful story. dents, but they were not comparable in terms of vocabulary.
Guided and shared reading is further a way students can The moderate to high-ASL groups and the monolingual
build expressive and receptive vocabulary because there is group were found to use similar proportions of frequent
ample opportunity to link the language of the teacher and and unique words, whereas ESL students incorporated
classmates with visuals or action (e.g., the story’s pictures, significantly less unique words and more frequently used
the teachers’ visual and spatial expressions, or role playing words. At the same time, high-ASL and moderate-ASL
of the story’s actions). Such an approach accommodates students used the lowest proportion of function words and
for students’ prior knowledge devoid of language media- constructed the shortest pieces of writing. This may indi-
tion (Paul, 1998). While such a balanced approach seems a cate that students lacked fluency in English grammar, but
promising practice that could provide benefit with language, encountered few barriers to finding unique English words
lower level reading skills and higher level reading skills, that represent their meaning.
further research to evidence student outcomes in compari- In a study by Wolbers (2007), she characterizes the ASL
son to other approaches is necessary. and EBS skill of three groups of deaf middle school writers
who were involved in her research. The skilled deaf writers
Metalinguistic approaches to building ASL and English (i.e., achieving at or slightly below their hearing peers) were
competencies. Among linguistically diverse students and those who had developed ASL as their primary expressive
L2 writers, there are differences between skilled and nov- language, yet had an ability to code-switch from ASL to
ice writers with respect to translation as well as language English-based sign when faced with the demands of a
competency. Those considered more expert at writing, for situation requiring more English (e.g., writing, conversing
instance, compose more quickly and construct longer pieces with a hearing person who had limited sign knowledge).
of text. Advanced writers typically spend double the time These students preferred using ASL for class discussions,
planning prior to starting and reread text for high level pur- problem-solving and inquiry because, for them, it provided
poses in addition to low level considerations (Sasaki, 2002). a fully complex and accessible language through which they
Novice L2 writers, on the other hand, devote more time to could express their ideas clearly and efficiently. However,
translating their generated ideas into English and stop more they automatically switched to EBS when wanting to add
often to consider issues of translation. These differences phrases or sentences to a co-constructed piece of text. Their
likely point to proficiency levels in second discourse ability. expressions in EBS resembled an English syntactical order,
Less proficient users of the second language tend to produce so they could be written. Then the students, with guidance
better written text (i.e., less orthographic and syntactical from the teacher, collaboratively reworked the text to add
errors) when first crafting ideas in their first language and the missing English complexities and constructions. This
then translating those ideas to L2 (Koutsoubou, Herman, is a comparable finding to that of Mayer (1999) whereby
& Woll, 2007). This is contrary to more proficient users of she found students drew on an internalized knowledge of
English who carry out the various tasks of writing simul- English during composition. What is noteworthy about the
taneously in the L2. group of skilled deaf writers was that students had a fully
 Interventions for the Deaf and Language Delayed 401

developed first language (i.e., ASL) and they had an under- the object of thought and discussion. Students consciously
standing that ASL and English were distinct languages used consider the nature and function of the languages at the
for different situations and purposes. How students became word, form and meaning levels and give thought to the pat-
capable users of EBS and how they learned appropriate terns of the language (Francis, 2006; Tunmer & Cole, 1985).
code-switching is less apparent. Teachers have utilized explicit contrastive approaches with
The middle group—consisting of those approximately linguistically diverse students (Gee, 1996; Wolfram, Adger
3 to 4 years behind their hearing counterparts in reading— & Christian, 1999) which may be useful when thinking
was also proficient with ASL but did not have the same about deaf students.
tendency to code-switch to EBS when writing. Some of Such procedures draw students’ attention to the differ-
these children failed to recognize that they were managing ences between languages and encourage analytic discus-
two very different languages, and viewed their expressions sion. By overtly juxtaposing languages, Hagemann (2001)
in ASL as something that could be written. Others knew claims her linguistically diverse students have begun to
there were differences but could not identify them. All stu- recognize the distinct differences that were once not no-
dents in this group inherently struggled with how to capture ticeable to them. She uses a three-step process for helping
their ideas in writing, and they experienced barriers with students. First, students learn to notice features of English
writing fluency. It was also the case with this middle group that are new or different to them. Second, they indicate the
(of students) that ASL elements surfaced frequently in their comparable feature in their expressive language. Thirdly,
writing. And finally in the same study, the lowest group of the feature is practiced in the context of real language or
students (i.e., those at beginning reading and writing stages) literacy experiences. An approach such as this helps linguis-
were described as exhibiting severe delays in development tically diverse students to more easily recognize language
of a first language. particulars (Reyes, 1992; McNaughton, 2000) and use new
Because deaf students have very different language language constructions.
experiences and histories, instructional approaches need There is a small amount of research to suggest that
to vary to be responsive to students’ needs. The middle metalinguistic approaches used with deaf students can help
group of students, for instance, showed improved facility of to develop greater awareness for the language character-
English when distinctions between English and ASL were istics, patterns and complexities of ASL and English, and
continually made during the guided co-construction of text this, in turn, leads to enhanced competency with reading
(Wolbers, 2007). By the end of an 8-week period, students and writing. Akamatsu and Armour (1987) found that the
were more likely to recognize EBS as something different writing skills of deaf children improved when they were
from ASL, and they produced closer approximations of provided direct instruction with the grammar principles of
grammatical English. American Sign Language as well as translation to English.
When considering students who have developed ASL Similarly, a study with college-aged deaf students (Berent
as their primary form of communication (and who do not et al., 2007) discovered that those students receiving focus-
exhibit language delays in this mode), there are some clear on-form instruction increased their grammatical knowledge
differences yet many similarities with other ESL groups. of English whereas those receiving conventional instruction
ASL-proficient students, as noted earlier, incorporate did not. Focus-on-form approaches use text enhancement
unique vocabulary in their writing similar to their hearing such as bolding or highlighting of particular English gram-
peers whereas ESL students do not. This may point to the matical features to draw students’ attention to constructions
fact that ASL users often fingerspell English words, provid- in a piece of authentic and meaningful text. This varies
ing direct and contextualized access to English vocabulary from traditional grammar instruction that involves direct
in the midst of communicating through their primary skill instruction and drilling of decontextualized grammar
language. This may not be the experience of many ESL elements.
students. ASL-proficient students with EBS code switching Berent et al. (2006) further declare that interventions
ability are similar to more proficient ESL students in that involving focus-on-form are more effective with students
they can fluently construct ideas while attending to other when they are given ways to act upon the noticed construc-
writing responsibilities. In other words, the writing tasks tions through, for example, class discussion, exercises or
and work can be conducted fully in the L2. Both popula- reconstructing/ revising text. Kuiken and Vedder (2002) and
tions of writers, however, encounter problems with lower Wolbers (2008) evidence how class discussions during col-
level skill use even though writing, for the most part, is laborative writing can lead to higher quality text produced
fluent. And, even after years of English use, students still by linguistically diverse students. The classes engaged in
evidence struggles with the mechanics or grammatical reflections and discussions around the content, the writ-
features of English (Valdes, 2006), and this is equally true ing process and also the language forms. With respect to
for deaf students. ASL-proficient middle school students having little English
Increasing students’ metalinguistic knowledge is one awareness (i.e., those who do not effectively switch to EBS),
way to further production and processing of more complex class discussions that prompted them to consider which
language constructions (Francis, 2006). Metalinguistic ap- language is being used, what are the associated grammar
proaches involve deliberately making the language systems principles and how to translate has proven effective in
402 Kimberly A. Wolbers and Hannah M. Dostal

increasing English use and fluency (Wolbers, 2007). And repeated readings can increase one’s reading rate, accuracy,
Bailes (2001) describes how teachers of the earliest grades and comprehension.
find ways to call attention to ASL and English differences, Many deaf students do not yet operate with automatic-
and how they often indicate when they are using ASL and ity of lexicon or English syntax (Mayer, 1999; Powers &
when they are using English. Interaction with others about Wigus, 1983). To reiterate, there are language delays that
language can deepen metalinguistic knowledge which often result in later vocabulary and complex grammar devel-
leads to greater “noticing” and an increased awareness of opment of a primary language; these delays, whether with
linguistic forms. Yet, there are many questions in terms of English or ASL, have an impact on literacy development.
what are the most effective metalinguistic approaches for Second, for those developing ASL as their first language,
various ages and language proficiencies. there is a lack of parallel language features and knowledge
Teachers are incredibly important mediators of the meta- that can be transferred from one’s primary language to
linguistic knowledge building process. They must have a reading and writing in English.
thorough understanding of the languages to guide students Word recognition skills are severely hampered if one
or to model thinking about language and form. In particular, has yet to develop an effective internal decoding system.
teachers must have the language knowledge necessary to As a sound-based decoding system utilizing phonological
emphasize certain principles or distinguish language rules knowledge is often not fully accessible to the deaf (Perfetti
(Enns, 2006). Therefore, teachers’ knowledge is central to & Sandak, 2000) and as there is currently little understand-
the instructional objectives. ing of alternative systems used by successful deaf readers
As fluent and natural users of either English or ASL as a (Leybaert & Lechat, 2001), teachers struggle with how to
first language, teachers may not have a linguistic-based or teach students to decode. And, when students struggle to
rule-governed understanding of their own language. Take identify words in a piece of text, reading is slowed consid-
for instance a hearing teacher who uses English as his first erably (Kelly, 2003a). Additionally problematic for deaf
language. He is a fluent user of the language but may not students is text that has more complex English sentences
be able to explain the reasons behind or rules underlying (e.g., greater number of relative clauses); this likewise
particular constructions; rather, this teacher, like many, hinders reading automaticity among the deaf (Kelly, 1995,
operates on sound-based principles (i.e., what sounds cor- 2003b). With repeated readings, however, deaf students can
rect in English or seems right). This teacher is not likely to gain greater automaticity with reading (Ensor & Koller,
have the necessary instructional tools when, for instance, 1997) and likely develop greater syntactic competence
faced with a deaf student who does not understand the with English (Kelly, 1995). In fact, less skilled readers who
difference between writing “interesting” and “interested.” increase automaticity with repeated readings can perform
Likewise, there are many teachers of the deaf who have similarly to the more skilled readers (Kelly, 2003b).
yet to reach proficiency in their second language, whether In practice, Enns and Lafond (2007) have utilized
ASL or English. daily repeated readings to help students ascertain a greater
Instruction of language is likely constrained by teachers vocabulary and grow in confidence when reading text. Ad-
having limitations in their own language abilities (Stewart, ditionally, Pakulski and Kaderavek (2001) implemented
2006). In order for teachers of the deaf to be responsive to repeated readings of stories in conjunction with role playing
students’ specific language and literacy needs, they must and found that there was a significant impact on students’
have a thorough understanding of the students’ expressive story grammar scores. Thus, repeated readings have po-
language as well as English principles. Preservice and tential to not only improve lower level reading skills but
inservice teachers, for instance, need access to programs could simultaneously or subsequently impact higher level
that provide extensive instruction in the linguistics and the skills.
contrastive features of English and ASL. Future research When rereading has been incorporated in guided and
might investigate approaches that effectively build teach- shared writing, benefits have also been noted (Wolbers,
ers’ knowledge of their L1 and L2, and the impact this has 2007, 2008). During the co-construction of text, group
on their students. rereading was prompted frequently by the teacher for the
purpose of reviewing and revising text. By doing this, the
Rereading to develop automaticity with English. Re- teacher was apprenticing students to engage in monitor-
peatedly reading the same text has been one way to increase ing their writing for meaning making, a writing process
reading speed among hearing children. Reading speed of skilled writers. Students, over time, evidenced greater
and automaticity with decoding text impacts one’s ability competence with noticing problematic parts of the text, as
to attend to the meaning of text, for there is a theoretical well as revising and editing both lower and higher level
relationship between reading fluency and comprehension writing. Additionally, the intervention had an impact on
(Meyer & Felton, 1999). When one’s working memory is reading ability, for both studies demonstrated there was a
taxed with word recognition processes, there is less ability significant gain from pre to posttest. Some of the students
to attend to higher level reading skills such as predicting, with the lowest reading levels (i.e., based on word identifi-
applying prior knowledge, and monitoring one’s compre- cation ability) at the start gained an entire grade level in an
hension. Studies on fluency with hearing children note that 8-week period (Wolbers, 2007). A writing intervention that
 Interventions for the Deaf and Language Delayed 403

produces simultaneous reading gains may point to the fact Notes

that reading and writing share commonalities with respect 1. “Deaf ” is intentionally capitalized to indicate a prideful and
to kinds of knowledge and processes (Fitzgerald & Shana- empowered subpopulation of persons who are culturally and
han, 2000). And, even when composing text, writers are linguistically affiliated. When lowercase, it connotes persons with
frequently engaged in reading. Rereading for the purpose hearing loss that may or may not have cultural ties to the Deaf
community.
of revising, for instance, can lead to greater automaticity
2. ASL classifiers are used to represent action as well as placement of
with word identification skills. persons or things (Schein & Stewart, 1999).
One area in need of further research is the impact of
rereading on one’s familiarity with English syntax and
grammar. It may be that repeated readings help deaf students References
become more comfortable with the flow of the language, Albertini, J. (1996). Classroom assessment of writing: Purpose, issues,
just as hearing students operate on a sense of “what sounds and strategies. Knoxville, TN. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service
right” when constructing and revising text. There are some No. ED423620)
Akamatsu, C. T., & Armour, V. A. (1987). Developing written literacy in
English constructions that do not have clear grammatical
deaf children through analyzing sign language. American Annals of
rules that can be explained or explicitly taught to students the Deaf, 132(1), 46–51.
(e.g., selection of prepositions), and there are many excep- Al-Hilawani, Y. A. (2003). Clinical examination of three methods of teach-
tions to the rules. For this reason, it is inconceivable for ing reading comprehension to deaf and hard-of-hearing students: from
all aspects of the English language to be taught; rather, research to classroom applications. Journal of Deaf Studies and Deaf
repeatedly reading text or increased independent reading Education, 8(2), 146–156.
Andrews, S., Creaghead, N, Kretschmer, L. & Weiler, E. (1995). Hear-
may be ways for students to pick up on the patterns and the ing impaired children’s retelling of stories following presentation in
rhythm of the language. whole-class and individual contexts. Tel Aviv, Israel: International
Congress on Education of the Deaf. (ERIC Document Reproduction
Service No. ED389145)
Conclusion Antia, S. D., Reed, S., & Kreimeyer, K. H. (2005). Written language of
deaf and hard-of-hearing students in public schools. Journal of Deaf
This chapter has discussed the need for specialized literacy Studies and Deaf Education, 10(3), 244–255.
instruction with deaf children who have significant hearing Applebee, A. N. (2000). Alternative models of writing development. In
losses and do not readily acquire spoken English as their R. Indrisano & J. Squire (Eds.). Perspectives on writing: Research,
hearing or hard of hearing peers. This subpopulation of theory and practice (pp. 90–110). Newark, Delaware: International
learners, in particular, has unique language experiences Reading Association.
Bailes, C. (2001). Integrative ASL-English language arts: Bridging paths
that impact literacy development. This chapter highlights to literacy. Sign Language Studies, 1(2), 147–174.
two considerations: the occurrence of mild to severe Bereiter, C. (1980). Development in writing. In Gregg, L.Q. & Steinberg,
language delays with a primary language and the case of E.R. (Eds.). Cognitive processes in writing (pp. 73–93). Mahwah,
having an expressive language based on visual and spatial NJ: Erlbaum.
Berent, G., Kelly, R., Aldersley, S., Schmitz, K., Khalsa, B., Panara, J., et
grammar aspects. There was an attempt to synthesize the
al. (2007). Focus-on-form instructional methods promote deaf college
deaf education research that responds to these particular students’ improvement in English grammar. Journal of Deaf Studies
characteristics; however, there is a dearth of empirically and Deaf Education, 12(1), 8–24.
based research from which methods of instruction can be Burbules, N. (1993). Dialogue in teaching. New York: Teachers College
convincingly drawn. Therefore, several approaches having Press.
Calderon, R. (2000). Parental involvement in deaf children’s education
likely or conjectured advantages have been recommended
programs as a predictor of child’s language, early reading, and social-
for further research. One suggestion to immediately ac- emotional development. Journal of Deaf Studies and Deaf Education,
commodate for the lack of vetted practices in the field of 5(2), 140–155.
deaf education is that practitioners and researchers alike Calkins, L (1986) The art of teaching writing. Portsmouth, NH: Heine-
move beyond the confines of deaf education and become mann.
Cazden, C. B. (2001). Classroom discourse: The language of teaching
well-versed in effective language and literacy practices
and learning (2nd ed.). Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.
used with other populations of students (i.e., general edu- Cerra, K. K., Watts-Taffe, S., & Rose, S. (1997). Fostering reader response
cation students, struggling readers and writers, linguisti- and developing comprehension strategies in deaf and hard of hearing
cally diverse students and L2 students, special education children. American Annals of the Deaf, 142, 379–386.
students). Whereas there are indeed significant challenges Craig, W. N., Carr, T., & Latham, I. J. (1964). Comparison of two methods
of teaching written language to deaf students. American Annals of the
for the deaf that do not exist for others, it can be argued that
Deaf, 109(2), 248–256.
there are more similarities than differences. Deaf education Coleman, C. F. (1997). Our students write with accents. Oral paradigms
professionals are encouraged to apply their specialized for ESD students. College Composition and Communication, 48(4),
knowledge to adapt and modify existing instructional 486–500.
interventions in ways that better suit the needs of deaf Delpit, L. (1986). Skills and other dilemmas of a progressive black educa-
tor. Harvard Educational Review, 56, 379–385.
learners instead of discounting their applicability. With
Delpit, L. (1988). The silenced dialogue: Power and pedagogy in
action research in the classroom by teachers and continued educating other people’s children. Harvard Educational Review,
university-led research, we can continue to expand on suc- 58, 280–298.
cessful approaches. Easterbrooks, S. R. & Baker, S. (2002). Language learning in children
404 Kimberly A. Wolbers and Hannah M. Dostal

who are deaf and hard of hearing: Multiple pathways. Boston: Allyn Hillocks, G. (1984). What works in teaching composition: A meta-analysis
and Bacon. of experimental treatment studies. American Journal of Education,
Easterbrooks, S. R. (2005). Review of the literature in literacy develop- 93(1), 133–170.
ment and instruction in students who are deaf and hard of hearing. Hillocks, G. (2002). The testing trap: How state assessments control
Retrieved April 28, 2008, from: www.deafed.net/activities/JoinTo- learning. New York: Teachers College Press.
gether/Obj2_2LitRevLiteracy.doc Izzo, A. (2002). Phonemic awareness and reading ability: An investiga-
Enns, C. J. (2006). A language and literacy framework for bilingual tion with young readers who are deaf. American Annals of the Deaf,
deaf education. Self-published report. Winnipeg, MB: University of 147(4), 18–28.
Manitoba. Jackendoff, R. (1994). Patterns in the mind. New York Basic Books.
Enns, C., & Lafond, L. (2007). Reading against all odds: A pilot study Johnson, D. M. (1994). Grouping strategies for second language learners.
of two deaf students with dyslexia. American Annals of the Deaf, In F. Genesee (Ed.), Educating second language children: The whole
152(1), 63–72. child, the whole curriculum, the whole community. (pp. 183–211).
Ensor, A D., & Koller, J. R. (1997). The effect of the method of repeated New York: Cambridge University Press.
readings on the reading rate and word recognition accuracy of deaf ado- Johnson, M. A., & Roberson, G. F. (1988). The language experience
lescents. Journal of Deaf Studies and Deaf Education, 2(2), 61–70. approach: Its use with young hearing-impaired students. American
Fernandes, J. (2003). In search of keys to English print. Odyssey, 5(1), Annals of the Deaf, 133(3), 223–225.
4–5. Kelly, L. (1995). Syntax, vocabulary and comprehension. Perspectives in
Ferris, D. & Roberts, B. (2006). Error feedback in L2 writing classes: Education and Deafness. 13(3), 16–19.
How explicit does it need to be? In P. K. Matsuda, M. Cox, J. Jordan, Kelly, L. P. (2001). The importance of processing automaticity and tem-
& C. Ortmeier-Hooper (Eds.), Second-language writing in the com- porary storage capacity to the difference in comprehension between
position classroom: A critical resource (pp. 380–402). New York: skilled and less skilled college-age deaf readers. Journal of Deaf
Bedford/St. Martin’s. Studies and Deaf Education, 8(3), 230–249.
Fischer, S. D. (1998). Critical periods for language acquisition: Conse- Kelly, L. P. (2003a). Considerations for designing practices for deaf read-
quences for deaf education. In A. Weisel (Ed.), Issues Unresolved: New ers. Journal of Deaf Studies and Deaf Education, 8(2), 171–185.
Perspectives on Language and Deaf Education (pp. 9–26). Washington, Kelly, L. P. (2003b). The importance of processing automaticity and tem-
DC: Gallaudet University Press. porary storage capacity to the differences in comprehension between
Fitzgerald, J., & Shanahan, T. (2000). Reading and writing relations and skilled and less-skilled college-age deaf readers. Journal of Deaf
their development. Educational Psychologist, 35(1), 39–50. Studies and Deaf Education, 8(3), 230–249.
Francis, N. (2006). The development of secondary discourse ability and Kelly, L. P., & Barac-Cikoja, D. (2007). The comprehension of skilled
metalinguistic awareness in second language learners. International deaf readers: The roles of word recognition and potentially critical
Journal of Applied Linguistics, 16(1), 37–60. aspects of competence. In K. Cain and J. Oakhill (Eds.), Children’s
French, M. M. (1999). Planning for literacy instruction: Guidelines for comprehension problems in oral and written language: A cognitive
instruction. Sharing ideas. Washington, DC: Laurent Clerc National perspective (pp. 244–280). New York: Guilford.
Deaf Education Center. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. Klecan-Aker, J., & Blondeau, R. (1990). An examination of the written
ED ED475330) stories of hearing-impaired school-age children. The Volta Review,
Fung, P., Chow, B., & McBride-Chang, C. (2005). The impact of a dialogic 92, 275–282.
reading program on deaf and hard-of-hearing kindergarten and early Kluwin, T. N., & Kelly, A. B. (1992). Implementing a successful writing
primary school-aged students in Hong Kong. Journal of Deaf Studies program in public schools for students who are deaf. Exceptional
and Deaf Education, 10(1), 82-95. Children, 59(1), 41–53.
Gallaudet Research Institute. (2003, October 30). Literacy and deaf Koutsoubou, M., Herman, R., & Woll, B. (2007). Does language input
students. Retrieved August 17, 2005, from http://gri.gallaudet.edu/ matter in bilingual writing? Translation versus direct composition in
Literacy/index.html deaf school students’ written stories. International Journal of Bilingual
Gee, J. P. (1991). What is literacy? In C. Mitchell & K. Weiler (Eds.), Education and Bilingualism, 10(2), 127–151.
Rewriting literacy: Culture and the discourse of the other (pp. 3–11). Kuiken, F., & Vedder, I. (2002). Collaborative writing in L2: The effect
New York: Bergin & Garvey. of group interaction on text quality. In S. Ransdell & M. Barbier
Gee, J. P. (1996). Social linguistics and literacies: Ideology in discourses (Eds.), New directions for research in L2 writing (pp. 168–188).
(2nd ed.). Philadelphia: The Falmer Press. Boston: Kluwer.
Gilbertson, D., & Ferre, S. (2008). Considerations in the identification, as- Larney, R. (2002). The relationship between early language delay and
sessment, and intervention process for deaf and hard of hearing students later difficulties in literacy. Early Child Development and Care,
with reading difficulties. Psychology in the Schools, 45(2), 104–120. 172(2), 183–193.
Gioia, B., Johnston, P., & Cooper, L.S. (2001). Documenting and devel- Lederberg, A. R., & Spencer, P. E. (2001). Vocabulary development of
oping literacy in deaf children. Literacy, Teaching, and Learning: An deaf and hard of hearing children. In M. D. Clark, M. Marschark, &
International Journal of Early Reading and Writing, 6(1), 1–22. M. Karchmer (Eds.), Context, cognition, and deafness (pp. 88–112).
Gormely, K., & Sarachan-Deily, A.B. (1987). Evaluating hearing- Washington, DC: Gallaudet University Press.
impaired students’ writing: A practical approach. The Volta Review, Leybaert, J., & Lechat, J. (2001). Variability in deaf children’s spelling:
89, 157–166. The effect of language experience. Journal of Educational Psychol-
Hagemann, J. (2001). A bridge from home to school: Helping working class ogy, 93(3), 554–562.
students acquire school literacy. English Journal, 90(4), 74–81. Loeterman, M., Paul, P. V., & Donahue, S. (2002). Reading and deaf chil-
Hargrave, A. C., & Senechal, M. (2000). A book reading intervention dren. Reading Online, 5(6). Retrieved from http://www.readingonline.
with preschool children who have limited vocabularies: The benefits org/articles/art_index.asp?HREF=loeterman/index.html
of regular reading and dialogic reading. Early Childhood Research Luckner, J., Sebald, A., Cooney, J., Young, J., & Muir, S.G. (2006). An
Quarterly, 15(1), 75–90. examination of the evidence-based literacy research in deaf education.
Harrison, D. R., Simpson, P. A., & Stuart, A. (1991). The development American Annals of the Deaf, 150(5), 443–456.
of written language in a population of hearing-impaired children. Luetke-Stahlman, B. (1993). Research-based language intervention strate-
The Journal of the British Association of Teachers of the Deaf, 15, gies adapted for deaf and hard of hearing children. American Annals
76–85. of the Deaf, 138(5), 404–410.
Heider, F., & Heider, G. M. (1941). Comparison of sentence structure of Luetke-Stahlman, B., & Nielsen, D. C. (2003). The contribution of
deaf and hearing children. The Volta Review, 43, 357–360. phonological awareness and receptive and expressive English to the
 Interventions for the Deaf and Language Delayed 405

reading ability of deaf students with varying degrees of exposure to intervention research as viewed through the lens on literacy interven-
accurate English. Journal of Deaf Studies and Deaf Education, 8(4), tion. British Journal o f Educational Psychology, 76(1), 1–19.
464–484 Pressley, M. (2005). Reading instruction that works: The case for balanced
Marschark, M. (2001). Language development in children who are deaf: teaching (3rd ed). New York: Guilford.
A research synthesis. Alexandria, VA: National Association of State Reyes, M. de la Luz (1992). Challenging venerable assumptions: Literacy
Directors of Special Education. ERIC ED 455620. instruction for linguistically different students. Harvard Educational
Marschark, M., Convertino, C., & LaRock, D. (2006). Optimizing Review, 62(4), 427–446.
academic performance of deaf students: Access, opportunities, and Sasaki, M. (2002). Building an empirically-based model of EFL learners’
outcomes. In D. F. Moores & D. S. Martin (Eds.), Deaf learners: New writing processes. In S. Ransdell & M. Barbier (Eds.), New directions
developments in curriculum and instruction (pp. 179–200). Washing- for research in L2 writing (pp. 49–80). Boston: Kluwer.
ton, DC: Gallaudet University Press. Schein, J. & Stewart, D. (1999). Language in motion. Washington, DC:
Mayer, C. & Wells, G. (1996). Can the linguistic interdependence theory Gallaudet University Press.
support a bilingual-bicultural model of literacy education for deaf Schlesinger, H. (1988). Questions and answers in the development of
students? Journal of Deaf Studies and Deaf Education, 1, 93–107. deaf children. In M. Strong (Ed.), Language, learning, deafness (pp.
Mayer, C. (1999). Shaping at the point of utterance: An investigation of 261–291). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
the composing processes of the deaf student writer. Journal of Deaf Schirmer, B. (2001). Using research to improve literacy practice and
Studies and Deaf Education, 4(1), 37–49. practice to improve literacy research. Journal of Deaf Studies and
Mayer, C., & Akamatsu, T. (1999). Bilingual-bicultural models of literacy Deaf Education, 6(2), 83–91.
education for deaf students: Considering the claims. Journal of Deaf Schirmer, B. R. (2004).What verbal protocols reveal about the reading
Studies and Deaf Education, 4(1), 1–8. strategies of deaf students: A replication study. American Annals of
Mayer, C., Akamatsu, C. T., & Stewart, D. (2002). A model for effective the Deaf, 149, 5–16.
practice: Dialogic inquiry with students who are deaf. Exceptional Schleper, D. R. (1998). Read it again and again. Washington, D.C.: Gal-
children, 68(4), 485–502. laudet University Press.
McAnally, P. L., Rose, S., & Quigley, S. P. (1994). Language learning Schneiderman, E. (1995). The effectiveness of an interactive instructional
practices with deaf children (2nd ed.). Austin, TX: Pro-Ed. context. American Annals of the Deaf, 140, 8–15.
McAnally, P., Rose, S., & Quigley, S. (1999). Reading practices with deaf Schoenfeld, A. H. (2002). A highly interactive discourse structure. Social
learners. Austin, TX: PRO-ED. Constructivist Teaching, 9, 131–169.
McNaughton, S. (2002). Meeting of the minds. Wellington, New Zealand: Siegel, L. (2000). The educational and communication needs of deaf and
Learning Media Limited. hard of hearing children: A statement of principle on fundamental
Mehan, H. (1979). Learning lessons: Social organization in the classroom. educational change. American Annals of the Deaf, 145(2), 64–77.
Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Singleton, J. L., Morgan, D., DiGello, E., Wiles, J., & Rivers, R. (2004).
Meyer, M. & Felton, R. (1999). Repeated reading to enhance fluency: Old Vocabulary use by low, moderate, and high ASL-proficient writers
approaches and new directions. Annals of Dyslexia, 49, 283–306. compared to hearing ESL and monolingual speakers. Journal of Deaf
Moores, D. F., & Miller, M. S. (2001). Literacy Publications: American Studies and Deaf Education, 9(1), 86–103.
Annals of the Deaf 1996 to 2000. American Annals of the Deaf, Stahl, K. D., & Miller, P. D. (2006). Whole language and language ex-
146(2), 77–80. perience approaches for beginning reading: A quantitative research
Munro, J., & Rickards, F. W. (1998). Literal and inferential reading synthesis. In K. A. D. Stahl & M. C. McKenna (Eds.) Reading
comprehension of students who are deaf or hard of hearing. Volta research at work: Foundations of effective practice (pp. 9–35). New
Review, 100, 87–104. York: Guilford.
Musselman, C. (2000). How do children who can’t hear read an alphabetic Stauffer, R. G. (1979). The language experience approach to reading
script? A review of the literature on reading and deafness. Journal of instruction for deaf and hearing impaired children. The Reading
Deaf Studies and Deaf Education, 5, 9–31. Teacher, 33(1), 21–24.
Musselman, C. & Szanto, G. (1998). The written language of deaf ado- Stewart, D. (2006). Instructional and practical communication: ASL and
lescents: Patterns of performance. Journal of Deaf Studies and Deaf English-based signing in the classroom. In D. F. Moores & D. S. Martin
Education, 3, 245–257. (Eds.), Deaf learners: New developments in curriculum and instruction
National Center for Birth Defects and Developmental Disabilities, Early (pp. 207–220). Washington, DC: Gallaudet University Press.
Hearing Detection and Intervention Program. (2005). National EDHI Stokoe, W.C. (1978). Sign language structure. (ERIC Document Repro-
goals. Retrieved August 23, 2006, from http://www.cdc.gov/ncbddd/ duction Service No. ED189874)
ehdi/nationalgoals.htm Strassman, B. K. (1995, July). Metacognition and Reading in Children
Nippold, M.A. (2007). Later language development: School-age children, Who Are Deaf: A Review of the Research. Paper presented at the
adolescents, and young adults (3rd ed.). Austin: PRO-ED. meeting of the International Congress on Education of the Deaf, Tel
Nystrand, M. (1997). Opening dialogue: Understanding the dynamics of Aviv, Israel.
language and learning in the English classroom. New York: Teachers Strassman, B. K. (1997). Metacognition and reading in children who
College Press. are deaf: A review of the research. Journal of Deaf Studies and Deaf
Pakulski, L. A., & Kaderavek, J. N. (2001). Narrative production by chil- Education, 2, 140–149.
dren who are deaf or hard of hearing: The effect of role play. Volta Taeschner, T. (1988). Affixes and function words in the written language
Review, 103, 127–139. of deaf children. Applied Psycholinguistics, 9(4), 385–401.
Palincsar, A. S., & Brown, A. L. (1984). Reciprocal teaching of compre- Tunmer, W. E., & Cole, P. G. (1985). Learning to read: A metalinguistic
hension-fostering and comprehension-monitoring activities. Cognition act. In C. S. Simon (Ed.), Communication skills and classroom success.
and Instruction, 1, 117–175. Therapy methodologies for language-learning disabled students (pp.
Paul, P. (1998). Literacy and deafness: The development of reading, writing 293–312) London: Taylor and Francis.
and literate thought. Boston: Allyn and Bacon. Tye-Murray, N. (1994). Let’s converse: A “how-to” guide to develop and
Perfetti, C. A. & Sandak, R. (2000). Reading optimally builds on spoken expand conversational skills of children and teenagers who are hear-
language: Implications for deaf readers. Journal of Deaf Studies and ing impaired. Washington, DC: Alexander Graham Bell Association
Deaf Education, 5, 32–50. for the Deaf.
Powers, A. R., & Wigus, S. (1983). Linguistic complexity in the written lan- Valdes, G. (2006). Bilingual minorities and language issues in writing:
guage of hearing-impaired children. Volta Review, 85(4), 201–210. Toward professionwide responses to a new challenge. In P. K. Matsuda,
Pressley, M. Graham, S. & Harris, K. (2005). The state of educational M. Cox, J. Jordan, & C. Ortmeier-Hooper (Eds.), Second-language
406 Kimberly A. Wolbers and Hannah M. Dostal

writing in the composition classroom: A critical resource (pp. 31–70). (Doctoral dissertation, Michigan State University). Dissertation Ab-
New York: Bedford/St.Martin’s. stracts International, 68, 09A.
Walker, L.. Munro, J., & Richards, F. W. (1998).Teaching inferential read- Wolbers, K. (2008). Using balanced and interactive writing instruction to
ing strategies through pictures. Volta Review, 100(2), 105–120. improve the higher order and lower order writing skills of deaf students.
Ward, I. (1994). Literacy ideology, and dialogue: Towards a dialogic Journal of Deaf Studies and Deaf Education, 13(2), 257–277.
pedagogy. Albany, NY: State University of New York Press. Wolfram, W., Adger, C. T., & Christian, D. (1999). Dialects in schools
Wilson, T., & Hyde, M. (1997). The use of signed English pictures to and communities. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
facilitate reading comprehension by deaf students. American Annals Yoshinaga-Itano, C., & Snyder, L. (1985). Form and meaning in the written
of the Deaf, 142, 333–341. language of hearing-impaired children. Volta Review, 87(5), 75–90.
Wolbers, K. (2005). [Personal narrative writing sample]. Unpublished Yoshinaga-Itano, C., Snyder, L. S. & Mayberry, R. (1996). How deaf and
raw data. normally hearing students convey meaning within and between written
Wolbers, K. (2007). Strategic and Interactive Writing Instruction (SIWI): sentences. Volta Review, 98(1), 9–38.
Apprenticing deaf students in the construction of informative texts
 Part VI
Studying Reading Disabilities

EDITORS: WILLIAM RUPLEY AND VICTOR L. WILLSON

 35
Teacher Research on Reading Difficulties
JAMES F. BAUMANN
University of Missouri–Columbia

T. LEE WILLIAMS
Auburn University

Teacher research can make an important contribution to research (e.g., Hankins, 2003), teacher-authored articles
the field of literacy by providing rich, layered studies that in widely read professional journals (e.g., Picard, 2005),
investigate topics to inform instruction and make an impact and materials addressing the teacher-research process
on student achievement. (Lenski, 2008, p. 182) and methodologies (e.g., Lankshear & Knoble, 2004).
Furthermore, the online community has been a mainstay
Introduction for reporting, discussing, and using teacher research (e.g.,
Ontario Action Researcher, 2008). Thus, teacher research
Historically, teacher research has not been valued within the has had a significant presence in the practitioner world;
academic community (Anderson & Herr, 1999), and thus it just may not be noticed or viewed as informative by
there are few, if any, references to it in reviews of reading reading researchers and policy makers.
research (e.g., Barr, Kamil, Mosenthal, Pearson, 1991; It is the purpose of this chapter to review select ex-
National Reading Panel, 2000; Pearson, Barr, Kamil, & Mo- amples of teacher-research studies on reading difficulties
senthal,1984; Snow, Burns, & Griffin, 1998). Although there in order to demonstrate how teacher research can deepen
has been more acknowledgement of the value of teacher our understanding of students who struggle to read. We
research by its inclusion in recent research syntheses (e.g., begin with a definition of teacher research and then present
Baumann & Duffy-Hester, 2000; Cochran-Smith & Don- our framework for selecting the studies we feature. Next,
nell, 2006; Fecho, Allen, Mazaros, & Inyega, 2006; Lytle, we review three teacher-research studies that address the
2000; Zeichner & Noffke, 2001), the research that still really framework and various dimensions of reading difficulties,
counts in shaping educational policy is the NCLB-endorsed commenting on how the results can inform practice. We
scientifically based reading research (Allington, 2002; Cun- then discuss our findings and conclude with our reflections
ningham, 2001; Woodside-Jiron, 2003), which typically on the place of teacher research within the scholarship on
excludes teacher research (Allen & Shockley, 1996). Thus, reading difficulties.
teacher research may not often influence decisions about
reading instruction within Congress, state houses, or school
district offices. Is teacher research, therefore, ineffectual in Definition of Teacher Research
influencing reading instructional practices in schools and Definitions of teacher research vary, but most characterize
classrooms? Is Lenski (2008) wrong in arguing that “teacher it as including (a) an insider, or emic, perspective; (b) a
research can make an important contribution to the field of participant role of the teacher in the research; (c) a mixing
literacy” (p. 182)? We think not. of theory and practice, or praxis; (d) a pragmatic, action-
Teacher research has a long and rich history (Baumann, oriented research process; and (e) a systematic, intentional
Shockley-Bisplinghoff, & Allen, 1997; McFarland & plan for gathering and analyzing data (see Baumann &
Stansell, 1993; Olson, 1990), and teacher research has Duffy-Hester, 2000, p. 78). For this review, we select the
and does “inform instruction and make an impact on following definition of teacher research, which is adapted
student achievement” (Lenski, 2008, p. 182) through its from the work of Lytle and Cochran-Smith (1994, p. 1154).
widespread dissemination. The literature is filled with Specifically, teacher research is reflection and action
compendia of teacher research (e.g., Cochran-Smith & through systematic, intentional inquiry about classroom
Lytle, 1993), books written by teachers reporting their life (Baumann et al., 1997, p. 125).

409
410 James F. Baumann and T. Lee Williams

Study Selection Framework and Reading Difficulties tivational component, and (c) Baumann and Ivey’s (1997)
Defined study of struggling second-grade readers, which resides
mostly within the cognitive domain. It is important to note,
The editors asked us to identify a limited number of
however, that the three studies do not align with a single
teacher-research studies that illustrate different dimensions
dimension only. For example, Allen et al. explored the
of reading difficulties. We reviewed various conceptual-
relationship between multiple social and cultural factors
izations of reading and reading difficulties (e.g., Klenk
and the literacy learning of the diverse children. However,
& Kibby, 2000; Ruddell & Unrau, 2004a). We found the
there were motivational aspects of their curriculum and
perspectives by Lipson and Wixson (1986; Wixson &
instruction that were relevant, and their program also ad-
Lipson, 1991) and Spear-Swerling and Sternberg (1996)
dressed cognitive aspects of the students’ literacy develop-
as being especially informative in that they viewed read-
ment. Therefore, the Allen et al. study overlaps somewhat
ing ability (or disability) as an interaction among various
with the motivational and cognitive dimensions in Figure
cognitive, social, motivational, and instructional variables.
35.1. This overlapping relationship applies also to the two
Alexander and Fox’s (2004) description of information
other studies.
processing, sociocultural, and engagement eras in our
field was instructive, as was Ruddell and Unrau’s (2004b)
sociocognitive view of reading as an interaction among Illustrative Teacher-Research Studies
texts, readers, and teachers.
We synthesized these theoretical perspectives into a Allen, Michalove, and Shockley (1993): Challenges for
framework that situates sociocultural, cognitive, and mo- Six Beginning Readers
tivational dimensions of reading within the instructional Study description. This study was a collaboration of
context (see Figure 35.1). From this framework, we define a university professor, JoBeth Allen, and two classroom
reading difficulty as any sociocultural, cognitive, or moti- teachers, Barbara Michalove (second grade) and Betty
vational factor (or combination of factors) that inhibits a Shockley (first grade). The researchers explored the literacy
student from realizing her or his full potential to decode, development of six children (three students each from
understand, respond to, learn from, and appreciate writ- Betty’s and Barbara’s classrooms) for 3 years as the children
ten text. progressed through whole language literacy environments
Working from this definition and framework, we in the two teacher-researchers’ classrooms and then on to
identified three teacher-research studies that represent less holistic third- and fourth-grade environments.
dimensions of the framework and definition: (a) Allen, One could characterize the study methodologically as
Michalove, and Shockley’s (1993) study of struggling first- a longitudinal, participant-observer, qualitative, multiple-
to-third-grade children, which is placed primarily within case-study of at-risk children in whole language classrooms
the sociocultural dimension of the framework; (b) Cone’s within a school serving low-income, minority (mostly
(1994) study of high school seniors who were limited by African American) children. The researchers, however,
their self-perceptions as readers, which addresses the mo- eschewed the at-risk label and conventional research meth-

Figure 35.1 Framework for selecting

teacher-research studies on reading
difficulties.
Instructional
Context
Sociocultural

Allen,
Michalove,
& Shockley

Baumann
Cone
& Ivey

Motivational Cognitive
 Teacher Research on Reading Difficulties 411

odology terminology, instead referred to their inquiry as a that he repeat third grade, resulting in a second repetition
study of children about whose literacy development they in Grades K–3.
were worried: “We were enthusiastic about documenting the At the conclusion of Jeremiah’s case, the researchers
long-term effects of whole language instruction, of a stable wrote, “Jeremiah failed”—academically, socially, and in
instructional philosophy and familiar learning structures, receiving support from home—but “most of all, Jeremiah
on children whose early school experiences had been less failed to convince the school that he was trying” (Allen
than successful” (Allen et al., 1993, p. 5). et al., 1993, p. 90), particularly in his third-grade year.
Data sources included student interviews, written work, The researchers wondered whether more time in a holis-
and reading records (a form of reading miscue analysis); tic environment would have enabled Jeremiah to make a
interviews with parents and other teachers; and narratives successful transition to a more traditional textbook-based
and journals kept by each researcher. The researchers curriculum.
engaged in a recursive but evolving data analysis process Like Jeremiah, Joseph came to Betty’s first-grade
that involved face-to-face meetings; discussions of analytic classroom with 2 years in kindergarten, the second one in
notes; and the composition of narratives of the developing a special-needs classroom intended to accommodate his
cases. All six cases were reported in the book Engaging “mildly mentally handicapped and behavior disordered” (p.
Children: Community and Chaos in the Lives of Young 41) status. Joseph’s reputation of being a “hoodlum” pre-
Literacy Learners. ceded him, and Betty observed disruptive behaviors on the
playground and in the classroom. However, Betty’s efforts
Findings. The stories of the six children were as diverse to understand and accommodate Joseph’s moods enabled
as the children themselves. To demonstrate some of that him to participate productively in writing workshop and to
variation, we describe two of the six children: Jeremiah read books in an emergent manner.
and Joseph. Joseph’s outbursts continued to interfere with his
Jeremiah, who repeated first grade in Betty’s classroom, learning, but gradually Joseph became a member of the
worried Betty right from the beginning of the school year. classroom literacy community. He began to pronounce and
Although he had some reading knowledge and skills from identify words by writing and reading his own texts (a kind
the prior year, he struggled with writing, working indepen- of language experience approach), and he was subsequently
dently, and interacting with peers. At the end of Jeremiah’s able to read the primer level of the basal reader. Following
year in her classroom, Betty wrote: “I hope Jeremiah’s story psychological retesting, he no longer qualified for “mildly
will have a happy ending. But just like the James Marshall mentally handicapped” services, although he retained his
books he loved, there are still many more chapters to be “behavior disorder” status.
written” (Allen et al., 1993, p. 83). When Joseph moved to Barbara’s second-grade class,
Jeremiah continued to have difficulties in interpersonal he accelerated his literacy learning and “grew in leaps and
relationships in Barbara’s second-grade class, which limited bounds” (p. 63). His compositions became more elaborate,
his literacy development in that he had difficulty collabo- and he could read the first second-grade reader by the end
rating with students and moving toward full membership of the school year. Barbara noted that “Joseph’s progress
in the second-grade literacy club (Smith, 1988). However, in reading sneaked up on me” (Allen et al., 1993, p. 63),
Jeremiah’s growing interest in reading and writing plays as demonstrated when he read Curious George fluently,
provided a means for him to engage in literacy success- after which Barbara commented, “I think we were both
fully with others in class. Barbara indicated that Jeremiah surprised” (p. 63). Joseph still had occasional outbursts, and
could read the second-grade basal reader and pass the basal he went to the special education classroom several times a
tests, but his difficulty collaborating with other children and week, but he matured both socially and academically.
sustaining attention during writing workshop led Barbara Joseph’s family moved three times during second grade,
and JoBeth to underestimate his writing development: but he remained in Barbara’s classroom, providing him
When they examined Jeremiah’s portfolio across the year, consistency and stability. Joseph began third grade at Walnut
they saw considerable growth that was not evident because Street School, but then he moved to two different schools,
“his behavior difficulties overshadowed his academic per- where he reverted to old behaviors. Joseph returned to Wal-
formance” (Allen et al., 1993, p. 89). nut Street School in April, and he readjusted quickly to this
For third grade, Jeremiah moved to a school in which comfortable environment. In fact, his third-grade teacher
the curriculum was “textbook-driven” (Allen et al., 1993, at Walnut stated that “He can read—he’s a good reader. He
p. 99) rather than based on whole language philosophy. outshines the other readers in [his basal group]. … It amazes
JoBeth interviewed Jeremiah’s third-grade teacher several me that his behavior was ever a problem.… Joseph isn’t BD
times and conducted several reading assessments. Although [behavior disordered]” (Allen et al., 1993, p. 68).
JoBeth found that Jeremiah could read third- to fourth-
grade texts with reasonable fluency and comprehension, Implications. What does the Allen et al. (1993) study
his teacher reported borderline performance on the same suggest about teaching children with reading difficulties?
texts and difficulties on group standardized and state com- One clear theme in the two cases we reviewed, as well as
petency tests. Jeremiah’s third-grade teacher recommended others in Engaging Children, is that students learned to read
412 James F. Baumann and T. Lee Williams

as they learned to write. The symbiotic, mutually reinforcing Cone (1994): Aliterate High School Students
relationship between reading and writing is well established Study description. In this study, English teacher Joan
(Shanahan, 2007), and integrating reading and writing is Kernan Cone addressed the issue of aliteracy, that is, the
foundational to the whole language perspective (Goodman, form of reading difficulties in which students, though able
1986) the researchers embraced. Joseph’s ability and will- to read skillfully, choose not to use their reading abilities
ingness to read what he wrote demonstrates the power of a in school and in out-of-school contexts. Specifically, Cone
language experience approach—a technique documented explored her students’ perceptions of themselves as readers,
to be powerful for both developmental and disabled readers from avid independent readers to those who rarely if ever
(Padak & Rasinski, 1999). chose to read on their own. This year-long action research
A second theme is that consistency within a school, project included a racially, academically, and economi-
classroom, and home environment promoted students’ cally diverse class of 35 high school seniors. Data sources
literacy development. Allen et al. (1993) referred to this included student journals, tallies of the books students read
as stability. When programmatic and social stability were (or attempted to read), in-class observations, and classroom
present—a function of the holistic, constructivist philoso- discussions.
phy Barbara and Betty embraced—students grew in lit- Motivated by a friend who said that her students were
eracy. However, when the stability broke down at school or “never going to read Dickens . . . [so she should] introduce
home—the “chaos” to which the authors refer in their book them to authors they [would] read” (Cone, 1994, p. 450),
subtitle—students struggled academically and behaviorally. Cone implemented an independent reading program in her
Joseph exemplified this as he traversed grades, schools, and classroom. Students were required to self-select a 500 page
pedagogical perspectives. Betty commented that the stabil- novel that had been published since 1985, did not have any
ity she and Barbara strove for was grounded in their deep CliffsNotes available for it, and had not been made into a
whole language belief “in the potential of our students and movie.
the power of choice and engagement with reading and writ- Only 11 of 35 students demonstrated that they read a
ing to support their achievements” (B. Shockley, personal book at the conclusion of Cone’s first independent read-
communication, January 19, 2009). Thus, when approaches ing assignment. Disappointed by the results, Cone offered
to reading instruction are stable and implemented consis- in-class reading time, help in selecting books, and an op-
tently, especially for struggling readers, students’ literacy portunity for her students to write about and discuss their
learning is enhanced (Archambault, 1989; Borman, Wong, reading. The discussion component encouraged the students
Hedges, & D’Agostino, 2001; Johnston, Allington, & Af- to critique books, which led to students recommending
flerbach, 1985; see discussion in Allington, 2009). (or not recommending) books to one another. The journal
A third theme is the interaction and complexity of the component required that students rate themselves on a
social and academic. Allen et al. (1993) spent nearly as reading continuum: nonreaders Ù somewhat readers Ù
much time talking about behavioral and social issues in the readers. The journals also enabled students to chronicle
cases as they did about the specific literacy practices that their self-perceptions as readers and to re-evaluate where
were implemented. The students’ literacy learning was tied they placed themselves on the continuum throughout the
to the children’s in-school behaviors and out-of-school con- school year.
texts, which supports a bidirectional relationship between Cone made modifications to her program as the year
difficulties in literacy development and students’ behavior, progressed. She modified her criteria for book selection by
especially for boys (Trzesniewski, Moffitt, Caspi, Taylor, pushing back the original publication cut-off date of 1985
& Maughan, 2006). Additionally, Allen et al.’s research to 1980; she also actively matched books to readers by rec-
demonstrated the essential nature of teachers’ connections ommending titles and loaning personal copies. In addition,
with students—African American children in particular—in she incorporated more time for in-class reading. Cone asked
order to understand and appreciate their social backgrounds students to write about their books as they were reading. In
(Ladson-Billings, 1994) and how to accommodate them addition to having students write about characters, plot, and
instructionally (Delpit, 2006). setting, she required students to write about their process
Finally, Allen et al. (1993) noted that, in spite of the of reading, such as when, where, and why they read. At the
“chaos” the children may have experienced educationally end of the school year, 29 of 35 students read the final book
and socially, “every child had someone at home who read for the independent reading assignment.
and/or encouraged the child to read” (Allen et al., 1993, p.
251). In other words, there was home support for literacy, Findings. As a result of Cone’s independent reading
even if it may not have been immediately obvious or if it initiative, she gained insight into her students’ perceptions
would not have been expected due to cultural stereotypes of themselves as readers. Those who placed themselves on
associated with poor, minority children and their families the Readers end of the continuum described themselves
(Baumann & Thomas, 1997; Compton-Lilly, 2003; Taylor according to a variety of definitions and reading practices.
& Dorsey-Gaines, 1988). In fact, Allen and colleagues ex- For example, Andrew wrote, “A reader is someone who can
plored the issue of family support for literacy in depth in a pick up a book and be transported to a new place, a place
follow-up study (Michalove, Shockley, & Allen, 1995). where the writer is in control but the reader is free to fill in
 Teacher Research on Reading Difficulties 413

the blanks, to view the scene as he wishes” (Cone, 1994, p. is not too late to create a life-long reader even when stu-
455). Keesha wrote, “I started reading Judy Blume books. dents are about to exit high school. Students’ perceptions
That’s how I became a reader. I read one of her books and of themselves as somewhat readers or nonreaders can be
decided it was good and she had to have more books that changed; that is, aliterates can change to literates. Several
were just as good. One good book from an author is all it researchers have demonstrated that students’ feelings of
takes” (Cone, 1994, p. 456). The readers reported know- learned helplessness (Coley & Hoffman, 1990), which
ing how to get books (libraries, bookstores, friends) and may have developed as early as elementary school, can be
why they liked reading (to learn, to escape). Readers also reversed with older students (Brown, Palinscar, & Purcell,
indicated interest in a multiple genres—plays, newspapers, 1986; Rozenholtz & Simpson, 1984). One important key to
magazines, poetry—in addition to the traditional novel. increasing the number of students who view themselves as
Cone noted how interest in reading in her class became an readers is teachers’ knowledge of their students’ interests.
“appearing act,” which found its way into her article title. This information enables teachers to make book recom-
Somewhat readers were in a kind of literacy limbo. mendations on topics about which students are more likely
They saw themselves as “an almost reader” or “becoming to read. For example, introducing Jalaine to female African
a reader” (Cone, 1994, p. 458). Procrastination, difficulty American writers and allowing David to pursue his inter-
locating books, and a preference for shorter pieces (e.g., est in science fiction enabled Cone to better connect with
newspapers or periodicals) kept these students from fully them as readers.
accepting themselves as readers. Second, independent reading encourages students to
Nonreaders were essentially aliterates, who provided practice and apply the comprehension strategies they are
different descriptions of their nonreading stance. Some taught to reading materials that matter to them (Ivey &
rationalized their lack of reading: “Just because you don’t Broaddus, 2001). When teachers select books and estab-
read book after book doesn’t mean that you can’t read” lish the pace of reading, students become dependent on
(Cone, 1994, p. 456). Other nonreaders viewed reading them. This dependence implies that teachers do not trust
as a performance or the ability to decode, rather than the the students to engage in reading without supervision.
act of creating meaning; hence, it was something that they Incorporating independent reading in the high school
avoided. Cone noted that several of the nonreaders received English curriculum enables students to engage in authentic
high grades and scored well on the SAT: a mark of a clas- reading practices that will support their learning long past
sic aliterate. For some low-achieving nonreaders, however, graduation.
there was a correlation between self-labeling as a nonreader Third, researchers have found that choice is an important
and poor school performance. factor in reading motivation (Flowerday, Schraw, & Ste-
Cone’s most important findings relate to the process of vens, 2004). Smith and Wilhelm (2002) found that books
students’ change in their self-perceptions and actual reading students enjoyed reading most were those they were able
behaviors. For example, Kema’s writing documented her to select. For the majority of Cone’s high school seniors,
evolution as a reader: choice played a prominent role in their development as
readers. Students reported pursuing specific genre inter-
• September: “When I have an assignment to read a book, ests (e.g., science fiction), gaining confidence as a reader,
I do all my other homework first because I know if I pick and discovering books that were previously unknown. For
that book up I would get restless.… I know it’s sad, but example, Angel reported, “I got to read books that the
that how I feel.” (p. 465) teacher liked … plus what [I] liked … all of which were
• February: “At first I hated this book assignment. Now pretty good reading but honestly speaking, I wouldn’t have
I’m getting used to it. I’m finding me in each of the picked those books up at the library. But I’m glad we read
books I read.” (p. 465) them” (Cone, 1994, p. 471).
• April: “I don’t consider myself a reader yet.… I hated Fourth, literature discussion groups (Eeds & Wells, 1989;
reading with a passion until I learned how to pick out Raphael and McMahon, 1994) were powerful in moving
books that interested me.” (p. 466) Cone’s students from nonreaders to readers. Discussion
• May: “I still feel intimidated with some kids in here … helps readers learn from and with others as they move
especially David. He is never without a book. But I read through a text. Cone’s students demanded the opportunity
all my books this year, every one of them.” (p. 466) to discuss the books they were reading in class. Phillipa
summed up the importance of talk: “It’s easier when you do
Kema’s progression from nonreader to reader was repre- [reading] in class because you can talk about it and…Like
sentative of other students in Cone’s class who moved from a person like Shakespeare—you can understand it better if,
an aliteracy stance to that of viewing literacy as a way to you know, if you talk about it” (Cone, 1994, p. 471).
enjoy and find fulfillment in literature.
Baumann and Ivey (1997): Struggling Readers All
Implications. Cone’s successful year-long program of Study description. In this study, Jim Baumann took
reading, discussion, and reflection suggests four implica- a year off from his university position to teach second
tions for teachers of high school literature classes. First, it grade full-time in a public elementary school serving low-
414 James F. Baumann and T. Lee Williams

income, minority children and their families. Gay Ivey January IRI; and the average instructional level was third
was a graduate assistant at the time and worked with Jim grade at the May administration. Thus, there was significant
on all aspects of the study. The purpose of this study, titled growth, with students advancing two instructional levels
“Delicate Balances,” was to determine what Jim’s students on average. Not all students demonstrated this degree of
learned about reading, writing, and literature through a progress, for two students remained at a preprimer level at
yearlong program that integrated reading and learning about the end of the school year.
literature and reading strategy instruction. This was a type Results for the other four categories demonstrated that
of balanced literacy approach (Pressley, 2006), which Jim students not only grew in overall reading ability but also
and Gay referred to as an immersion/instruction program in other aspects of reading and language arts. Specifically,
(Ivey, Baumann, & Jarrard, 2000). The design was a qualita- the children:
tive, interpretive case study (Merriam, 1988) involving the
13 students in Jim’s class who were present for all or the • became more engaged with literature as evidenced by
majority of the school year (many children moved in and their increasing knowledge of books, authors, and il-
out of this school). lustrators (Category 2);
Data included researcher journals; transcripts of video- • became more automatic, skillful, and strategic in word
recorded student interviews and classroom literacy lessons; identification, and developed in oral reading fluency
a variety of student work; anecdotal records; an informal (Category 3);
reading inventory conducted in the fall, winter, and spring of • learned that reading is a meaning-seeking process and
the school year; Jim’s lesson plan book and lesson notes; and developed comprehension monitoring and fix-up strate-
transcripts of interviews with children’s parents/care givers gies (Category 4); and
and colleagues at the school. Data analysis involved a five- • developed a strong sense of audience in their writing
phase content analysis in which Jim and Gay induced major and wrote extensively about their personal interests and
categories and supporting properties from the multiple data experiences (Category 5).
sources. To establish credibility, a negative-case analysis
was conducted, and an external auditor reviewed several In order to demonstrate the variation and individual
case records to establish trustworthiness of the findings. pathways that the children took to literacy development,
the researchers conducted in-depth, within-case analyses
Findings. The researchers reported results from both of two students: Marcus and Jennifer. To illustrate these
cross-case and within-case analyses. The cross-case analysis cases, we provide an overview of Marcus’s story.
resulted in five categories: (a) becoming a reader, (b) en- Marcus began the school year virtually a nonreader, as
gagement with literacy, (c) word identification and reading Jim could not establish an instructional level on the August
fluency, (d) comprehending written texts, and (e) written IRI. In May, however, Marcus’s IRI instructional level was
composition. To illustrate the findings, we describe results second grade, and miscue analysis revealed that his miscues
for Category 1, becoming a reader category, which included were much more graphophonically similar (e.g., dude for
two properties: students came to view reading as a natural, down on the Fall IRI vs. waterbed for wastebasket on the
regular component of the school day; and students grew in Spring IRI).
overall instructional reading level. Marcus demonstrated increased use of syntactic and
The first property reflected the immersion aspect of the semantic cues as well as the ability to integrate various
curriculum, which had the children engaged with trade word and meaning identification strategies. For example,
books multiple times each day through book talks, teacher while reading to Gay one spring day, Marcus read Frog
read alouds, self-selected free-choice reading, buddy read- swam first and made a big splash. Toad swam second, and
ing with students from a fifth-grade class, and a home/school he immediately asked Gay, “[Is] that right?” The word
effort to promote shared reading with parents and care Marcus should have read instead of second was slowly. He
givers. Data revealed that, as the year progressed, students made a reasonable substitution for slowly based on clues
noted with increasing frequency that they enjoyed books from the previous sentence and the first letter of the word,
and reading. For example, Felicia stated that “I like all kinds but he knew it was not correct. When Gay asked, “Why do
of books . . . and I love to read.” Gay wrote in her journal you think it’s not second,” Marcus replied, “It don’t got a
that Kristen “knows a lot of authors’ names. I’ve noticed k” (Baumann & Ivey, 1997, p. 266). Although Marcus still
in class time and time again that she talks about books. She struggled with reading at the end of second grade, he had
can tell you plots of different books and who wrote them” developed skill and metacognitive awareness of his word
(Baumann & Ivey, 1997, p. 260). identification and comprehension abilities, and he acquired
Regarding the second property, there was evidence that a keen interest in books and literature.
the students grew in overall instructional reading level across
the school year. The August administration of an informal Implications. Findings from the Baumann and Ivey
reading inventory (IRI) revealed an average instructional (1997) study of teaching children who struggled with
level of primer to beginning first grade for the 13 students; reading and writing are supported by the historic process-
the average instructional level was second grade as per the product reading research from the 1970s (e.g., Berliner,
 Teacher Research on Reading Difficulties 415

1981; Brophy & Good, 1986; Duffy, 1981, 1982; Hoffman, like Jeremiah and Joseph to develop both academically
1986, 1991). For example, process-product research find- and socially. This study also demonstrated that there were
ings on the importance of allocating significant time for limits to what teachers can do when children experience
reading instruction, having students academically engaged chaos in their lives. Moving from school-to-school and
and on task, and ensuring that students experience high suc- from teacher-to-teacher disrupted the hoped-for safety
cess rates with literacy tasks were characteristics of Jim’s of a continuous holistic literacy instructional experience
literacy curriculum and instruction. for students like Jeremiah and Joseph. The researchers
More contemporary research on characteristics that are acknowledged these issues and the complexity of the task
associated with growth in reading ability of elementary of public school teaching:
children (Allington & Johnston, 2002; Pressley, Allington,
Wharton-McDonald, Block, & Morrow, 2001; Williams We have learned a great deal, perhaps as much as the sim-
plicity of our initial question as about the children. We feel
& Baumann, 2008) also supported outcomes of the im-
a tremendous responsibility to the children to share their
mersion/instruction program. For example, Jim had high lives with you in an honest and sympathetic way, in a way
expectations and believed that students could and would that gives you an understanding of them as members of
learn: factors shown to be related to literacy growth of their communities, as children buffeted by the upheaval of
African American (Ladson-Billings, 1994) and more main- home and school, and above all, as truly engaging children.
stream (Wharton-McDonald, Pressley, & Hampston, 1998) (Allen et al., 1993, p. 11)
students. When teachers employ a range of reading and
instructional materials (Jim had a large classroom library), Teacher researchers like JoBeth, Betty, and Barbara
students tend to be motivated and engaged with literature persist in their quest to change literacy development for
and reading (Pressley, Yokoi, Rankin, Wharton-McDonald, struggling readers—a study like Engaging Children is not
& Mistretta, 1997). Many studies document the necessity a one-time experience. Teacher researchers have a passion
of explicit instruction in key reading skills and strategies for their work, for ongoing professional learning through
for student growth (Allington & Johnston, 2002; Pressley research, and for sharing what they are learning with other
et al., 2001), which was a hallmark of Jim’s philosophy and teachers. Engaging Children was connected to other re-
instructional program. search on the children at Walnut Elementary School (Allen,
Other factors related to students’ literacy learning such Michalove, Shockley, & West, 1991), and it led to a follow-
as the effective use of praise (Bohn, Roehrig, & Pressley, up study in which Barbara, Betty, and JoBeth collaborated
2004), implementing small-groups for guided reading with parents and care givers to promote home-school con-
instruction (Pressley, Wharton-McDonald, Hampston, & nections to further enhance the children’s literacy learning
Echevarria, 1998; Taylor, Pearson, Clark, & Walpole, 2000), (Engaging Families, Michalove et al., 1995). This led to
clear and fair management routines (Dolezal, Welsh, Press- yet another work in which teacher researchers told their
ley, & Vincent, 2003), and the presence of a warm, secure, stories of the promise and pitfalls of conducting research
and friendly classroom environment (Ladson-Billings, in their schools and classrooms (Engaging Teachers, Allen
1994; Spencer & Spencer, 1993) also reflected the approach & Bisplinghoff, 1998). Just as university researchers may
Jim took to literacy instruction and classroom life. In sum, engage in a line of inquiry, so too, teacher researchers often
the Baumann and Ivey (1997) study provided support for conduct a series of studies. The questions posed by one
employing curricular and instructional practices known to study often lead to other questions and studies, all resulting
be effective across various instructional contexts (Williams in deeper and new understandings of students who experi-
& Baumann, 2008) with a class of students who struggled ence difficulty learning to read.
with literacy achievement.
Motivational Aspect of “Appearing Acts” Joan Kernan
Cone’s (1994) study of motivating students to read demon-
Discussion strates that it is never too late to break the grip of aliteracy
What might be learned from our review of three teacher- and to create readers. Her adapted literature curriculum that
research studies on students with reading difficulties? included choice and discussion invited reluctant readers into
Although we cannot reliably draw generalizations from so the literacy club. She related how books the students read
few studies, we offer instead some observations about the like Terry McMillan’s (1989) Disappearing Acts resulted
studies in relation to the selection framework we used. in the “appearing act” of a community of readers in her
classroom:
Sociocultural Dimensions of “Engaging Children” The
The extent of our sense of community as readers is reflected
Allen et al. (1993) study provides insight into sociocultural in our connection to writer Terry McMillan. Early in the
aspects of reading difficulties. The researchers demonstrated year, Tassie lent me Disappearing Acts [McMillan, 1989].
that a powerful instructional philosophy (whole language) “You have got to read this. My sister-in-law gave it to me
and highly dedicated teachers can effect change on the lit- last Friday and I finished it this weekend. Now I’m read-
eracy learning of students about whom they most worried. ing her first book. Don’t be shocked by the language.”…
More simply stated, Betty and Barbara enabled children Gradually a McMillan fan club developed. Kandi wrote,
416 James F. Baumann and T. Lee Williams

“Disappearing Acts. Everywhere I go I hear people talk- on several other teacher-research studies (Baumann, Hooten,
ing about that book. I’ll read it again right after my aunt is & White, 1999; Baumann, Ware, & Edwards, 2007).
finished with it.” (Cone, 1994, p. 467)

Another student, Clifton, agreed: “It was almost as if I was Conclusion

addicted to this book. Disappearing Acts not only moved
Allington (2009) stated recently that “most struggling read-
me but it became a part of me.”
ers never catch up with their higher-achieving classmates
Cone’s passion for teacher research on high school
because schools create school days for them where they
students both preceded and followed her 1994 study. She
struggle all day long” (p. 1). In contrast, in the studies we
reported on how reading fiction and nonfiction works that
reviewed, the researchers created programs in which stu-
were linked to geographical regions promoted her students’
dents experienced success all day long by addressing the
interest in reading and global understanding (Cone, 1990).
students’ social, motivational, and cognitive needs. Allen
She used discussion to motivate reluctant readers and talkers
at al. (1993) used a whole language philosophy to create
to create a literate community (Cone, 1993), and she re-
an instructional environment that acknowledged what the
ported on how her fully mature literacy curriculum engaged
students knew already about literacy and built on the stu-
ninth-grade “detracked” (i.e., heterogeneously grouped)
dents’ unique social and cultural backgrounds. Cone (1994)
students to learn about, appreciate, and use reading and
modified her high school literature class by motivating her
writing (Cone, 2006). Cone’s teacher research on students
aliterate students through choice and discussion. Baumann
who struggle with literacy demonstrates how the process
and Ivey (1997) developed a program that provided the
of inquiry becomes a mechanism for lifelong learning and
children instruction in essential reading skills and strategies
professional development.
as they were immersed in quality children’s literature.
In these diverse studies, the teacher researchers created
Cognitive Growth through “Delicate Balances” Bau-
their own approaches to achieve success for their strug-
mann and Ivey’s (1997) study indicates that a cognitively
gling readers rather than employing or adopting an external
focused literacy program with a strong literature component
“program” that purported to do so. The researchers were not
can hasten children’s literacy growth. The duration and in-
averse to using published materials (e.g., Jim used basals
tensity of the literature/strategies-based approach, a dogged
of differing levels for his guided reading groups, and all
persistence, the belief that students will learn, and a lack of
researchers used quality trade books), but they developed
acceptance of failure (on both Jim’s and the students’ part)
programs grounded on theoretically and empirically based
enabled many children to accelerate their literacy develop-
instructional principles and approaches that aligned with
ment such that they were at an average or above level in
their own convictions and their students’ unique needs. As
reading as they transitioned to third grade.
Allington (2002) stated, “Good teachers, effective teachers
As was true for other teacher-research studies, however,
matter much more than curriculum materials, pedagogical
there were individual setbacks and the inevitable ebb and
approaches, or ‘proven programs’” (p. 740).
flow of academic growth. Not all stories were success sto-
Teacher research provides an environment and medium
ries; there were no miracles in Jim’s Room 8:
for those in classrooms to develop into “good teachers,
Not all students in Jim’s class demonstrated significant effective teachers.” Lassonde and Israel (2008) stated that
growth in reading and language arts abilities. Jim’s greatest “Teacher research offers an effective opportunity to bridge
frustration throughout the school year was the difficulty the traditional divide between educational theory and pro-
he had finding ways to enable some children to make the fessional practice. Educators who practice teacher research
literacy breakthroughs he so desperately hoped for.… Jim in classroom settings become more complete teachers as
struggled along with certain students throughout the school they analyze what they are doing in the classroom” (p.
year to find strategies, materials, balances, or whatever xvii). In other words, the reflection and action through
that would unlock literacy doors; it remained a pall for
systematic, intentional inquiry about classroom life that
Jim that some keys were never found. (Baumann & Ivey,
defines teacher research leads to more quality instruction,
1997, pp. 270–271)
and more importantly, greater achievement for students who
Just like the other teacher researchers we have discussed, experience reading difficulties.
Jim and Gay continued to explore the complexities of strug-
gling readers. Gay conducted her dissertation as a participant References
observer in a study exploring middle school readers (Ivey, Alexander, P. A., & Fox, E. (2004). A historical perspective on reading
1999a), including those who experienced difficulty with research and practice. In R. B. Ruddell & N. J. Unrau (Eds.), Theoreti-
reading. She also examined issues and practices that limit cal models and processes of reading (5th ed., pp. 33–68). Newark, DE:
or enhance the reading instruction of struggling readers in International Reading Association.
middle school (Ivey, 1999b). Jim kept in touch with his stu- Allen, J., & Bisplinghoff, B. S. (1998). Engaging teachers: Creating teach-
ing and research relationships. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.
dents and families (Baumann & Thomas, 1997), wrote about Allen, J., Michalove, B., & Shockley, B. (1993). Engaging children: Com-
the challenges of being both the teacher and the researcher munity and chaos in the lives of young literacy learners. Portsmouth,
(Baumann, 1996), and collaborated with classroom teachers NH: Heinemann.
 Teacher Research on Reading Difficulties 417

Allen, J., Michalove, B., Shockley, B., & West, M. (1991). “I’m really Cochran-Smith, M., & Lytle, S. L. (Eds.). (1993). Inside/outside: Teacher
worried about Joseph”: Reducing the risks of literacy learning. The Research and knowledge. New York: Teachers College Press.
Reading Teacher, 44, 458–472. Coley, J. F., & Hoffman, D. (1990). Overcoming learned helplessness in
Allen J., & Shockley, B. (1996). Composing a research dialogue: Uni- at-risk readers. Journal of Reading, 33, 497–502.
versity and school research communities encounter a cultural shift. Compton-Lilly, C. (2003). Reading families: The literate lives of urban
Reading Research Quarterly, 31, 220–228. children. New York: Teachers College Press.
Allington, R. L. (2002). What I’ve learned about effective reading in- Cone, J. K. (1990). Literature, geography, and the untracked English class.
struction from a decade of studying exemplary elementary classroom The English Journal, 79(8), 60–67.
teachers. Phi Delta Kappan, 83, 740–747. Cone, J. K. (1993). Using classroom talk to create community and learn-
Allington. R. L. (2009). What really matters in response to intervention ing. The English Journal, 82(6), 30–38.
research-based designs. Boston: Allyn & Bacon. Cone, J. K. (1994). Appearing acts: Creating readers in a high school
Allington, R. L., & Johnston, P. H. (2002). Reading to learn: Lessons from English class. Harvard Educational Review, 64, 450–473.
exemplary fourth-grade classrooms. New York: Guilford. Cone, J. K. (2006). Detracked ninth-grade English: Apprenticeship for
Anderson, G. L., & Herr, K. (1999). the new paradigm wars: Is there the work and world of high school and beyond. Theory into Practice,
room for rigorous practitioner knowledge in schools and universities? 45(1), 55–63.
Educational Researcher, 28(5), 12–21, 40. Cunningham, J. W. (2001). The National Reading Panel Report. Reading
Archambault, M. X. (1989). Instructional setting and other design features Research Quarterly, 36(3), 326–335
of compensatory education programs. In R. E. Slavin, N. Karweit, Delpit, L. (2006). Other people’s children: Cultural conflict in the class-
& N. A. Madden (Eds.), Effective programs for students at risk (pp. room (updated edition). New York: The New Press.
220–263). Boston: Allyn & Bacon. Dolezal, S. E., Welsh, L. M., Pressley, M., & Vincent, M. M. (2003). How
Barr, R., Kamil, M. L., Mosenthal, P. B., & Pearson, P. D. (Eds.). (1991). nine third-grade teachers motivate student academic engagement.
Handbook of reading research, vol. II. New York: Longman. Elementary School Journal, 103(3), 239–267.
Baumann, J. F. (1996). Conflict or compatibility in classroom inquiry? Duffy, G. G. (1981). Teacher effectiveness research: Implications for
One teacher’s struggle to balance teaching and research. Educational the reading profession. In M. L. Kamil (Ed.), Directions in reading:
Researcher, 25(7), 29–36. Research and instruction, 30th Yearbook of the National Reading
Baumann, J. F., & Duffy-Hester, A. M. (2000). Making sense of class- Conference (pp. 113–136). Washington, DC: National Reading
room worlds: Methodology in teacher research. In M. L. Kamil, P. Conference.
B. Mosenthal, P. D. Pearson, & R. Barr (Eds.), Handbook of reading Duffy, G. G. (1982). Fighting off the alligators: What research in real
research, vol. III (pp. 77–98). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum. classrooms has to say about reading instruction. Journal of Reading
Baumann, J. F., Hooten, H., & White, P. (1999). Teaching comprehen- Behavior, 14, 357–373.
sion through literature: A teacher-research project to develop fifth- Eeds, M., & Wells, D. (1989). Grand conversations: An exploration of
graders’ reading strategies and motivation. The Reading Teacher, meaning construction in literature study groups. Research in the
53, 38–51. Teaching of English, 23, 4–29.
Baumann, J. F., & Ivey, G. (1997). Delicate balances: Striving for curricular Fecho, B., Allen, J., Mazaros, C., & Inyega, H. (2006). Teacher research in
and instructional equilibrium in a second-grade, literature/strategy- writing classrooms. In P. Smagorinski (Ed.), Research on composition:
based classroom. Reading Research Quarterly, 32, 244–275. Multiple perspectives on two decades of change (pp. 108–140). New
Baumann, J. F., Shockley-Bisplinghoff, B., & Allen, J. (1997). Methodology York: Teachers College Press.
in teacher research: Three cases. In J. Flood, S. B. Heath, & D. Lapp Flowerday, T., Schraw, G., & Stevens, J. (2004). The role of choice and
(Eds.), A handbook of research on teaching literacy through the com- interest in reader engagement. The Journal of Experimental Educa-
municative and visual arts (pp. 121–143). New York: Macmillan. tion, 72, 93–114.
Baumann, J. F., & Thomas, D. (1997). “If you can pass momma’s tests, Goodman, K. S. (1986). What’s whole in whole language? A parent/teacher
then she knows you’re getting your education”: A case study of support guide to children’s learning. Portsmouth, NH Heinemann.
for literacy learning within an African American family. The Reading Hankins, K. H. (2003). Teaching through the storm: A journal of hope.
Teacher, 51, 108–120. New York: Teachers College Press.
Baumann, J. F., Ware, D., & Edwards, E. C. (2007). “Bumping into spicy, Hoffman, J. V. (1986). Process-product research on effective teaching: A
tasty words that catch your tongue”: A formative experiment on vo- primer for the paradigm. In J. V. Hoffman (Ed.), Effective teaching of
cabulary instruction. The Reading Teacher, 62, 108–122. reading: Research and practice (pp. 39–51). Newark, DE: International
Berliner, D. C. (1981). Academic learning time and reading achievement. Reading Association.
In J. T. Guthrie (Ed.), Comprehension and teaching: Research reviews Hoffman, J. V. (1991). Teacher and school effects in learning to read. In R.
(pp. 203–226). Newark, DE: International Reading Association. Barr, M. L. Kamil, P. B. Mosenthal, & P. D. Pearson (Eds.), Handbook
Bohn, C. M., Roehrig, A. D., & Pressley, M. (2004). The first days of school of reading research, vol. II (pp. 911–950). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
in the classroom of two more effective and four less effective primary- Ivey, G. (1999a). A multicase study in the middle school: Complexities
grades teachers. Elementary School Journal, 104(4), 269–287. among young adolescent readers. Reading Research Quarterly, 34,
Borman, G. D., Wong, K. K., Hedges, L. V., & D’Agostino, J. V. (2001). 172–192.
Coordinating categorical and regular programs: Effects on Title I stu- Ivey, G. (1999b). Reflections on teaching struggling middle school readers.
dents’ educational opportunities and outcomes. In G. D. Borman, S. Journal of Adolescent & Adult Literacy, 42, 372–381.
C. Stringfield, & R. E. Slavin (Eds.), Title I: Compensatory education Ivey, G., Baumann, J. F., & Jarrard, D. (2000). Exploring literacy balance:
at the crossroads (pp. 79–116). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum. Iterations in a second-grade and a sixth-grade classroom. Reading
Brophy, J., & Good, T. (1986). Teacher behavior and student achievement. Research & Instruction, 39, 291–309.
In M. C. Wittrock (Ed.), Handbook of research on teaching (3rd ed., Ivey, G., & Broaddus, K. (2001). “Just Plain Reading”: A survey of what
pp. 328–375). New York: Macmillan. makes students want to read in middle school classrooms. Reading
Brown, A. L., Palinscar, A. S., & Purcell, L. (1986). Poor readers: Teach, Research Quarterly, 36(4), 350–377.
don’t label. In U. Neisser (Ed.), School achievement of minority chil- Johnston, P., Allington, R. L., & Afflerbach, P. (1985). The congruence of
dren: New perspectives (pp. 105–143). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum. classroom and remedial reading instruction. The Elementary School
Cochran-Smith, M., & Donnell, K. (2006). Practitioner inquiry: Blurring Journal, 85, 465–478.
the boundaries of research and practice. In J. L. Green, G. Camilli, & Klenk, L., & Kibby, M. W. (2000). Re-mediating reading difficulties: Ap-
P. B. Elmore (Eds.), Handbook of complementary methods in educa- praising the past, reconciling the present, constructing the future. In M.
tion research (pp. 503–518). Washington, DC: American Educational L. Kamil, P. B. Mosenthal, P. D. Pearson, & R. Barr (Eds.), Handbook
Research Association. of reading research, vol. III (pp. 667–690). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
418 James F. Baumann and T. Lee Williams

Ladson-Billings, G. (1994). The dreamkeepers: Successful teachers of Pressley, M., Yokoi, L., Rankin, J., Wharton-McDonald, R., & Mistretta,
African-American children. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. J. (1997). A survey of the instructional practices of grade 5 teachers
Lankshear, C., & Knoble, M. (2004). A handbook of teacher research. nominated as effective in promoting literacy. Scientific Studies of
New York: Open University Press. Reading, 1(2), 145–160.
Lassonde, C. A., & Israel, S. E. (Eds.). (2008). Teachers taking action: Raphael, T. E. & McMahon, S. I. (1994). Book club: An alternative frame-
A comprehensive guide to teacher research (pp. 177–189). Newark, work for reading instruction. The Reading Teacher, 48(2), 102–116.
DE: International Reading Association. Rozenholtz, S., and Simpson, C. (1984). The formation of ability con-
Lenski, S. D. (2008). The future of teacher research. In C. A. Lassonde & ceptions: Developmental trend or social construction? Review of
S. E. Israel (Eds.), Teachers taking action: A comprehensive guide to Educational Research, 54, 31–63.
teacher research (pp. 177–189). Newark, DE: International Reading Ruddell, R. B., & Unrau, N. J. (Eds.). (2004a). Theoretical models and
Association. processes of reading (5th ed.). Newark, DE: International Reading
Lipson, M. Y., & Wixson, K. K. (1986). Reading disability research: Association.
An interactionist perspective. Review of Educational Research, 56, Ruddell, R. B., & Unrau, N. J. (2004b). Reading as a meaning-construction
111–136. process: The reader, the text, and the teacher. In R. B. Ruddell & N. J.
Lytle, S. L. (2000). Teacher research in the contact zone. In M. L. Kamil, Unrau (Eds.), Theoretical models and processes of reading (5th ed., pp.
P. B. Mosenthal, P. D. Pearson, & R. Barr (Eds.), Handbook of reading 1462–1521). Newark, DE: International Reading Association.
research, vol. III (pp. 691–718) Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum. Shanahan, T. (2007). Relations among oral language, reading, and writing.
Lytle, S. L., & Cochran-Smith, M. (1994). Teacher research in English. In C. A. MacArthur, S. Graham, & J. Fitzgerald (Eds.), Handbook of
In A. C. Purves (Ed.), Encyclopedia of English studies and language writing research (pp. 183). New York: Guilford.
arts (pp. 1153–1155). New York: Scholastic. Smith, F. (1988). Joining the literacy club. Portsmouth, NH: Heine-
McFarland, K. P., & Stansell, J. C. (1993). Historical perspectives. In L. mann.
Patterson, C. M. Santa, K. G. Short, & K. Smith, (Eds.), Teachers Smith, M. W., & Wilhelm, J. W. (2002). Going with the flow: How to
are researchers: Reflection and action (pp. 12–18). Newark, DE: engage boys (and girls) in their literacy learning. Portsmouth, NH:
International Reading Association. Heinemann.
McMillan, T. (1989). Disappearing acts. New York: Viking. Snow, C., Burns, M. S., & Griffin, P. (1998). Preventing reading difficulties
Merriam, S. B. (1988). Case study research in education: A qualitative in young children. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.
approach. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Spear-Swerling, L., & Sternberg, R. (1996). Off track: When poor readers
Michalove, B., Shockley, B., & Allen, J. (1995). Engaging families: become “learning disabled”. Boulder, CO: Westview Press.
Connecting home and school literacy communities. Portsmouth, NH: Spencer, L. M., & Spencer, S. M. (1993). Competence at work: Models
Heinemann. for superior performance. New York: Wiley.
National Reading Panel. (2000). Teaching children to read: An evidence- Taylor, B. M., Pearson, P. D., Clark, K., & Walpole, S. (2000). Effective
based assessment of the scientific research literature on reading and schools and accomplished teachers: Lessons about primary-grade
its implications for reading instruction: Reports of the subgroups (NIH reading instruction in low-income schools. Elementary School Journal,
Publication Number 00-4769). Washington, DC: National Institute of 101, 121–166.
Child Health and Human Development. Taylor, D., & Dorsey-Gaines, C. (1988). Growing up literate: Learning
Olson, M. W. (1990). The teacher as researcher: A historical perspective. from inner-city families. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.
In M. W. Olson (Ed.), Opening the door to classroom research (pp. Trzesniewski, K., Moffitt, T., Caspi, A., Taylor, A., & Maughan, B. (2006,
1–20). Newark, DE: International Reading Association. January). Revisiting the association between reading achievement and
Ontario Action Researcher. (2008). Retrieved October 6, 2008, from http:// antisocial behavior: New evidence of an environmental explanation
www.nipissingu.ca/oar/index.htm from a twin study. Child Development, 77(1), 72–88
Padak, N., & Rasinski, T. (1999). The language experience approach: Wharton-McDonald, R., Pressley, M., & Hampston, J. M. (1998). Literacy
A framework for learning. In O. G. Nelson & W. M. Linek (Eds.), instruction in nine first-grade classrooms: Teacher characteristics and
Practical classroom applications of language experience (pp. 1–11). student achievement. Elementary School Journal, 99, 101–128.
Boston: Allyn & Bacon. Williams, T. L., & Baumann, J. F. (2008). Contemporary research on
Pearson, P. D., Barr, R., Kamil, M. L., Mosenthal, P. (1984). Handbook effective elementary literacy teachers. In J. Laughter, V. J. Risko, D.
of reading research. New York: Longman. L. Compton, D. K. Dickinson, M. K. Hundley, R. T. Jimenez, et al.
Picard, S. (2005). Collaborative conversations about second-grade readers. (Eds.), 2008 National Reading Conference Yearbook (pp. 357–372).
The Reading Teacher 58, 258–464. Chicago: National Reading Conference.
Pressley, M. (2006). Reading instruction that works: The case for balanced Wixson, K. K., & Lipson, M. Y. (1991). Perspectives on reading disability
teaching (3rd ed.). New York: Guilford. research. In R. Barr, M. L. Kamil, J. H. Mosenthal, & P. D. Pearson
Pressley, M., Allington, R. L., Wharton-McDonald, R., Collins Block, C., (Eds.), Handbook of reading research, vol. II (pp. 539–570). New
& Morrow, L. M. (2001). Learning to read: Lessons from exemplary York: Longman.
first-grade classrooms. New York: Guilford. Woodside-Jiron, H. (2003). Critical policy analysis: Researching the roles
Pressley, M., Wharton-McDonald, R., Hampston, J., & Echevarria, of cultural models, power, and expertise in reading policy. Reading
M. (1998). Literacy instruction in 10 fourth-grade and fifth-grade Research Quarterly, 38(4), 530–536.
classrooms in upstate New York. Scientific Studies of Reading, 2, Zeichner, K. M., & Noffke, S. E. (2001). Practitioner research. In V. Rich-
159–194. ardson (Ed.), Handbook of research on teaching (4th ed., pp. 298–330).
Washington, DC: American Educational Research Association.
 36
Single-Subject and Case-Study Designs
DAVID CIHAK
University of Tennessee

Single-subject research designs help teachers and research- between two types of variables: dependent and indepen-
ers examine variables that effect student learning. Ap- dent. A dependent variable refers to the outcome of the
proximately 30% of all database interventions conducted behavior targeted for change. An independent variable
on students with learning disabilities use single-subject refers to the intervention being used to change the behav-
designs (Swanson & Sachse-Lee, 2000). Swanson and ior. Single-subject designs require repeated measures of
Sachse-Lee also found that reading was the primary fo- the dependent variable. The performance of a student’s
cus in a meta-analysis of single-subject research design. behavior is monitored and recorded weekly, daily, or more
Single-subject designs are particularly well suited for frequently over time. The student’s performance can then
literacy research. This chapter provides an overview of be compared under different experimental or intervention
single-subject experimental research with an emphasis on conditions (i.e., independent variable). When systematic
examining components of literacy research. For a more and repeated changes of a dependent variable occur as a
comprehensive understanding of single-subject designs, result of the independent variable, a functional relation
numerous authors are referenced (e.g., Barlow & Hersen, between the dependent and independent variable can be
1984; Kazdin, 1982; Kennedy, 2005; Richards, Taylor, Ra- demonstrated. A functional relation is a tentative cause-
masamy, & Richards, 1999; Sidman, 1960; Skinner, 2004; effect relation between independent and dependent vari-
Tawney & Gast, 1984). ables. The researcher can have confidence that the behavior
The term single-subject is not used because there is changed as a function of the independent variable because
only one participant; rather, it refers to the procedure for with each replication, only the intervention is introduced
data collection and to the focus of the study instead of the or manipulated.
number of participants. Single-subject researchers prefer
to collect multiple measurements in order to provide a Baseline Measures Baseline data measure a student’s
detailed description before and during the course of an level of performance prior to intervention implementation.
intervention. The purpose of single-subject experimental That is, a representative sample of the natural occurrence of
research is to clearly establish the effects of an intervention the student’s performance. Moreover, baseline data serve
on specific individuals rather than information about the to describe the student’s current level of performance us-
average performance of groups. The use of single-subject ing descriptive measures including the mean, median, and
designs began because of dissatisfaction among researchers range. The first phase of a single-subject design is the col-
when inferences from group studies were not observed when lection and recording of baseline data. Baseline data serve
applied to individuals. As with traditional group research a similar function as a pretest. However, repeated measure
experimental studies, the aim of single-subject designs is of at least five baseline data points (Alberto & Troutman,
to ensure that changes in responses are indeed the result of 2006) are collected and recorded to better establish the
that intervention and not a consequence of chance, error or duration, frequency, and intensity of behavior(s) examined.
other extraneous factors Baseline data assist teachers in identifying and/or verifying
the existence and the extent of an academic or behavioral
deficit. So, in addition to multiple data points, tracking
Variables and Functional Relation
student performance across settings and time of day, for
The term variable is used to refer to any number of factors example, are good practices to better ensure a true repre-
involved in research. Experimental designs distinguish sentative sample of a student’s performance.

419
420 David Cihak

Baseline data also serve a predictive utility. The predic- are events or conditions that may affect the dependent vari-
tive function allows a teacher to expect a student’s immedi- able, which are not controlled by the researcher. When an
ate level of functioning to continue absent of an intervention investigator sufficiently controls for confounding variables
being implemented. Since baseline data are to be used to and establishes that a student’s performance systematically
examine the effectiveness of the intervention, it is critical changed as a result of introducing an intervention, then a
that baseline data are stable. functional relation is assumed. A functional relation may
The stability of a baseline is assessed by variability of be considered a cause-effect relation. However, changes in
data points and trends in data points. Variability of data the dependent variable should covariate within at least three
refers to fluctuations in the student’s performance. The different series at three different points in time as a direct
greater the data variability, the more difficult it is to pre- result of the independent variable for the establishment of
dict student performance and to make strong conclusions a functional relation (Horner et al., 2005). Experimental
related to intervention effectiveness (Kazdin, 1982). Where control should continue until the investigator can determine
variables can be controlled, a research-oriented criterion for an effect of an intervention. Additionally, when a functional
the existence of stability is data points within a 5% range relation is established for one individual, repeated studies
of variability (Sidman, 1960). However, since a classroom, of the same intervention are conducted using different
rather than laboratory, seldom possesses “facilities or time individuals and other dependent variables. Researchers
that would be required to eliminate variability” (Sidman, using single-subject designs do not assume generality of
p. 193), Repp (1983) proposed a therapeutic criterion of research results based on a single successful intervention.
20% variability. With that in mind, baseline data may be The more frequently an intervention proves effective, the
considered stable if no baseline data points vary more than more confidence is gained about the generality of the results
20% from the baseline mean. of the intervention.
A trend in the data refer to an indication of a distinctive The specific designs discussed in this chapter provide
direction in performance. A trend is defined as three con- varying degrees of experimental control from research de-
secutive data points in the same direction (Barlow & Hersen, signs (e.g., ABAB, changing criterions, multiple baseline,
1984). A baseline may show an ascending, descending, alternating treatments) to teaching designs (e.g., AB, chang-
and a no trend. An ascending trend in baseline denotes an ing conditions). Teaching designs do not permit confident
increasing pattern of data points. Teachers should imple- assumptions of a functional relation. However, teaching de-
ment an intervention on an ascending baseline trend only signs do provide sufficient indication of a change in student
if the objective is to decrease the behavior. For example, performance for everyday classroom use. Research designs
if a student is demonstrating an increase in the number provide experimental control and allow an investigator to
of reading errors, the goal of the teacher’s intervention presume a functional relation.
would be to decrease the student’s number of reading er-
rors. Conversely, a descending trend in baseline denotes a AB “Teaching” Design The AB design is the most basic
decreasing pattern of data points. Teachers should imple- single-subject design. More sophisticated single-subject
ment an intervention on a descending baseline trend only designs are an extension of the AB design. The designation
if the objective is to increase the behavior. For example, of AB refers to the two phases of the design: A or baseline
if a student is demonstrating a decrease in the number of phase and B or intervention phase. Figure 36.1 shows ficti-
words read correctly, the goal of the teacher’s intervention tious data collected and graphed using an AB design. The
would be to increase the student’s reading words correctly. teacher in this instance was concerned about the minimal
Trend lines can provide an indication of the direction of amount of time a student read during class. For 5 days,
behavior change in the past and a prediction of the direction she continued to assign the student reading materials, as
of behavior change in the future. she usually acted, while collecting baseline data regarding
the number of minutes the student read. Afterwards, she
Intervention Measures The second component of allowed the student to choose a book from a collection,
single-subject designs is a series of repeated measures of as an intervention, and continued to record the number of
the student’s performance under intervention or treatment minutes reading during class. A dashed line on the graph
condition (phase). The independent variable (intervention) separates the two phases and data points between phases
is implemented and its effects on the dependent variable are not connected. The number of minutes reading during
(student performance) are measured. Trends in the interven- the intervention phase increased, illustrating a clear picture
tion data indicate the effectiveness of the intervention. of the effectiveness of the intervention.
The AB design is not often found in professional lit-
Experimental Control Experimental control refers to the erature because it cannot assess for a functional relation.
researcher’s efforts to ensure that changes in the dependent The design does not provide for the replication within an
variable are directly related to the manipulation of the in- experiment to establish a functional relation. However,
dependent variable. The researcher wants to control for or the primary advantage of an AB design is its simplicity. It
to eliminate the chance that other variables (confounding provides teachers with a quick, uncomplicated means of
variables) are responsible for the change in the student’s comparing students’ performance before and after interven-
performance (dependent variable). Confounding variables tion implementation, making instruction more systematic.
 Single-Subject and Case-Study Designs 421

Baseline Intervention
“A” “B”
Number of Minutes Reading 20

15

10

0
Ian

-5
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13
School Days Figure 36.1 Ficitious graph of an AB design.

Teachers may find the use of the AB design useful when independent variable is introduced to alter the student’s
conducting action research in the classroom or when de- performance. Intervention phase continues until criterion
termining a student’s response to a particular intervention of the student’s performance is reached or a trend in the
(i.e., response to intervention). The disadvantage of the AB therapeutic direction is evident
design is that it cannot be used to make confident assump- • A (baseline 2): during this phase the intervention is
tions of a functional relation. Although the data may indicate withdrawn or terminated returning to conditions similar
intervention efficacy, this design does not provide replica- to initial baseline phase
tion of the independent variable or intervention procedures. • B (intervention 2): during this phase the intervention is
With this in mind, the AB design lacks experimental control re-implemented
and is vulnerable to confounding variables.
By repeatedly comparing the baseline data to the data
Withdrawal/Reversal (ABAB) Design The withdrawal/ collected during implementation of the intervention, the
reversal design is used to analyze the effectiveness of a investigator can determine whether a functional relation
single independent variable. Commonly referred to as the exists between the dependent and independent variables.
ABAB design, this design involves the sequential applica- Figure 36.2 shows fictitious data collected and graphed
tion and withdrawal of the intervention to verify effects on using a withdrawal/reversal ABAB design. This example
students’ performance. The withdrawal/reversal design has extends the AB design (see Figure 36.1) to demonstrate
four phases: A, B, A, and B. a functional relation. After Ian reached criterion (reading
for 20 minutes for 3 consecutive days) during the interven-
• A (baseline 1): initial baseline phase during which tion phase (choice), the teacher withdrew the intervention
student performance data are collected repeatedly un- (independent variable). During the second baseline phase
der existing conditions prior to the introduction of the (no choice), the amount of time Ian read decreased. Coo-
intervention per (1981) suggested that the second set of baseline data
• B (intervention 1): initial intervention phase which the (A2) should return to a level close to the mean of the initial
Baseline Choice No Choice Choice Figure 36.2 Ficitious graph of an ABAB
“A1” “B1” “A2” “B2” design.
20

15
Number of Minutes Reading

10

0
Ian

-5
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21
School Days
422 David Cihak

baseline phase (A1) or an evident trend in the opposite by demonstrating that a student’s performance can be incre-
direction of the first intervention phase (B1). Afterwards, mentally increased or decreased. This design is especially
the teacher re-implemented the choices intervention (B2). useful when the student’s ultimate performance criterion
The reintroduction of the independent variable during the is considerably distant from the student’s baseline perfor-
second intervention phase (B2) should result in a replication mance. Using a changing criterion design greatly increases
of effect similar to the first intervention phase (B1). With this the probability of student success. For student’s who have
in mind, a functional relation is established since system- significant reading difficulties, a changing criterion design
atic change in the dependent variable (number of minutes is an appropriate design to evaluate the student’s progress,
reading) covariate within at least three different series at as well as for setting the occasion for successful reading
three different points in time as a result of introducing and experiences.
withdrawing the intervention (choice). The changing criterion design includes two phases. The
The withdrawal/reversal design is an experimental first phase, as in all single-subject designs, is baseline. The
design that allows the investigator to assume a functional second phase is intervention. The intervention phase also
relation between the independent and dependent variables. is composed of subphases. Each subphase requires a closer
The second baseline and intervention phases, with condi- approximation of the ultimate criterion. In addition, each
tions identical to those of the first, provide an opportunity subphase becomes the basis for decision making about
for replication of the effect of the intervention on the stu- subsequent phases. Interim criteria can be established by
dent’s behavior. It is unlikely that confounding variables an (a) amount equal to the mean of the stable portion of the
would exist simultaneously with repeated application and baseline data, (b) amount equal to 50% less than the mean
withdrawal of the independent variable. of the baseline, (c) amount equal to 50% greater than the
The withdrawal/reversal design offers the advantages of mean of the baseline, (d) amount equal to the highest or
experimental control and simplicity. It provides for precise lowest (depending on therapeutic direction) performance
analysis of the effects of a single independent variable on level of baseline, and (e) amount equal to the professional’s
a single dependent variable. However, the withdrawal/re- judgment of the student’s performance (Alberto & Trout-
versal design is not always the most appropriate choice for man, 2006). However, if increases in criterion levels are
conducting research in reading. The primary disadvantage in a “perfect” stepwise progression, one may wonder if
of this design is the necessity for withdrawing an effective the student learned to respond to the expected predictable
intervention in order to determine whether a functional rela- increases (or decreases) or whether the application of the
tion exists. It is quite possible that many reading behaviors independent variable caused the dependent variable to
will not revert toward baseline levels once the intervention is change. It is critical to demonstrate that it is the independent
withdrawn. In such cases, it is unclear if the intervention was variable that produced the change in performance rather
responsible for such changes. For many reading behaviors than the student simply responding to the expectations
(e.g., vocabulary skills) the student’s learning performance that arise from the intervention phase. Hartmann and Hall
may not be reversible. For example, if a student learns 10 (1976) recommended that intervention phases should dif-
new vocabulary words after introducing an intervention, fer in length, or a constant length should be preceded by a
it is highly unlikely that an investigator would be able to baseline phase longer than each of the subphases. By alter-
reverse the student’s progress. Under such conditions, a nating phase lengths, the researcher limits the possibility of
return to baseline performance is not feasible. Likewise, confounding sequencing effects and ensures that stepwise
after a student learns a reading comprehension strategy or changes in student performances are not occurring naturally
acquires a reading decoding strategy, it is unlikely that the in conjunction with criterion changes.
investigator will be able to withdraw the learned strategy Nes (2003) used a changing criterion design to examine
or the student comprehension or decoding skills will not the use of an intervention package including student goal
deteriorate to previous baseline levels. Of course, when setting and paired reading to improve students’ reading
studying cognitive behaviors one usually considers this a rate. Four students in the fourth, fifth, and sixth grades, who
positive occurrence. Reading behaviors that may be more were identified as reading at least 1 year below grade level
appropriate for study using an ABAB design may include, and reading at least 35% below recommended minimum
emergent reading behaviors (e.g., holding the book cor- oral reading rates participated. Figure 36.3 shows the data
rectly, turning pages) or the amount of time reading. When collected and graphed for one student’s (Austin) reading
dealing with newly learned behaviors, the reversibility of rate. Under baseline conditions, Austin demonstrated a
what is learned has important implications for how you mean level performance of 41 words read per minute.
design your study. The following single-subject designs Based on baseline data and profession judgment, Austin
do not require a reversal of behavior or an intervention and his teacher determined the criterion level for the initial
withdrawal to establish a functional relation, which may intervention phase. Austin continued to participate in the
be more applicable for reading research. intervention until the sub-phases’ criteria were reached and
the ultimate goal was achieved. Nes established a functional
Changing Criterion Design The changing criterion de- relation by demonstrating that the students’ reading rate
sign evaluates the effectiveness of an independent variable increased incrementally within three different series at three
 Single-Subject and Case-Study Designs 423

Baseline Intervention Maintenance

Subphase Subphase Subphase Subphase Subphase
120 1 2 3 4 5
115
110
105
100
95
90
85
80
Reading Rate: Words Per Minute

75
70
65
60
55
50
45
40
35 • Daily Data Points
30  Generalization Probes
25
20 Subphase Criterion Levels
15
10
5
0
2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24 26 28 30 32 34 36 38 40 42 44 46 48 50 52 54
Sessions (School Days)

Figure 36.3 Graph of a changing criterion design.

different points in time as a result of the systematic imple- Barlow, & Hersen, 1984; Kazdin, 1982; Kennedy, 2005).
mentation of the reading intervention. Nes also assessed A multiple baseline design across behaviors consists of the
the students reading rate following the introduction of the examination of three or more behaviors associated with one
reading intervention during the maintenance phase. student in a single-setting. A multiple baseline design across
The advantage of the changing criterion design is that it subjects (participants) consists of three or more students
can establish a functional relation while continually chang- exhibiting the same behavior in a single setting. Lastly, a
ing the student’s performance in the therapeutic direction. multiple baseline design across settings consists of three
The intervention is never withdrawn, which is beneficial to or more settings in which one student is performing the
reading intervention research. However, using the changing same behavior.
criterion design requires gradual change in performance. It When using a multiple baseline design, the teacher
may therefore be inappropriate for behaviors that require or researcher collects data on each dependent variable
or lend themselves to rapid change. simultaneously. The teacher collects data under baseline
conditions for each student, on each behavior, or in each
Multiple Baseline Design (Participants, Settings, Behav- setting. To make data analysis possible, the same scale of
iors) Multiple baseline designs provide a means for col- measurement should be used for each dependent variable
lecting multiple sets of data in a single-case experimental (e.g., number of words read correctly per minute, percent-
design. As indicated by its name, the multiple baseline age of questions comprehended).
design permits simultaneous analysis of more than one While baseline data may be collected at the same time,
dependent variable. Kucera and Axelrod (1995) suggested the intervention phase should be implemented one at time.
that multiple baseline designs compliment literacy research After a stable baseline has been established on the first vari-
very well. Kucera and Axlerod also noted that multiple able, intervention with that variable can begin. During the
baseline designs can assist in the examination of new intervention phase, the baseline data collection continues
reading strategies and interventions. The multiple baseline for the remaining variables. Intervention on the second
design is desirable when it is not possible to withdraw an variable should begin when the first variable reaches the
intervention or to reverse a student’s progress to initial predetermined criterion. The intervention phases should
baseline conditions. continue for the first variable and baseline data should
A teacher or researcher may experimentally assess continue for the third or additional variables. After the
the effects of interventions (independent variable) across second variable reaches the predetermined criterion, then
behaviors, subjects (participants), and/or settings (e.g., the intervention phase for the third variable is introduced,
424 David Cihak

while data continues to be collected on previous variables. students with learning disabilities to comprehend text ma-
This sequence continues until the intervention has been terial. Eight high school students with a learning disability
implemented to all identified variables across behaviors, in reading participated. Students were taught to use an
students, and/or settings. outlining advanced organizer in order to identify important
The data collected in a multiple baseline design can be and relevant ideas from a passage. All reading passages
examined for a functional relation between the independent came from the students’ history textbooks. Students were
variable and each of the dependent variables. The introduc- required to read a two-page section from their textbook and
tion of the intervention, with the second and subsequent to then compose an outline noting subordinate details to
dependent variables, demonstrates a replication of effect. A superordinate points. Figure 36.4 shows the daily results of
functional relation is assumed if each dependent variable, one student during baseline, instructional, postinstructional,
in succession, demonstrates a change when, and only when, and follow-up phases across three comprehension skills (a)
the independent variable is implemented. That is, the oc- main topics, (b) subtopics, and (c) details. The data points
currence of systematic changes in a dependent variable as represent the percentage of correct content responses.
a result of introducing the intervention within at least three During baseline, the intervention was not introduced,
different series at three different points in time (Horner et as it would compromise experimental control. Bianco and
al., 2005). McCormick (1989) first introduced information on how to
Bianco and McCormick (1989) used a multiple baseline select relevant content and how to use the advanced orga-
across behaviors to evaluate a reading program to teach nizer to comprehend main topics. After introducing the in-

Baseline Intervention Post Intervention Follow-up

100

80

60

40

20 Title/
Main Topics
0
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15
Percentage of Correct Content Responses

100

80

60

40

20 Subtopics

0
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15

100

80

60
Details
40

20

0
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15
Sessions
Figure 36.4 Graph of a multiple baseline design across behaviors.
 Single-Subject and Case-Study Designs 425

tervention (independent variable), the student’s percentage reading passages equal in readability, yet different pas-
of correct content responses increased. Inspecting the other sages) are selected. Each sample is then designated for each
two skills (subtopics and details) in baseline, an increase in intervention. As the name implies, the different treatments
the percentage of correct content responses is not observed. are implemented alternatively. Lastly, counterbalancing is
Only when the teacher introduces the intervention targeting used to minimize the effects of carryover and sequencing ef-
the second skill (subtopics), an increase in the percentage fects (Kazdin, 1982). That is, presenting the treatments in a
of correct content responses occurs. Concurrently, the third random order to reduce potential effects that each treatment
skill (details) during baseline is not showing an increase. may have on the other (Barlow & Hersen, 1984).
The student’s percentage of correct content responses If the data path of one treatment separates from the other
increases for the third skill (details) only after the interven- data path, it is said to be fractionated. Fractionation indicates
tion is implemented. The multiple baseline design shows that the treatments are differentially effective. The alternat-
a functional relation with the staggered introduction of the ing treatments design does not always include a replication
independent variable (advanced organizer) and percentage phase. Therefore, the establishment of a functional relation
of correct content responses for these eight high school is relatively weak. To make a stronger case, a third phase
students since three different data paths increased incre- can be instituted. During this phase, the more effective
mentally at three different points in time. treatment is applied to the behavior (or behavior sample)
In a meta-analysis of 85 single-subject design stud- that was treated with the ineffective treatment during the
ies, Swanson and Sachse-Lee (2000) reported that 62% intervention phase. If the behavior improves (therapeutic
of studies used a multiple baseline design. The multiple direction), then the treatment is replicated and the functional
baseline design can establish a functional relation without relation is strengthen.
withdrawing the intervention, as in a withdrawal/reversal Beliforne, Grskovic, Murphy, and Zentall (1996) used
design and without gradual alterations, as in a changing an alternating treatments design to study the differential
criterion design. Since the intervention is not withdrawn effects of using black and white flashcards compared to
and the student’s performance does not need to be re- color added flashcards on students’ rate of word acquisi-
versed, the multiple baseline designs possess great utility tion. Three elementary students with learning disabilities
for researchers studying reading. However, the multiple in reading participated in both interventions. Readability
baseline designs do encompass some limitations and maybe level of all words was equal and intervention conditions
inappropriate when the target behavior requires immediate were counterbalanced to limit the possibility of confound-
action as the multiple baseline design calls for considerable ing variables and results. Figure 36.5 shows the cumulative
delay in the delivery of the intervention for the second and acquisition of sight-words for all students. All students
subsequent variables. For example, when using a multiple incorrectly read all words probed during baseline. Dur-
baseline across students, the second and third students are ing the alternating treatments phase, both the black/white
not introduced to a potential intervention until the preced- and color added treatments were introduced. The results
ing student reaches criterion. In addition, multiple baseline indicated that Tim learned slightly more sight words
designs may be inappropriate when the dependent variables during the black and white flashcard condition, whereas
are highly correlated. In such cases, the intervention with Darrell learned slightly more sight words during the color
one behavior will bring about the change in related behav- added condition. A fractionization of the cumulative words
iors. With that in mind, the teacher or researcher will be mastered between the black/white flashcard words and
unable to evaluate clearly the effects of the intervention color added words occurred. Jason’s results suggest that
procedure. For instance, if the two behaviors targeted for he learned sight-words similarly during both treatments.
change are reading words correctly and reading rate, the That is, both black/white and color added flashcards were
teacher might find that after the student’s reading accuracy equally effective or no functional differences occurred be-
increases, improvement in reading rate occurs too. In this tween the two treatments. Beliforne et al. concluded that,
case, the dependent variables are not independent. overall, students learned sight words equally well during
both interventions. To make a stronger case, Beliforne et al.
Alternating Treatments Design The alternating treat- would need to introduce a third phase. During this phase, the
ments design allows comparison of the effectiveness of sight words not mastered during color added condition for
more than one treatment or intervention (independent Tim, and sight words not mastered during the black/white
variables) on a single dependent variable. The alternating condition for Darrell would be presented again using the
treatments design permits researchers and teachers to com- more effective treatment for each student (black/white for
pare the effects of two different reading interventions on a Tim and color added for Darrell). If the acquisition rate of
student’s reading skills. The alternating treatments design sight-words demonstrated a marked improvement, then the
also is referred to as a multi-element design. effects of the preferred treatment would have been replicated
The first step when using an alternating treatments design and the functional relation strengthened.
is to select the student’s behavior and two or more potential The alternating treatments design is an efficient way for
interventions (independent variables). Next, two or more teachers to answer instructional questions such as, which
representative samples of the behavior (e.g., two or more method is most likely to be successful for this student?
426 David Cihak

Baseline Treatments
20

15
Black/White
10

5 Tim

Color-Added
0
2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20

25
Cumulative Words Mastered

20

15

10

5 Jason

0
2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20

25

20

15

10

5
Darrell

0
2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20
Sessions
Figure 36.5 Graph of an alternating treatments design.

After a clear fractionization appears, the teacher can select finding one that is successful for the student. The chang-
the most successful method. If both treatments are func- ing conditions design also is referred to as an ABC design
tionally similar, as with Jason, then student and teacher since each new intervention phase is given an identifying
preferences become qualifiers for using one intervention letter (Kazdin, 1982).
versus another. Like all single-subject designs, the first step in implement-
ing a changing conditions design is to collect baseline data
Changing Conditions Design The changing conditions to assess the student’s current level of performance. Once
design is a teacher design rather than an experimental design a stable baseline is established, the teacher introduces the
since a functional relation is not established. Similar to an selected intervention and measures its effectiveness through
alternating-treatments design, a changing conditions design repeated measures. If the student does not reach criterion
is used to examine the effects of two or more interventions or the intervention does not produce a sufficient change, a
(independent variables) on the behavior (dependent vari- teacher may design a second intervention. This second inter-
able) of a student. Unlike the alternating treatments design, vention can either be an adaptation of the first intervention
the interventions in this design are introduced sequentially. or a complete change in strategy. The process of redesigning
The changing conditions design is useful for teachers who intervention conditions continues until the student reaches
find it necessary to try a number of interventions before criterion or the desired effect of the intervention.
 Single-Subject and Case-Study Designs 427

The changing conditions design is used when the teacher strategy is added to the instructional package, a new phase
is (a) determining the effectiveness between treatments, is identified. Conversely, a teacher may use the changing
(b) designing an instructional package that will facilitate condition design to systematically reduce the amount of
a student’s performance, or (c) systematically fading as- assistance being provided to a student in order to identify
sistances to enhance independent student performance the least amount of help required for ongoing successful
(Kazdin, 1982). When determining treatment effectiveness, performance. Each reductive change is considered a new
treatments are introduced consecutively, each with its own phase. For example, in order to improve reading skills, a
phase, until the desired effect is achieved. This design is an student requires peer assistance, highlighting important
extension of the AB design. As in the AB design, there is text, use of skimming strategies, and story maps to aid
no replication of the effect of either intervention and there comprehension; the teacher withdraws systematically
can be no establishment of a functional relation. each intervention while maintaining the desired reading
When designing an instructional package, a teacher performance.
starts from the student’s present level of performance. The Figure 36.6 shows fictitious data collected and graphed
teacher adds new interventions cumulatively until the stu- using a changing conditions design. In this instance,
dent’s performance reaches the desired outcome. As each the teacher was concerned about three students learning

Baseline Copy Copy & Define Copy, Define, & Picture

100

80

60

40

20

0
Dave
-20
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15
Percentage of Vocabulary Words Defined Correctly

100

80

60

40

20

Percy
0

-20
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15
100

80

60

40

20

0 Beau

-20
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15
Sessions
Figure 36.6 Fictitious graph of a changing conditions design.
428 David Cihak

their weekly vocabulary words. For 5 days, she collected meaningful benefits and positively impacts the individual’s
baseline data on each student’s percentage of vocabulary life in everyday situations, as well as for those who interact
words defined correctly. She then introduced a number of with the person (Baer, Wolf, & Risley, 1968). For instance,
teaching conditions and continued measuring the students’ if a student learns two new vocabulary words as a result
vocabulary performance. She first asked students to copy of an intervention, a teacher should ask if these results are
the word and its definition. Since the copy strategy was truly meaningful. Similarly, another criterion for evaluating
minimally effective, the teacher altered the previous phase intervention outcomes is social validity. Social validity is
by having the student define the vocabulary words in their a concept that is used in intervention research in which the
own words. Again, students’ performance improved only goal is to produce change in human functioning (Kazdin,
marginally; therefore, the teacher again altered the previous 1998). Social validity alerts teachers and researchers to
phase. During this phase, students copied the vocabulary issues concerning the applied value of the intervention:
words and its definition, define it in their own words, and (a) the goals of the intervention are socially important,
drew a picture illustrating each vocabulary words meaning. (b) intervention procedures are socially acceptable, and
During this final phase, all students reached the ultimate (c) intervention outcomes have had a palpable impact and
criterion for the percentage of vocabulary words defined actually helped people, as well as those who interact with
correctly. them, in ways that are evident in everyday life.
The changing conditions design with a single baseline Single-subject designs are usually evaluated through
phase allows the teacher to compare the effectiveness of a visual analysis procedures of a graph displaying the plotted
number of interventions on a student’s reading behaviors. data points of the various phases or conditions. Visual analy-
Although no functional relation is assumed (no demon- sis involves interpretation of the level, trend, and variability
stration of intervention effects replicated within or across of performance occurring during baseline and intervention
students), repeatedly measuring student performance in conditions. Level refers to the mean performance during
this format allows teachers to monitor the effects of vari- a condition (i.e., phase) of the study. Trend references
ous reading strategies. A teacher who records data system- the rate of increase or decrease of the best-fit straight line
atically in a changing conditions design will have a good for the dependent variable within a condition (i.e., slope).
record of the student’s progress and a good indication of Variability refers to the degree to which performance fluctu-
instructional procedures that are effective and ineffective ates around a mean during a phase. Additionally, in visual
for the student. The changing conditions design can assist analysis, the teacher or researcher also determines (a) the
reading teachers who are monitoring a student’s response rapidity of effects which refers to the length of time follow-
to interventions. However, the teacher must be aware that ing the onset and/or withdrawal of the intervention, (b) the
outcomes may be contributed to cumulative effects of vari- proportion of data points in adjacent phases that overlap, (c)
ous interventions rather than a single intervention. To assess the magnitude of change in the dependent variable, and (d)
a functional relation, the changing conditions design must the consistency of data patterns across multiple presenta-
be refined to include repeated baselines and replication tions of intervention and nonintervention conditions. The
of the intervention, such as an A1B1A2C1A3B2 design. For integration of information from these multiple assessments
example, following each potential intervention phase, the and comparisons is used to determine if a functional relation
intervention that produced the greatest desired outcome is exists between the independent and dependent variables.
reimplemented after another baseline phase. If the interven- Documentation of a functional relation requires compelling
tion is successful again, this is a replication of its effect, and demonstration of an effect (Parsonson & Baer, 1978). So,
therefore a functional relation is assumed. This design also a functional relation is assumed when predicted change in
may be viewed as a variation of the withdrawal/reversal or the dependent variable covaries with manipulation of the
ABAB design. independent variable. In most cases, a functional relation
is demonstrated when the design documents three demon-
strations of intervention effects, at three different points in
Evaluating Single-Subject Designs
time, with a single participant (within-subject replication),
The purpose of single-subject experimental research is to or three different points in time across different participants
clearly establish the effects of an intervention on specific (inter-subject replication).
individuals rather than information about the average per- Although visual analysis is primarily used and practical
formance of groups. The effectiveness of an intervention for verifying strong intervention effects for educational
can be determined against both experimental criterion and research, researchers may choose to explore statistical
clinical criterion. The experimental criterion verifies that an analysis of single-subject data to support or contrast the
independent variable (intervention) was responsible for the results. However, statistical tests for single-subject research
change in the dependent variable (outcome). Single-subject have been associated with major sources of controversy.
designs demonstrating within-subject replication of effect The first issue concerns whether statistical tests should
satisfy this criterion (e.g., Barlow & Hersen, 1984; Kaz- be used at all. The major objection is that statistical tests
din, 1982; Richards et al., 1999). The clinical criterion is a are likely to detect subtle and only minor changes in per-
judgment as to whether the results of the intervention have formance that ordinarily would be rejected through visual
 Single-Subject and Case-Study Designs 429

analysis. Statistical analyses may detract from the goals of TABLE 36.1
single-subject research to discover variables that not only Parametric and Analogous Nonparametric Procedures
produce reliable effects, but also result with important and Parametric Nonparametric
socially valid outcomes. The second source of controversy Pearson product-moment Spearman rank-order correlation
pertains to specific statistical tests used and whether they correlation coefficient r
are appropriate for single-subject research. Development coefficient (rho)
of statistical tests for single-subject research has lagged t-test correlated samples Sign test
behind the development of analysis for between-group Wilcoxon Matched-Pairs Signed-
Ranks test
research. Various analyses that have been suggested are
controversial because data from single-subject research t-test independent samples Median test
Mann-Whitney U test
often violates some of the assumptions on which various
One-way ANOVA Kruskal Wallis one way ANOVA
statistical tests depend.
of ranks
With limitations in mind, statistical tests are especially Median test
useful when several of the desired characteristics of the data
One-way ANOVA with repeated Friedman two-way ANOVA of
required for visual analysis are not met. For example, when measures ranks
baselines are unstable or show a trend in the therapeutic (No analogous parametric test) Chi-square single-sample
direction, selected statistical test can more readily identify
Note. Adopted from Meyers & Grossen (1974)
potential intervention effects. There are also situations in
which detecting small changes, especially in early stages of
research before the intervention is well understood, may be Yet, a number of computational options have been
important and statistical tests may be useful. Several statisti- proposed for conducting such meta-analytic studies with
cal techniques are available for single-subject experimental single subject designs, including (a) percentage of over-
designs. Table 36.1 lists parametric and analogous non- lapping data (Tawney & Gast, 1984); (b) percentage of
parametric procedures adopted from Meyers and Grossen non-overlapping data (PND; Scruggs & Mastropieri, 1998;
(1974). The appropriateness of any particular test depends Scruggs, Mastropieri, & Casto, 1987a); (c) percentage of
on the design, characteristics of the data, and various ways all non-overlapping data (PAND; Parker, Hagan-Burke, &
in which the intervention is presented. For a more compre- Vannest, 2007); and (d) improvement rate difference (IRD)
hensive understanding of nonparametric statistics, several (Parker & Hagan-Burke, 2007). Table 36.2 lists each metric
authors are referenced (e.g., Gay, Mills, & Airasian, 2006; of effect and procedures for calculating it.
Gibbons, 1993; Huck, 2004). Evaluation of the percentage of overlap of data (Tawney
In addition, a need exists to review the literature on & Gast, 1984) plotted for performance across adjacent
given practices, to synthesize the findings across studies, conditions provides an indication of the impact of an inde-
and to make recommendations about the use of the studied pendent variable (intervention) on the dependent variable
interventions. Given the utility of meta-analytic studies for (outcome). Tawney and Gast calculated the percent of
synthesizing findings, most between group experimental overlap by (a) determining the range of data point values of
studies use effect sizes (Busk & Serlin, 1992; Dunst, the first condition, (b) counting the number of data points
Hamby, & Trivette, 2004) and regression analysis (Allison plotted in the second condition, (c) counting the number of
& Gorman, 1993; Faith, Allison, & Gorman, 1996). The data points plotted in the second condition that fall within
calculations for effect sizes and regression analysis are the range of values of the first condition, (d) dividing the
based on the assumption the data in a condition (e.g., base- number of data points that fall within the range of values
line) are independent. However, in single subject studies, of the first condition by the total number of data points of
data are collected on a single participant under the same the second condition, and (e) multiplying by 100. Tawney
conditions using repeated measurement procedures; thus, and Gast added, “generally, the lower the percentage of
the data are likely serial dependent (i.e., not independent). overlap, the greater the impact the intervention has on the
If the assumption of independence is violated, spurious target behavior” (p. 164).
findings are likely (Kazdin, 1982). If the model of serial Scruggs et al. (1987a) proposed the use of a percentage
dependency was identified through autocorrelations, then of nonoverlapping data (PND) metric to evaluate outcomes
it could be controlled statistically, and effect sizes could be of single-subject research. Using this metric, the reviewer
calculated. However, in most single subject studies, too few determines the proportion of data points in a given treatment
data points exist to identify a model of serial dependency, condition that exceeds the extreme value in the baseline
and not having enough data to identify the model of serial condition. If an intervention intended to increase behavior,
dependence does not eliminate the possibility it exists this would be the proportion of treatment data points that
(Suen, 1987). Further, the small number of data points in exceeds the highest baseline value. Proportion of nonover-
most baseline conditions means any regression estimate lapping data is a primary consideration in evaluating single
calculated for the condition will likely be unreliable. Thus, subject research (Kazdin, 1976; Tawney & Gast, 1984) and
effect sizes and regression analysis should be avoided for can be easily calculated (Scruggs et al., 1987a). If 8 of 10
synthesizing single subject studies. treatment data points exceed the highest baseline observa-
430 David Cihak

TABLE 36.2
Metrics of Effect and Calculations
Metric of Effect Calculations
Percentage of Overlap (1) Determine the range of data point values of the first condition; (2) count the number of data points plotted in the
(Tawney & Gast, 1984) second condition; (3) count the number of data points of the second condition that fall within the range of values
of the first condition; and (4) divide the number of data points that fall within the range of the first condition by the
total number of data points of the second condition and multiply the number by 100.
Percentage of Non-Overlap (1) Determine the highest data point value observed during the first condition; (2) count the number of data points
Data (PND; Scruggs, plotted in the second condition; (3) count the number of data points of the second condition that exceed the highest
Mastropieri, & Casto, 1987) observed value of the first condition; and (4) divide the number of data points that exceed the highest observed
value of the first condition by the total number of data points of the second condition and multiply the number by
100.
Percentage of All The setting-up of a data file includes the creation of five variable columns: Random, Series, ABPhase, Score, and
Non-Overlapping Data Sorted (best accomplished with a statistics package, but also can be done by Microsoft Excel). Random includes
(PAND; Parker, a set of random numbers. Series contains a different category for each series (e.g., I, II, III, IV). ABPhase is
Hagan-Burke, & Vannest, dichotomous, containing categorical tags for the two types of phases (A, B). Scores contains original scores from
2007) all series. Sorted is an empty column in the spreadsheet (results from a nested sort are later pasted here). The
data are entered in a tall vertical column, with series under one another. (1) Copy ABPhase. Ensure the datafile
is properly set up, with Time ascending (1, 2, 3, etc.), Series ascending (I, II, III), and ABPhase ascending (A, B)
for each Series. When the file is properly set up, copy contents of ABPhase, and hold it in computer memory; (2)
Randomize. Sort the entire dataset by the Randomize column; (3) Nested Sort. Sort Score within Series. If scores
are expected to improve, then both variables are sorted normally, ascending. However, if Scores are expected to
decrease across phases, then the nested Score is sorted inversely (descending); (4) Paste the ABPhase data being
held in memory (copied in Step 1) into the empty Sort column; and (5) Conduct a Crosstabs analysis on the
ABPhase and Sort columns. Output will include the 2 × 2 table, as well as the Phi statistic. For confidence intervals
around Phi, analyze the table’s contents by a statistical module for testing two independent proportions.
Improvement Rate (1) On a large single case research graph, compare Phase A and Phase B data points. Count the total number of
Difference (IRD; Parker & data points in each phase (e.g., Phase A = 10, Phase B = 14); (2) Identify the smallest number of data points among
Hagan-Burke, 2007) Phases A and B that would have to be removed to eliminate all overlap or ties between phases (e.g., Phase A = 1,
Phase B = 3). Subtract the number removed from Phase B from the total number of data points in Phase A to obtain
the number remaining (e.g., Phase A = 14 – 3 = 11); (3) Write an “improvement rate” fraction for each phase;
a) For Phase A: number removed data points ÷ total number data points (e.g., Phase B = 3 ÷ 14 = 0.21).
b) For Phase B: number remaining data points ÷ total number data points in the phase
(e.g., Phase A = 9 ÷ 10 = 0.90).
(4) Subtract the smaller from the larger fraction; the difference is the improvement rate difference (IRD; e.g., phase 0.90
– 0.21 = 0.69). We interpret IRD by saying, “The difference or gain in improvement rate from baseline to intervention
phases is 21% to 90%, or a 69% gain”; and (5) For confidence intervals, enter four scores (two proportions) in a
statistical module for testing “two independent proportions.”
a) For control group: number removed ÷ number remaining (3 ÷ 11).
b) For treatment group: number remaining ÷ number removed (9 ÷ 1).
Select 90% or 95% exact (permutation) confidence intervals.

tion, for example, the PND score is 8/10 (80%). Scruggs extremity, is likely the most unreliable. The fourth limitation
and Mastropieri (2001) offered general interpretational is that PND lacks sensitivity or discrimination ability, as it
guidelines of PND > 70 for effective interventions, 50 < nears 100%, for very successful interventions.
PND < 70 for interventions of questionable effectiveness, Parker et al. (2007) recommended a new metric called
and PND < 50 for interventions with no observed effect. the percentage of all non-overlapping data (PAND). A
PND offers at least three advantages. First is the ease of minimum of 20 data points (5 per cell of the 2 x 2 table) are
calculation, as PND can be conducted with a pencil and ruler required to calculate PAND. Like PND, PAND reflects data
on a printed graph, and as a percentage calculation. Second is non-overlap between phases. However, PAND uses all data
acceptability to visual analysts, as PND’s emphasis on over- from both phases, avoiding the criticism of PND for over-
lapping data reflects a key component of most visual analysis. emphasis on one data point. PAND also can be translated to
The third advantage is PND’s applicability to any single- Pearson’s Phi and Phi2, which are both established measures
subject design. However, Parker, Hagan-Burke, and Vannest to determine effect sizes. The parametric requirements of
(2007) noted at least four limitations of PND. First, PND is equal variance and normality do not apply towards PAND.
neither an effect size nor related to an accepted effect size, Moreover, the requirement of serial independence or lack of
so PND requires its own interpretation guidelines. Second, autocorrelation has little impact on PAND results because
PND has unknown reliability, as it lacks a known sampling the tabled frequency data are unordered.
distribution, so alpha values and confidence intervals cannot From calculations of over 75 datasets, Parker et al.
be calculated. The third weakness is that PND ignores all (2007) concluded that PAND and PND proved analogous
phase A data except for one data point, which because of its in efficiency. However, PAND resolves some deficiencies of
 Single-Subject and Case-Study Designs 431

PND. PAND is related closely to the established Pearson’s any identified casual relation is transient and incomplete. To
Phi effect size although calculating confidence intervals combine methods into coherent sets of alternative researcher
for Phi requires an additional step. PAND also offers alpha goals, questions, and strategies, it is critical that researches
values and confidence interval (CI) to indicate reliability. establish a primary paradigm within which they are work-
The addition of CI information is highly desirable for pub- ing and shape their study accordingly. Sensible designs and
lications and conducting meta-analyses. methodological choices must be guided by the investigator’s
Parker and Hagan-Burke (2007) also recommended the principal assumptions, goals, and questions.
use of Improvement Rate Differences (IRD) as an effect size After establishing basic assumptions, goals, and research
index for single-subject designs. IRD is hand calculated, questions and choosing a guiding paradigm, the next step is
based on nonoverlapping data, and requires no more data to designate a primary research design. For single-subject
assumptions that PND. Often used as a clinical outcome researchers, this would involve selecting the most appropri-
measure in evidence-based medical research, Parker and ate single subject design. Case- study methodologies (e.g.,
Hagan-Burke examined IRD with 165 single-subject design interviews, participant observations) could be incorporated
data sets. IRD outperformed PND as an effective ES mea- to strengthen and build coherence of the general design of
sure for single-subject research. IRD also showed reason- the study. These methods could be used to address critical
ably validity by established Pearson R and Kruskal-Walllis questions including how the study was implemented, the
W analytic techniques. Moreover, IRD is accompanied ease of intervention procedures, the context within which it
with additional confidence interval information, which is was implemented, and/or the nature of students’ and teach-
strongly recommended in the professional literature and ers’ attitude during the intervention. However, these methods
conducting meta-analyses. should be carefully employed to add insight to the study and
not towards tangential and unproductive directions.
To effectively combine single-subject designs and
Combining Single-Subject Experimental Designs with
case- study methods, investigators will need to broaden
Case Studies
their definitions of what is acceptable as data and how it
In general, single-subject researchers are interested in ana- can be represented. Single-subject designs measure their
lyzing quantitatively the effect of an intervention on one or effects objectively and quantitatively. To achieve the ben-
more learning outcomes, whereas qualitative researchers efits of case study methods, researchers must respect more
(e.g., case-study approach) focus on generating narrative subjective data such as interview responses and narrative
descriptions and interpretations of phenomena that oc- descriptions. Qualitative data could be used to support quan-
cur without explicit interventions. Brantlinger, Jimenez, titative definitions of “baseline” or “effect” and could be
Klingner, Pugach, and Richardson (2005) defined qualita- triangulated with quantitative data to strengthen anticipated
tive research as “a systematic approach to understanding results or to help explain unanticipated outcomes.
qualities, or the essential nature, of a phenomenon within Applying case-study methods within the context of
a particular context” (p. 195). Although single-subject single-subject study could enhance the investigation of an
and case-study approaches share an emphasis on research intervention’s effect. Wolf (1978) suggested that studies
concerning individuals rather than larger populations, the of intervention effects are socially validated on at least
traditions from which they identify events, phenomena, and three levels (a) the significance of their goals, (b) the ap-
different types of research questions, as well as, how to best propriateness of their procedures, and (c) the importance of
study such events, phenomena, and examining questions are their effect. Wolf also suggested that the social validation
derived from different assumptions, research designs, and process be accomplished through the collection of subjec-
data collection methods. These two research approaches are tive, qualitative information (e.g., participants’ attitudes,
described by some as opposing because of long-standing acceptance toward the intervention), implying a potential
debates between quantitative researchers who use single- role for case-study methodologies with the context of
subject designs and qualitative researchers who use a case- single-subject designs.
study approach. The debate has centered on issues of (a) how The most common form of social validity assessment
data should be collected, (b) what constitutes data, and (c) involves collecting qualitative information on consumer
the nature of knowledge. For a more comprehensive under- satisfaction in the form of a questionnaire or rating scale.
standing of qualitative research designs, numerous authors Intervention studies also might benefit from the collection of
are referenced (e.g., Bogdan & Biklen, 1998; Cresswell, qualitative data. Interviews of students, teachers, principals,
1997; Marshall & Rossman, 1998; Maxwell, 1996). and parents concerning their level of satisfaction could pro-
Single-subject experimental researchers provide the lit- vide insight into the perceived acceptability, effectiveness,
erature with prescriptive information about the intervention and importance of the intervention. Such techniques also
effects on particular students, while case-study researchers may guide intervention adaptations and contribute to its
contribute to the literature through understanding the indi- implementation in other contexts. The purpose of this type
viduals’ experience and interpretation. Single-subject re- of data collection is to investigate the level of participant
searchers believe that predictable cause-effect relations can satisfaction, since it reflects the potential for both accept-
be established; whereas case-study researchers believe that ability and importance of any intervention study. Other
432 David Cihak

case-study methods, such as in-depth personal interviews, Dunst, C. J., Hamby, D. W., & Trivette, C. M. (2004). Guidelines for calcu-
collective case studies, and ethnographies from people who lating effect sizes for practice-based research syntheses. Centerscope,
2(2), 1–10.
would apply the intervention also could be integrated into Faith, M. S., Allison, D. B., & Gorman, B. S. (1996). Meta-analysis of
the single-subject design. Once intervention information single-case research. In R. D. Franklin, D. B. Allison, & B. S. Gorman
and its effects are examined, qualitative methods might (Eds.), Design and analysis of single-case research (pp. 245–277).
assist with the judgment of other intervention applications Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
such as procedural integrity, internal and external valid- Gay, L. R., Mills, G. E., & Airasian, P. (2006). Educational research:
Competencies for analysis and applications (8th ed.). Upper Saddle
ity. The integration of qualitative data into single subject River, NJ: Pearson Education.
designs can offer a wealth of information. Gibbons, J. D. (1993). Nonparametric statistics: An introduction. Newbury
The incorporation of case-study approaches and single- Park, CA: Sage.
subject designs can provide the type of evidence needed Hartmann, D. P., & Hall, R. V. (1976). The changing criterion design.
for investigators to be confident regarding the conditions Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 9, 527–532.
Horner, R. H., Carr, E. G., Halle, J., McGee, G., Odom, S., & Wolery, M.
under which the intervention is most likely to demonstrate (2005). The use of single-subject research to identify evidence-based
positive outcomes. It also can assist individuals who are practice in special education. Exceptional Children, 71, 165–179.
applying the intervention (teachers), while identifying Huck, S. W. (2004). Reading statistics and research (4th ed.). Boston:
potential factors crucial to achieving desired and transfer- Pearson Education.
able effects. Kazdin, A. E. (1976). Statistical analyses for single-case experimental
designs. In M. Hersen & D. Barlow (Eds.), Single-case experimental
Although single-subject and case-study designs may be designs: Strategies for studying behavior change (pp. 265–316). New
described as opposing, the two approaches can be mutu- York: Pergamon Press.
ally beneficial if combined with careful consideration of Kazdin, A. E. (1982). Single-case research designs: Methods for clinical
relevant theoretical issues raised by the paradigm debate. and applied settings. New York: Oxford University Press.
Research in education can be particularly challenging and Kazdin, A. E. (1998). Research design in clinical psychology (3rd ed.).
Boston: Allyn & Bacon.
a gap or lag between research and practice is ever present. Kennedy, C. H. (2005). Single-case designs for educational research.
However, through openness to combining methodologies Boston: Pearson Education.
in meaningful ways, reducing such challenges by using Kucera, J., & Axelrod, S. (1995). Multiple-baseline designs. In S. B. Neu-
thorough descriptions of a study’s phenomena and by man and S. McCormick (Eds.), Single-subject experimental research:
making clear causations between events can merge the two Application for literacy (pp. 47). Newark, DE: International Reading
Association.
methodologies for the best possible student outcomes. Marshall, C., & Rossman, G. (1998). Designing qualitative research (3rd
ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Maxwell, J. (1996). Qualitative research design: An interactive approach.
References
Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Alberto, P. A., & Troutman, A. C. (2006). Applied behavior analysis for Meyers, L. S., & Grossen, N. E. (1974). Behavior research: Theory, pro-
teachers (7th ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall. cedures, and design. San Francisco: W. H. Freeman.
Allison, D. B., & Gorman, B. S. (1993). Calculating effect sizes for Nes, S. L. (2003). Using paired reading to enhance the fluency skills of
meta-analysis: The case of the single case. Behavior Research and less-skilled readers. Reading Improvement, 40, 179–192.
Therapy, 31, 621–631. Parker, R. I. & Hagan-Burke, S. (2007). Median-based overlap analysis
Barlow, D. H., & Hersen, M. (1984). Single case experimental designs: for single case data: A second study. Behavior Modification, 31(6),
Strategies for studying behavior change (2nd ed.). Needham Heights, 919–936.
MA: Allyn & Bacon. Parker, R. I., Hagan-Burke, S., & Vannest, K. (2007). Percentage of non-
Bogdan, R., & Biklen, S. (1998). Qualitative research in education (3rd overlapping data (PAND): An alternative to PND. The Journal of
ed.). Boston: Allyn and Bacon. Special Education, 40(4), 194–204.
Baer, D. M., Wolf, M. M., & Risley, T. R. (1968). Some current dimen- Parsonson, B., & Baer, D. (1978). The analysis and presentation of graphic
sions of applied behavior analysis. Journal of Applied Behavior data. In T. Kratochwill (Ed.), Single-subject research: Strategies for
Analysis, 1, 91–97. evaluating change (pp. 105–165). New York: Academic Press.
Belfiorne, P. J., Grskovic, J. A., Murphy, A. M., & Zentall, S. S. (1996). Repp, A. (1983). Teaching the mentally retarded. Englewood Cliffs, NJ:
The effects of antecedent color on reading for students with learning Prentice Hall.
disabilities and co-occurring attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder. Richards, S. B., Taylor, R. L., Ramasamy, R., & Richards, R. Y. (1999).
Journal of Learning Disabilities, 29, 432–438. Single subject research: Applications in educational and clinical set-
Bianco, L., & McCormick, S. (1989). Analysis of effects of a reading study tings. San Diego: Singular Publishing Group.
skill program for high school learning-disabled students. Journal of Scruggs, T. E., & Mastropieri, M. A. (2001). How to summarize single-
Educational Research, 82, 282–288. subject participant research: Ideas and applications. Exceptionality,
Brantlinger, E., Jimenez, E., Klingner, J., Pugach, M., & Richardson, V. 9, 227–244.
(2005). Qualitative studies in special education. Exceptional Children, Scruggs, T. E., & Mastropieri, M. A. (1998). Summarizing single-
71, 149–164. subject research: Issues and applications. Behavior Modification,
Busk, P. L., & Serlin, R. C. (1992). Meta-analysis for single-case research. 22, 221–242.
In T. R. Kratochwil & J. R. Levin (Eds.), Single-case research design Scruggs, T.E., Mastropieri, M. A., & Casto, G. (1987). The quantitative
and analysis: New directions for psychology and education (pp. synthesis of single subject research: Methodology and validation.
133–157). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum. Remedial and Special Education, 8, 24–33.
Cooper, J. O. (1981). Measuring behavior (2nd ed.). Columbus, OH: Sidman, M. (1960). Tactics of scientific research. New York: Basic
Merrill. Books.
Cresswell, J. (1997). Qualitative inquiry and research design: Choosing Skinner, C. H. (2004). Single-subject designs for school psychologists.
among five traditions. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Philadelphia: The Hayworth Press.
 Single-Subject and Case-Study Designs 433

Suen, H. K. (1987). On the epistemology of autocorrelation in applied Tawney, J. W., & Gast, D. L. (1984). Single subject research in special
behavior analysis. Behavioral Assessment, 9, 113–124. education. Columbus, OH: Charles E. Merrill.
Swanson, H. L., & Sachse-Lee, C. (2000). A meta-analysis of single- Wolf, M. M. (1978). Social validity: The case for subjective measurement
subject-design intervention research for students with LD. Journal of or how applied behavior analysis is finding its heart. Journal of Applied
Learning Disabilities, 33, 114–136. Behavior Analysis, 11, 203–214.
 37
Experimental and Quasi-Experimental
Designs for Interventions
VICTOR L. WILLSON AND WILLIAM RUPLEY
Texas A&M University

The emphasis by the Institute of Education Science on ex- tion. This chapter discusses some of these current methods
perimental designs to evaluate the effects of interventions and the conceptual extensions they offer to experimental
in education settings has led to new quantitative models. design as conceived at IES.
Campbell and Stanley’s (1966) list of threats to the internal
validity of experiments was important in alerting researchers
Computational Estimation
to alternate explanations in nonrandomized designs over
the ensuing three decades, but it appeared to do little to In the mid-1970s high speed mainframe computers were
improve the quality of experiments. Willson and Putnam used to estimate parameters in models using new proce-
(1982) documented that almost 20 years after Cambell and dures, notably the Newton-Raphson method and many
Stanley, few studies reported in the American Educational alternatives that followed. The use of parameter estimation
Research Journal utilized randomization or even covariates methods led to implementation of other approaches other
in quasi-experimental designs. Slavin (2002) detailed the than the long-used ordinary least squares estimation (OLS),
shift by the U.S. Congress and Department of Education notably maximum likelihood (ML) and Bayes estimation.
in moving towards evidence-based funding and experi- These permitted different kinds of models to be investigated
ments based on randomization. The effort was founded on and will be discussed later in terms of their applications.
the so-called medical model, with small scale randomized High speed computation also permitted generating ran-
experiments followed by larger scale trials before large- dom scores, leading to a significant expansion of the use of
scale implementation. There was a clear assumption that simulations of statistical models under various conditions,
the randomized experiments conducted in medicine could and rapid computation of distributional estimation such as
be implemented in schools. While the lack of parallels the EM algorithm (Dempster, Laird, & Rubin, 1977), the
was made clear, the creation of the Institute for Education bootstrap (Efron, 1982), and the Gibbs sampler and the
Science (IES) was clearly intended to parallel the research Markov Chain Monte Carlo (MCMC) (Gelfand & Smith,
paradigms employed by the National Institutes of Health. 1990). These are used in various ways to compute estimates
In the requests for proposals that emanated from IES in designs that more closely characterize the data and condi-
there came early a recognition that some interventions tions of the studies.
might not be amenable to random assignment; therefore,
quasi-experimental designs were included. These tended
Missing Data
to assume that units above the level of the child, would be
assigned randomly but also possibly matched, into experi- Another innovation that had significant impact on design-
mental and typical practice conditions. Covariates would be ing and analyzing experiments was multiple imputation
included in the designs as well. A great deal of this design (MI), which followed from the Dempster et al. EM algo-
conceptualization was decades old, but new methodol- rithm (Rubin, 1987). Originally focused on non-responses
ogy in the intervening time has both made the classical in surveys, MI has been expanded to provide a method to
experimental design analysis methods outdated and has estimate missing data in experiments. Rubin and others
also outpaced the conceptual framework for classical ex- showed that ignoring missing data produces biased esti-
perimental design. What Grover Whitehurst (2001) thought mates of parameters and, in general, underestimates stan-
was bringing education up to current methodological rigor dard errors, consequently resulting in overinterpretation of
actually was already outdated in both medicine and educa- chance results. MI uses the covariance of the data actually

434
 Experimental and Quasi-Experimental Designs for Interventions 435

observed to estimate the missing data. If that were all, it Structural Equation Modeling
would be no different than earlier regression methods, but
MI then adds random error based on the distributions that Karl Jøreskog (1967, 1973) and colleagues constructed a
would be found under complete data to create new scores statistical model and theory now called structural equation
for the missing data each time MI is run. It uses the MCMC modeling (SEM), earlier called linear structural relations
to produce the distributions, and correctly adjusts the stan- (LISREL) that combined path analysis (Wright, 1921)
dard deviations (and thus standard errors). This procedure with test theory (Lord & Novick, 1968). This seemingly
assumes that data are missing either missing completely at disparate combination of disciplines has become the major
random (MCAR) or missing at random (MAR). Basically, organizer for statistical theory in the social sciences. Path
the data are missing due to random rather than systematic analysis was an obscure procedure to decompose correla-
causes. Of course this is often very difficult to determine, tions based on so-called path models that proposed direct
and while some statistical investigations can help, often and indirect relationships among variables. Wright’s work
the determination is based on good understanding of the languished until the late 1960s, when it was resurrected
population, the measurements, and the survey process. in mathematical sociology to deal with large sets of vari-
ables hypothesized to affect each other in complex ways.
Essentially a series of ordinary regressions, path analysis
Hierarchical Linear Modeling was shown to produce the same estimates without having
With Scheffé’s (1959) comprehensive treatment of the to conduct numerous regressions. Again, with high speed
analysis of variance (ANOVA), the consideration of fixed mainframe computers, the estimation using ordinary least
and random factors became more understandable in terms squares regression was limited primarily by the size of the
of inferences about samples of a population found in an data matrix to be inverted.
experiment as random factors, such as subjects and groups Jøreskog’s innovation was to join path analysis to fac-
of subjects and classrooms and schools. While the general tor analysis through the so-called true score theory. Factor
theory was well established, the implementation of designs analysis itself dated back to Spearman (1904) but was
with both fixed (e.g., treatments, gender, ethnicity) and always limited by its computational difficulties. For over
random factors lagged behind (Willson & Putnam, 1982). 50 years, shortcuts, ad hoc procedures, and approximations
Raudenbush (1988) detailed the development of the sta- were constructed to produce estimates of factor scores and
tistical methods that appropriately estimated parameters of the regression weights, termed factor loadings, that tied
in these mixed designs in which the grouping of subjects the observed variables to the factors. Once more, high speed
in clusters (e.g., classrooms) produces homogeneity that computing permitted the inversions of matrices and com-
is ignored in classical ANOVA. Using the EM algorithm putations that factor analysis demanded. Since psychology,
to produce Bayesian or maximum likelihood estimates, and by extension education, relied on factor analysis as the
the extension of ANOVA was termed hierarchical linear basis for theoretical conceptualization of the relationships
models (HLM), or multilevel models (MLM), or random of constructs, merging path analysis to factor analysis al-
coefficient regression (RCR). The difference was that HLM lowed better representation and estimation of parameters
used the information about variation from adjacent levels in complex models that before were constructed in only
to correctly estimate error variance. The basis of this idea approximate ways. Further, the understanding that ANOVA
is that error variance (e.g., the standard deviation of scores was simply a particular form of regression (Jennings,
within groups averaged across the groups in ANOVA) can 1967) added experimental designs into the repertoire that
also be estimated from the means of the groups from basic SEM could now cover, although the formal construction of
sampling theory. Pooling the estimate of the within-groups ANOVA into a set of contrasts seemed to elude researchers
error and the between groups-based error produces a cor- then and even today. Thus, SEM could be used to evaluate
rect estimate of error variance in the context of a design many models in the newly-coined term general linear model
with naturally-occurring groupings such as classrooms. In (GLM). Jøreskog and Sorbøm (1976) created a computer
a true experimental design, where all subjects are randomly program they call LISREL to analyze the expanded class of
assigned to treatments (and no classroom or classrooms the models, and many researchers to this day use that name for
same as the treatment groups) the estimates will be identi- SEM analyses. The program currently survives, although
cal. Otherwise, with designs that require intact classrooms by the late 1980s the Statistical Analysis System created a
hierarchical linear modeling (HLM) will produce accurate, SEM program option called CALIS. Peter Bentler (1995),
appropriate estimates of standard errors. Such estimates, another pioneer in SEM development, created his version
in general, will be larger than those of standard ANOVA, somewhat later, called EQS, Arbuckle and Wothke (1999)
much as was discussed with MI, and avoid over interpret- developed AMOS, and Bengt, a colleague of Jøreskog,
ing results with too many significant findings. HLM has and Linda Muthén (Muthén & Muthén, 1998–2007) cre-
become a mainstay of modern experimental designs in ated perhaps the most general program now available,
education given the realities of school structures. We will MPLUS. Again, the expansion of computing techniques
discuss this in detail later. that paralleled the new statistical methods detailed above
436 Victor L. Willson and William Rupley

led to these very comprehensive programs for analyzing that in many test development situations, they could simply
designs using SEM. write enough items to try out that they could select items
that had similar properties across the range of student abil-
ity. Others countered that such limitations created certain
Item Response Theory
kinds of items and tests but did not permit the range of
The area of educational testing focused on test develop- testing desired by schools and educational organizations.
ment during the 1960s with the explosion of baby boomer Consequently, the more complex two-parameter model was
children entering schools. The Cold War produced increased developed. The primary difference was that each item might
demands for higher education in the United States, and new have a different discrimination index, while Rasch items
curricula for science and math, and the desegregation of were required to be homogeneous with respect to discrimi-
schools created concerns about school quality, particularly nation. Essentially, the discrimination index was a measure
by conservatives. Both led to demands for testing children, of how distinctly an item separated those who knew the item
initially on their mastery of basic skills and later on more and thus had a higher ability, from those who did not know
complex learning. The demand for tests such as the Scho- the item and thus had a lower ability. While items might
lastic Aptitude Test (SAT, later renamed Scholastic Achieve- vary on this discrimination index, and high discrimination
ment Test) required many test items and many test forms. was valued, it was often found empirically that such highly
A Danish statistician, Georg Rasch, proposed a model of discriminating items might be found more easily away from
test item performance that extended the simple true score the middle of the ability distribution, so that allowing for
model (score = true score plus error) to include a parameter some variability in the discrimination would permit both a
for the difficulty of the item. This became called the Rasch wider variation in items and greater flexibility in selecting
model (Rasch, 1960/1980). Its fundamental notion was items for a test. The two-parameter model comprised of both
that all individuals could be placed on a scale arbitrarily difficulty and discrimination of the item was now included
defined as ability (conceptually the level of performance in the true score model and required much larger sample
on the subject being tested), and that all items could also sizes and new estimation methods, notably ML, to obtain
be placed on that scale, some easy and some difficult. good estimates and standard errors. Yet again, the interplay
Thus, how difficult an item was could be used to begin to of computer advances, statistical advances, and new models
place an individual on the scale to determine his/her ability. converged to produce new theoretical designs. These models
Clearly, one item would not be sufficient, but by examining collectively have been termed Item Response Theory (IRT)
the distribution of performance across easy and difficult and also called Item Characteristic Curve Theory.
items, one could begin to locate each individual. Further, It is worth noting briefly that the three-parameter model
the items could be given sequentially. If an individual got was conceived to permit a guessing component, since many
the item correct, give the individual a more difficult item, tests had multiple choice items. It required larger sample
and iterate until there appeared to be a consistency around sizes than the two-paramater model for reasonable estima-
some point on the scale. Combine that with a computer tion and it never quite performed the way it was originally
that could provide a randomly selected item, compute the conceived. The three-parameter model is therefore used
student’s performance based on that item and the previous only by a few organizations that are able to collect suf-
ones given, and what emerged was the basis for computer ficiently larger sample sizes of data.
adaptive testing, which is now the principal approach to The role of IRT in testing has not had much to do with
many online and computer-based tests such as the SAT, experimental design to date, although it is indirectly linked
GRE, and many driver’s license tests. when tests are selected for assessment of outcomes. That
Statistically, the Rasch model fit the answer to the ques- division is soon to change, however, as the incorporation
tion (correct or incorrect—scored as 0 or 1) to an estimate of of IRT into SEM programs such as MPLUS now permits a
the person’s ability. This type of analysis is a form of logistic general expansion of the SEM model to include tests that are
regression in which binomial responses are transformed to based on IRT. Since SEM includes the classical true score
the logarithm of the odds ratio, that is the probability of get- theory model as the basis of factor analysis, the inclusion
ting the item correct over the probability of getting it wrong. of IRT expands the theory to model the kind of responses
This type of analysis required computers to perform, again individuals give in attitude and achievement tests wherein
only becoming widely permissible in the 1960s. However, multiple options are provided.
the strict restrictions of the Rasch model did not require
extensive computations and could be performed by hand.
Longitudinal Data Analysis
This made it very easy to use.
The model was extended by others, summarized by The disciplines of developmental and experimental psy-
Birnbaum (1968) to the two-parameter and three-parameter chology were long alienated in the sense that developmen-
models. The criticism of the Rasch model was that it as- tal psychology focused on the observed changes in natural
sumed that all items performed exactly the same way with environments that children and adults went through, with
respect to the population of test-takers, empirically shown little notion of intervening, while experimental psychol-
not to be true for many items. Rasch enthusiasts responded ogy was inherently interventionist, focusing on treatments
 Experimental and Quasi-Experimental Designs for Interventions 437

that might improve psychological functioning. Clearly, enough cases, although this move toward normality may be
after the educational needs of the Cold War and Sputnik, very slow and has much empirical evidence in nature, not
educational research focused on experimental psychology all data can be expected to be normal. The distribution of
as a paradigm for investigating educational interventions. many abnormal behavior counts for children, for example,
Developmental psychology, perhaps best exemplified by may better be represented by the Poisson distribution, which
Piaget’s (1928) 40-year study of children, had its own has a high peak near zero and a very long tail—most kids
methodological emphases based on observation of single do not engage in those behaviors at all or very infrequently,
subjects (see chapter 36 of this volume). The needs of while a very small group can exhibit them regularly. Many
disciplines such as special education merged some of the such non-normal distributions have been identified, and
experimental and developmental ideas into applied behav- in other cases researchers are reluctant to assume normal-
ior analysis. Glass, Willson, and Gottman (1975) developed ity with the form of measurement they use (e.g., rating
some of these ideas in the analysis of time series experi- scales), even though there may be theoretical justification.
ments in which interventions were specifically introduced While the statistical development of various theoretical
after a period of observation in the ordinary situation, and distributions goes back to Pearson in the early part of the
the effect estimated in the context of the complexities of 20th century, their application to observed data was mostly
cross-time data using the autoregressive moving average limited to so-called nonparametric methods, which really
(ARMA) model. They argued that many variables observed had parameters but were based on known or randomization
over time exhibited correlated data structures that could distributions such as ranks or binomial/multinomial counts.
not be ignored without overestimating the effect of an Bayes theory provided an alternative to normal theory if a
intervention. This methodology, along with other more useful distribution could be specified that approximated the
conventional GLM type analyses based on repeated mea- observed data or reasonably corresponded to the measure-
sures, which is a form of mixed model with the restrictive ment conditions.
assumption about the correlations of data across time that Once more, the arrival of high speed computation has
they be equal for all pairs of time points, were available spurred interest in non-normal distributions. The Gibbs sam-
but little used during the 1980s. The introduction of HLM, pler permits generation of all sorts of complex joint distribu-
however, included analysis of data collected over a few tions from empirical or theoretical conditional distributions
time points, termed growth modeling. The focus of growth (e.g., knowledge of a distribution for some given condition,
modeling was to fit simple growth models, such as linear such as score distributions for girls and for boys separately
or quadratic curves, to the data at each level. This meant may lead to the question, what is the joint distribution of all
that each student would be fit with a curve and that groups kids). While such methods can provide alternative analyses,
would be fit with different curves based on the means of the they are difficult to implement for most researchers and are
groups. This was not conceptually different from repeated problematical to interpret. Consequently, much research has
measures designs, but as noted earlier, HLM produced cor- focused on examining the robustness of standard methods
rect standard errors, and further produced distributions for and adjustments that correct incorrect estimates when non-
the growth parameters for students that could be examined normality occurs.
and tested for homogeneity properly. In addition, a wide Robustness is the concept that a statistical procedure
variety of error covariance structures theoretically permit- works the way it is expected to even though assumptions
ted AR models to be included. about the method are not met. One well-known example is
The proponents of growth modeling seemed to ignore the robustness of ANOVA to some violation of normality
the previous discussion about error structures in longitudi- when sample sizes are equal across groups (Glass, Peckham,
nal data, although more recently Sivo and Willson (2000) & Sanders, 1972). With more complex estimation methods
presented models for ARMA structures in growth models. such as ML used in HLM and SEM, robustness, or lack of
Similarly, the role of interventions in growth modeling has it, has become an important issue. The primary culprits of
received insufficient attention. Nevertheless, the advances interest have been skewness and kurtosis variation from
in growth modeling due to EQS and MPLUS now permit normal distribution values. A general theory of estimation
many complex designs to be analyzed, such as growth in by Browne (1984) was termed asymptotic-distribution-
factor scores (termed latent growth modeling), inclusion free (ADF), and it was anticipated that it would solve
of time-varying covariates, or analysis of parallel growth most of the problems, but it has unfortunately not worked
processes in which the initial level or growth of one process particularly well. Thus, a great many simulation studies
affects the growth of another. have been conducted for various models; while no general
principles have arisen, some tentative conclusions appear
to now be established. Moderate departures from normality
Nonnormal Data
in kurtosis seem not to affect estimation under ML of either
The final topic area discussed here concerns the distribution parameters or standard errors. Larger departures can often
of data researchers collect. While the normal distribution has be reduced by various statistical transformations (Cohen,
the law of large numbers; with sufficient combining, every Cohen, West, & Aiken, 2003), although not always success-
score is expected to become normal in distribution with ful. Correction of model fit evaluation due to a procedure
438 Victor L. Willson and William Rupley

developed by Satorra and Bentler (1994) has become a While giving details on these statistics is outside the scope
standard procedure where non-normal distributions are of the chapter, suffice it to say that they provide evidence
in evidence. Beyond these few results, effects in complex for the number of classes.
model situations appear to depend on numerous conditions
that are difficult to generalize.
Putting It All Together
The other kind of non-normality is found with categori-
cal data. We are familiar with right-wrong scoring of items, The sum of all the methods described above is a general
which is commonly represented with a binomial (coin methodology for designing and analyzing group data. The
flip) distribution. For ordered categories, such as the typi- complexity of including some of these together is serious,
cal terms used for categories in many state accountability and not all is known about the conditions and properties
systems (unacceptable, acceptable, recommended, and for various combinations. Nevertheless, the capability
exemplary) a multinomial distribution can be hypothesized. that researchers now have to design and model complex
Likewise a similar distribution for unordered categories phenomena in either natural or experimental settings has
can be hypothesized, such as type of disorder, in which never been greater, and is, at present, literally exponen-
one category is designated as a reference category and all tially greater than even a few years ago. Some examples
others are compared to it. The modeling for multinomial of some important designs are discussed below, with some
distributions has statistical analyses based on the logarithm unresolved problems we have encountered in implementing
of the odds ratio, for example the ratio of probability of get- them in some instances presented.
ting an item right to the probability of getting it wrong. The
distribution of this transformed statistic has normal prob- Classroom-Level Interventions One of the main ex-
ability characteristics and ML regression can be utilized. perimental designs accessible to educational researchers
This is the basis for current analyses. Expansions of HLM is the possibility to randomize treatments for classrooms
and SEM to account for multinomial data are available in or schools rather than for individual students. Clearly, the
programs such as EQS and MPLUS, greatly expanding the primary internal validity threat is that while classrooms may
capability of researchers to examine data forms of all types. be randomized, the need to collect data at the student level
These programs permit combining interval and multinomial creates additional variance not accounted for by the class-
variables in path models, factor analysis, and structural room randomization. The practical problem is that usually
equation models, a tremendous expansion of the range of there are too few classrooms for stable estimation by using
questions that can be studied with the data collected. only classroom means (SEM analyses, for example, would
need 200 classrooms for many designs), and including
students within classrooms creates a nonrandom condition,
Latent Class Analysis
since students were not randomly assigned to classrooms.
Latent class analysis (LCA), termed mixture modeling in The potential distributional groupings of classrooms for
the statistical literature, is a method that assumes there are some limited number can affect estimation of the treatment
multiple hidden distributions in a sample of data. A simple effects; however, there is sampling evidence that 30 to 50
example would be two normal distributions separated by classrooms is optimal under HLM approaches with 15 to
a half standard deviation. If we knew that one had been 20 students per classroom. For example, one treatment
treated and the other not, we would simply compare the condition with 20 classrooms has significantly more at-risk
two samples with a t-test. If we did not know who was in children than the other condition also with 20 classrooms.
the treated group or the control group, however, latent class The effect of the treatment on at-risk children must be
analysis might help identify cases in each. The basis of the disentangled from the effect of treatment, yet the children
method is to create a binomial or multinomial variable (for are found at the first level (classroom), while treatment is
three or more groups) as a predictor to assign to each case. a second level effect. This means there is a potential cross-
By minimizing some sort of error or maximizing a likeli- level interaction. Since each classroom consists of some
hood function, we could arrive at the best assignment for at-risk and some non-at-risk children, the imbalance in
the sample. Since we would not know for sure who was in sample sizes creates its own problems. We might construct
each group, we could assign a probability function to group a variable termed “at-riskness” to predict performance at
membership and thus, for each case, give an estimated the first level, if we believe these children may differ on the
probability for being in each group. The equations are outcome, but that does not help us understand the potential
fairly complex, and the strict assumption of normality for variation of the treatment. A solution is to create a second
parametric models is required. Even so, unless we have good level variable, percent at-risk, for each classroom that will
theoretical requirements for the number of groups, some sort become a predictor of classroom mean outcome score.
of exhaustive analysis will need to be conducted to evaluate The problem is the variability in the at-risk proportions is
how well 2, 3, 4 … group memberships perform. Typically, only asymptotically random and with small samples may
the Bayesian Information Criterion (BIC) has been used, have large standard errors. Further, the at-risk proportion
although there are some studies (Jung & Wickrama, 2008) may interact with treatment, necessitating inclusion of an
that support using the Bootstrapped Likelihood Ratio Test. interaction term at the second level. This is a random effect
 Experimental and Quasi-Experimental Designs for Interventions 439

Classroom level model simplest solution, contrary to the discussion about missing
data above, is to ignore those cases. If the percentage of such
T
μ10 cases is low, say 5%, the degree of bias can be expected to
be negligible if the missingness is at random. For signifi-
cantly greater percentages there are several options. The
μ20 β00 δ
A reason for our waffling here is that there have not yet been
adequately developed procedures to impute missing data
in multilevel models. The problem is that estimation of the
AT
μ30
random variables becomes extremely complex in the model
we just presented. An approximation with unknown amount
of bias is to impute the data including a set of variables to
represent the classrooms. This produces a large number
of variables, which is equal to the number of classrooms
Student level model minus 1; in addition to those that would ordinarily be
used. Our experience is that MI fails unless the data set is
β1 extremely large, and even then a solution is not guaran-
teed. One approximation we have used successfully is to
X y e
group classrooms into a smaller number of homogeneous
subgroups, around 8 or so, depending on the information
Figure 37.1 Path diagram for two-level classroom-level treatment available about classrooms. For example, in one study we
model with covariates at each level. grouped the classrooms by ethnic composition into about
six subgroups, and unpublished simulations we conducted
since at-risk proportion is a random continuous variable and with a design similar to that above performed adequately
treatment is (presumably) a fixed factor. The model has the with little evidence of serious problems with Type I error
following equations: rate. This method also worked reasonably well for another
problem concerning teachers evaluated over several years
(1) y i(j) = β0j + β1jXi(j) + ei(j)
with different students each year. We will discuss that issue
(2) β0j = μ00 + μ10T + μ20A + μ30TA + δj
under the section on growth modeling.
In this model the student’s score y includes a classroom The third issue involves the level of randomization. If
intercept β0j, a covariate X (whether they are listed as at-risk you are lucky enough to be able to randomize students into
or not), and an individual differences score e. The classroom classes or groups in the design above, and the dependent
mean itself has an intercept μ00, an effect μ10 due to the variable is normally distributed, the HLM analysis is op-
treatment T, an effect μ20 due to the classroom composi- timal to test a treatment effect at the second level. If the
tion of at-risk students as a percentage A, a possible A by randomization occurred at the second level (classrooms
T interaction effect μ30, and random sampling variation δ. or teachers were randomized into treatment conditions),
The model can be seen conceptually in Figure 37.1. it is important to attempt to obtain covariates at each level
Analysis of this model can be accomplished with sev- as the design above illustrates to control to some degree
eral different software programs, including HLM6, EQS, unknown student-level variation that may be present due
MPLUS, LISREL8, SAS, and SPSS. All have been shown to unknown assignment of students to teachers. An even
to produce almost identical results, the differences due to more common design may be required in which schools
slight variations in the ML estimation programs they use. are randomly assigned to treatments, with several teach-
Several issues become important in analyzing the data for ers per school all implementing the same treatment. This
this model. First, if the number of students in each classroom is likely to occur in many studies because teachers work
is not equal for all classrooms, the exact solution requires together, and it is impractical to insist one teacher instruct
a separate analysis for each set of groups with a different using one method and the next-door teacher use another. In
sample size that may not be analyzable for small class- our experience many teachers in a school work as a coher-
rooms. Muthén (1989) proposed an approximate sample ent team and a common treatment at the school level is a
size to serve as the average for all groups and analyze the necessity. In this situation even more unknown variation
data as if all classrooms had that value. Hox (2002) gave a is introduced into the design. The two-level design is still
readable discussion of this with the formula used to compute possible, but some precautionary procedures should be
this “pseudobalanced” sample size. He concluded that the considered. One is to match schools by relevant charac-
method produces slightly elevated Type I error rates and teristics and randomly assign the school to one treatment
too-small standard errors as long as the sample size varia- or another or if there are three treatments, tri-match three
tion is not too great. The problem seems to diminish as the school groups with random assignment of schools to treat-
number of groups and students increases. ment. We successfully implemented this procedure with
The second issue arises if there are missing data for some a pool of about 40 schools, deleting some schools from
students. Depending on the quantity of missing data, the consideration and retaining 36. The assignment need not
440 Victor L. Willson and William Rupley

Even more complex models are theoretically available

P to be designed, such as path models among several latent
factors, each measured with four or more indicators. Such
designs are likely to be rarely encountered, most likely to be
μ 21 μ 32 β 00 δ found with extremely large-scale projects that assess many
variables each having multiple indicators with theoretical
I support. Some of the national studies of children and youth
conducted over the last 20 years fit this situation.
η

Figure 37.2 Path diagram for second level path model. Multiyear Growth Model Studies Designs that are ex-
pected to follow students and/or teachers over 3 or more
be an equal sample size either, so if one needs more treat- years or time points will, in general, be considered as growth
ment schools, matches might include four or six schools models, even though growth may not be expected to occur.
in a matched group, for example, with only one school We will discuss why shortly. Studies with only two time
randomly placed in the typical practice group, the others points of measurement of a dependent variable cannot be
assigned randomly to treatments. put into the growth model framework, but can easily fit into
the HLM modeling detailed above. For so-called pre-post
Multilevel Path Models An important extension of the studies, the pretest can best be utilized at the student level
HLM design will occur if there is a theoretical path model as a covariate. Since the class mean is predicted at the first
for variables at either or both levels. For instance, in one level, the resulting mean for the second level has been
study we have worked on, the amount of teacher inservice “adjusted” for the pretest differences. The mean is identical
participation in days is theoretically expected to change their to the least-squares mean of usual analysis of covariance,
instructional practices, which, in turn, are expected to im- but the standard deviation of errors has been correctly
prove student performance. Inservice days and instructional computed using HLM.
practices are teacher-level variables, so that the path model For an experimental study with three or more measure-
is at the second level. In this instance teachers comprised an ments of students separated in time, but fewer than perhaps
experimental and control group, and the experimental group eight or ten observations, a special form of the two level
had natural variation in specific inservice days associated HLM analysis is available. It can also be thought of as a
with the instructional practices observed. This model for three level analysis in that scores occur within student,
the second level is shown in Figure 37.2. who is grouped within a classroom, and classrooms are
In this model, control teachers had no inservice, and grouped within treatments. The model has the following
the number of inservice days for treatment teachers was equations, and is shown in Figure 37.3 for a typical treat-
assumed to be randomly varying from 3 to 20 (teachers ment design.
chose the amount of this activity). These two predictors
(3) y tik = π0ik + π1ikati + eti
were approximately orthogonal (uncorrelated with each
(4) π0ik = μ00k + μ10X+ δ0i
other), but chance correlation was included to be estimated
(5) π1ik = μ10k + μ11X + δ1i
in the model. This type of model cannot be analyzed with
(6) μ00k = γ000 +γ10T + γ20A + γ30TA + δ00k
HLM type programs but must utilize SEM programs such
(7) μ10k = γ111 ++γ11T + γ21A + γ31TA + δ11k
as EQS or MPLUS.
Another extension of the path model is an extension to Eqn. 3 represents an individual student’s growth over t
multivariate outcomes, which in classical statistics is termed time points with a starting intercept at π0i. For this model the
multivariate ANOVA or MANOVA. Fan (1997) showed errors are assumed independent of each other both within
that MANOVA is merely a particular case of SEM and is and between students. The student is located in classroom k.
represented in a straightforward way as a path model from Thus, each student’s growth is modeled individually, since
the predictors to a latent factor that has regression weights to they grow at rate π1i per unit time. Eqns. 4 and 5 predict
each dependent variable associated with the variance com- the students’ intercepts and growth rates from a covariate X
mon across these dependent variables. Again, this model within each classroom. The mean intercept and growth rate
assumes that the multivariate outcome tells us about the within each classroom are then predicted at the third level
global effect of the treatment at the second level. Since there by classroom level predictors such as A, T, and AT interac-
will be a similar path model for students, this is a highly tion as described earlier. A technical wrinkle is introduced
complex model that requires SEM programs capable of that is not critical to understanding this model, in that the
specifying the structure. The decision to use a path model intercept and growth parameters are actually predicted
for a MANOVA design versus analyzing each dependent from a constant consisting of 1’s. This corresponds to the
variable separately is really a decision about the focus of column of 1’s in classical regression that permit the fit of
the design: is it more important to discuss each measure the intercept. Since they are, in a sense predicted, they have
separately, or is there a common construct underlying the errors, and the errors may be correlated or not, as shown
measures that is the focus? in Figure 37.3. A correlated error path for intercept and
 Experimental and Quasi-Experimental Designs for Interventions 441

multiyear training of teachers using experimental designs.

Classroom level growth model Since new students are placed into the teacher’s classrooms
y1
each year, the growth occurs at the classroom level, not
at the student level. None of the growth model programs
now available correctly analyze this design, although we
δ11 y2
seem to be able to use SAS Proc Mixed to correctly model
it as a mixed effects analysis. Since each classroom is in-
μ 10 dependent over time from any others within teacher (and
γ11 y3
assumed between teachers), there is no time-relatedness to
T
γ10 each student’s score; it is simply modeled with a true score,
γ21 μ 00 error, and any covariates such as pretest;
A y4
γ20 γ31 (8) y tik = π0kt +μ10X + eti ,
AT γ30 δ00
while at the teacher level k, we wish to model classroom
mean growth over time:
(9) π0kt = γ00k +γ11k atk + δ0k .
Student level growth model
e e e e This is now an intercept and growth model that can be
analyzed at a third level:

y2
(10) γ00k = γ000 + γ10T + γ20A + γ30TA + δ00k ,
y1 y3 y4
(11) γ11k = γ111 + γ11T + γ21A + γ31TA + δ11k ,

1 1 1 if researchers wish to hypothesize differential growth for

3
2 classrooms, and that growth depends on the treatment and
1 1
perhaps a classroom covariate. Most SEM programs do not
π 00 permit analysis of this model, unfortunately. One approxi-
δ0 δ1 π 11
mation we have considered is to construct a set of dummy
coded variables representing teachers (classrooms) and add-
ing them as covariates. We have not had good luck, however,
obtaining convergence. Another approximation we have had
X success with is to group teachers into a small number of
homogeneous groups, such as the matching variables and
Figure 37.3 Path diagram for two-level growth model (three-level with coding these groups as a set of additional covariates.
first level growth) with a treatment, covariate, and treatment-covariate
interaction.
Latent Class Growth Models (LCGM) Research on
growth is itself an interesting statistic, since it means that latent class models for growth has been conducted in
those with higher starting intercepts grow faster (positive many areas. The idea is appealing because the purpose
correlation) or slower (negative correlation) than those with is to discover hidden groups within the sample that have
lower starting intercepts. homogeneous but different growth rates from each other.
If no growth is predicted, the growth parameter can be For example, in studying reading growth for a large sample
omitted, and mean differences between treatments tested of at-risk elementary school children, adding a latent
with the effects only on the intercept. Many other exten- class variable as a predictor of growth permits identify-
sions are possible, such as path models at the second level, ing children who are perhaps growing faster than the rest
as discussed previously. Nothing new is needed for this and then studying their home, school, and psychosocial
extension. For latent variable growth, in which the growth characteristics that may be supportive variables in that
measures are factor scores for a test, the model becomes enhanced growth. In LCGM the latent class variable is
more complex, since one needs to make some significant a covariate predicting intercept and growth. For a single
measurement restrictions on the factor structures at each group (two level) model the individual curves for each
time point, namely at the least weak invariance, in which student are predicted by the latent class variable and
the factor loadings are assumed invariant across time categorized into the number of latent classes specified
points, along with the error variances of the test items. This by the researcher. For a three level experimental design
model can be studies using MPLUS, and consultation of both students and classrooms can be predicted by differ-
the manual is required to understand the model estimated ent latent class variables. This is an exploratory analysis
in that program. in this context, examining hidden subgroups that are
growing differently than the observed experimental and
Multiyear Models with Growth at the Second Level A control groups. This might be modeled in several ways,
design situation that occurs frequently in school studies is including specifying the latent class variable to predict the
442 Victor L. Willson and William Rupley

design was evaluated using a two-level model with students

Classroom level latent class growth model
y1 at the first level and mean retention per classroom a single
variable at the second level to differentiate classrooms.
Results are presented in Table 37.1 with slightly reduced
output from MPLUS. Since retention is a binary variable,
δ11 y2
the analysis used logistic regression. From the first level
predictors, only teacher rated achievement and student’s
γ 11 μ 10 reading achievement were significant predictors using the
y3
approximate t-test provided by the program.
T
With large degrees of freedom, a value of 1.96 ap-
γ 10 μ 00 proximates the .05 significance level required. Note that a
y4 threshold is provided for prediction of whether a student is
C retained or not from the prediction equation given by the
γ 30
regression weights. In this case, retention is an outcome.
δ00 In a follow-up study Willson and Hughes (2008) predicted
reading growth in the subsequent three grades and used
FIgure 37.4 Path diagram for second level latent class growth model
with treatment. retention as a mediating variable between the achievement
and teacher predictors and intercept and slope of growth
treatment regression parameter that predicts growth. This as outcomes.
is shown diagrammatically in Figure 37.4 for a simplified
second level growth model. The figure is different from
previous ones in that the latent class variable c is shown Discussion
with a path arrow directed at a growth parameter γ, not at Clearly, an entire text is needed to fully develop the topics
another variable as seen in other diagrams. presented here, but researchers working on group-based
treatments for reading disabilities can utilize the general
Example discussion here to inform their designs, particularly in
conjunction with expert quantitative specialists who can
Willson and Hughes (2006) predicted first-grade retention be expected to be familiar with the specifics of these top-
from student IQ, student achievement in math and reading, ics. The exciting advances in quantitative methodology in
and teacher ratings of achievement and engagement. The the last 20 years for educational research must be applied
TABLE 37.1 to understand better the interventions we develop and to
Results of Two-Level Analysis of First Grade Student Reten- provide essential support for their implementation when
tion Predicted by IQ, Reading and Math Achievement, and effective. While researchers need to be careful of the old
Teacher Ratings of Achievement and Engagement saw “give a child a hammer and he hammers everything,”
Summary of Categorical Data Proportions and having the tools does not make them appropriate for
RETENT1 all uses, the advanced methods discussed here give reading
Category 1 0.785 Category 2 0.215
disability researchers an important resource kit with which
to do their work.
Tests of Model Fit
Log Likelihood
H0 Value –277.230 References
Information Criteria Akaike Bayesian Sample-Size Arbuckle, J. L., & Wothke, W. (1999). Amos 4.0 User’s Guide. Chicago:
(AIC) (BIC) Adjusted SPSS Inc. and SmallWaters Corporation.
BIC Bentler, P. M. (1995). EQS Structural Equations Program manual. Encino,
CA: Multivariate Software.
568.459 600.975 578.746
Birnbaum, A. (1968). Some latent trait models and their use in inferring
Model Results Estimates S.E. Est./S.E. an examinee’s ability. In F. M. Lord & M. R. Novic (Eds.), Statistical
Within Level theories of mental test scores. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.
Browne, M. W. (1984). Asymptotically distribution-free methods for the
RETENT1 ON
analysis of covariance structures. British Journal of Mathematical and
TACH1 –0.512 0.206 –2.488 Statistical Psychology, 37(1), 62–83.
TENG1 –0.071 0.160 –0.447 Campbell, D. T., & Stanley, J. C. (1966). Experimental and Quasi-exper-
CU1FSIQ 0.001 0.012 0.042 imental Designs for Research. Chicago: Rand-McNally.
CWJREAD –0.048 0.011 –4.161 Cohen, J., Cohen, P., West, S., & Aiken, L. (2003). Applied multiple
CWJMATH 0.007 0.014 0.484 regression/correlation for the behavioral sciences, 3rd Ed. Mahwah,
Between Level Thresholds NJ: Erlbaum
Dempster, A. P., Laird, N. M., & Rubin, D. B. (1977). Maximum likeli-
RETENT1$1 2.994 0.366 8.179
hood from incomplete data via the EM algorithm. Journal of the Royal
Variances Statistical Society. Series B (Methodological), 39(1), 1–38.
RETENT1 6.698 2.431 2.755 Efron, B. (1982). The jackknife, the bootstrap and other resampling
 Experimental and Quasi-Experimental Designs for Interventions 443

plans. CBMS-NSF Regional Conference Series in Applied Mathemat- Piaget, J. (1928). The child’s conception of the world. London: Routledge
ics, Philadelphia: Society for Industrial and Applied Mathematics and Kegan.
(SIAM). Rasch, G. (1980). Probabilistic models for some intelligence and attain-
Fan, X. (1997). Canonical correlation and structural equation modeling: ment tests. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press. (Original work
What do they have in common? Structural Equation Modeling, 4(1), published 1960)
65–79. Rasch, G. (1961). On general laws and the meaning of measurement in
Gelfand, A. E., & Smith, A. F. M. (1990). Sampling based approaches psychology. In Proceedings of the Fourth Berkeley Symposium on
to calculating marginal densities. Journal of the American Statistical Mathematical Statistics and Probability, IV (pp. 321–334). Berkeley:
Association, 85, 398–409. University of California.
Glass, G. V, Peckham, P. D., & Sanders, J. R. (1972). Consequences of Raudenbush, S. W. (1988). Educational applications of hierarchical linear
failure to meet assumptions underlying the fixed effects analyses of models: A review. Journal of Educational and Behavioral Statistics,
variance and covariance. Review of Educational Research, 42(3), 13(2), 85–116.
237–288. Rubin, D. B. (1987). Multiple imputation. New York: Wiley.
Glass, G. V., Willson, V. L., & Gottman, J. (1975). The design and analy- Satorra, A., & Bentler, P. M. (1994). Corrections to test statistics and
sis of time series experiments. Boulder, CO: University of Colorado standard errors in covariance structure analysis. In A. von Eye & C.
Press. C. Clogg (Eds.), Latent variables analysis: Applications for develop-
Hox, J. (2002). Multilevel analysis: Techniques and applications. Mahwah, mental research (pp. 399–419). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
NJ: Erlbaum. Scheffé, H. (1959). The analysis of variance. New York: Wiley.
Jennings, E. (1967). Fixed effects analysis of variance by regression Sivo, S. A, & Willson, V.L. (2000). Modeling causal error structures in
analysis. Multivariate Behavioral Research, 2, 95–100. longitudinal panel data: A Monte Carlo study. Structural Equation
Jøreskog, K. G. (1967). A general method for estimating a linear structural Modeling, 7(2), 174–205.
system. In A. G. Jøreskog, & K. G. Sorbøm (Eds.), LISREL-III: Esti- Slavin, R. E. (2002). Evidence-based education policies: Transforming
mation of linear structural equation systems by maximum likelihood educational practice and research. Educational Researcher, 31(7),
methods. Chicago: National Education Resources. 15–21.
Jøreskog, K. G. (1973). A general method for estimating a linear struc- Spearman, C. (1904). General intelligence objectively determined and
tural equation system. In A. S. Goldberger & O. D. Duncan (Eds.), measured. American Journal of Psychology, 15, 201–293.
Structural equation models in the social sciences (pp. 85–112). New Whitehurst, G. (2001). Evidence-based education (EBE). Retrieved Sep-
York: Seminar Press. tember 12, 2003, from http://www.ed.gov
Jøreskog, K. G., & Sorbøm (1976). LISREL-III: Estimation of linear Willson, V. L., & Hughes, J. N. (2006). Retention of Hispanic/Latino stu-
structural equation systems by maximum likelihood methods. Chicago: dents in first grade: Child, parent, teacher, school, and peer predictors.
National Education Resources. Journal of School Psychology, 44(1), 31–49.
Jung, T., & Wickrama, K. A. S. (2008). An introduction to latent class Willson, V. L., & Hughes, J. N. (2008). Who is retained in first grade:
growth analysis and growth mixture modeling. Social and Personality A psychosocial perspective. Elementary School Journal, 109,
Psychology Compass, 2, 302–317. 251–266.
Lord, F. M., & Novick, M. R. (1968). Statistical theories of mental test Willson, V. L., & Putnam, R. R. (1982). Meta-analysis of pretest sensitiza-
scores. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley. tion effects in experimental design. American Educational Research
Muthén, B. O. (1989). Latent variable modeling in heterogeneous popula- Journal, 19(2), 249–258
tions. Psychometrika, 54(4), 557–585. Wright, S. (1921). Correlation and causation. Journal of Agricultural
Muthén, L. K., & Muthén, B. O. (1998–2007). Mplus user’s guide (5th Research. 20, 557–585.
ed.). Los Angeles: Author.
 38
Observational Research
MISTY SAILORS
The University of Texas at San Antonio

MARGARET FLORES
Auburn University

Studies in the field of marketing tell an interesting story of ability to observe the world around us forms the basis for
the recognition of observational research in that field and learning about our surroundings and our ability to make
thus, the importance of it. The story begins with a typical commonsense judgments about life. In our daily social
study of how consumers did the wash. The research team interactions with others, we are both consciously and uncon-
videotaped women consumers in their homes while they sciously engaged in acts of observations about the behav-
went through the entire wash process, sorting the clothes, iors of others around us. We continuously (and sometimes
placing them in the washer, adding soap, setting the cycle, purposefully) engage in “people watching”—whether we
and moving the clothes to the dryer. After the process, the are walking down the street, eating at a restaurant, or sitting
research team conducted interviews with the women asking on a park bench, we observe the behaviors of others. These
how well the detergent had cleaned their clothes. The women observations are casual and unstructured. However, acts of
answered with stock answers: absent of stains and bright observation in research settings are quite different.
colors. However, upon viewing of the video, the researchers On the other hand, acts of observations during research
observed something that the women had not reported—as are more systematic and formal and often have at their
they moved the clothes to the dryer, each smelled her clothes. center, the intention of answering a theoretical question
When asked, the women reported always doing that “just about the nature of a phenomenon, describing an action
to see if it smells clean” (Abrams, 2000, p. 2). This classic or behavior, or attributing the impact of an intervention on
example of observational research in marketing is strik- learning. This does not mean, however, that the behaviors of
ingly similar to that of educational observational research— the participants in the study are controlled. Rather, what to
sometimes we can only document and describe unconscious observe, when to observe, where to observe, how to observe,
actions through observational research methods. the method of recording events and behaviors, the method
While we have discussed observational research in read- of analyzing the data gathered, and the environment under
ing research (Hoffman, Maloch, & Sailors, in press), in this which the observations were made are rigidly prescribed and
chapter we focus our literature review on answering the the subsequent prescribed procedures diligently followed.
question, “In what ways is observational research used to A dictionary definition provides a working definition for
better understand instruction with children who have dif- observational research. From the word observe (meaning
ficulties in learning to read?” We will begin the chapter with to watch carefully especially with attention to details or
an overview of observational research focused broadly fol- behavior), observational research allows a researcher to
lowed by a look at observational research studies that have arrive at a judgment on or inference from the observational
been conducted with the instruction of both children who data collected (observed) in systematic ways. Because the
struggle with learning to read and children who have specific process of observation is rigidly defined and controlled, the
learning disabilities in reading. We finish the chapter with nature of the data is well defined.
a section on implications for this methodology within the There is no doubt that observational research has earned
study of research on reading disabilities. its rightful place as a methodology in the field of education,
as chapters on it appeared in the first three handbooks of
research on teaching (Evertson & Green, 1986; Gordon &
Observational Research as a Methodology
Jester, 1973; Medley & Mitzel, 1963; Rosenshine & Furst,
As social beings, we spend the vast majority of our waking 1973) and most recently in the handbook of research on
interactions with others engaged in acts of observation. Our reading (Hoffman et al., in press). With the appearance

444
 Observational Research 445

of a chapter in this handbook of research on reading dis- tive observational studies, the ratings generally represent
abilities, observational research is now considered equally weighted judgments that are continuous, based on factor
important as a method in the field of reading disabilities analysis, and are inferred (Evertson & Green, p. 175).
research. Because the role of observation in social research Ratings are generally used to assess high-inference con-
has been acknowledged (Angrosino, 2007; Hilberg, Wax- structs (i.e., depth of explanation of a concept) (1 = low,
man, & Tharp, 2004) elsewhere, we will not replicate that 2 = moderate, 3 = high). The establishment of inter-rater
argument in this chapter. reliability is critical to the data collection process. These
systems are then converted into variables. A hypothesis that
Methods Within Observational Research The question tentatively describes the relationship between the variables
arises as to whether observational research is a method is postulated; statistical analyses are performed on these
or a means of data collection and analysis. According to quantitative data to determine evidence of the hypothesized
some (Gillham, 2008; Mertens, 2005; Tashakkori & Ted- relationships. The relationships are either confirmed or not
dlie, 2003), observation is a data collection technique and confirmed.
the information gathered from this technique may be either According to some researchers (Suen & Ary, 1989),
quantitative (observer completes a coding or categorizing there are advantages and disadvantages to quantitative
system) or qualitative (observer gathers narrative field observational research. The main advantage to quantitative
notes). The data can be quantitative or qualitative at the point observational studies is that, if conducted correctly (i.e.,
of data collection or at the point of analysis (statistically low-inference systems with high inter-rater reliability), they
manipulated or analyzed through a constant-comparison are independent of the observer. The main disadvantage to
analysis, for example). However, we would argue dif- quantitative observational studies is that the reduction of a
ferently. That is, observational research draws from both complex phenomenon to a few quantifiable variables can
quantitative and qualitative methods, but has earned its lead to the over simplification of the phenomenon—the out-
rightful place as a method of research in and of itself (An- comes may be incomplete and/or an unjustifiably superficial
derson & Burns, 1989; Evertson & Green, 1986; Gordon and shallow understanding of the phenomenon.
& Jester, 1973; Hoffman et al., in press; Johnson & Turner,
2003; Medley & Mitzel, 1963; Rosenshine & Furst, 1973; Qualitative Observational Research Qualitative obser-
Suen & Ary, 1989). In the next section, we will discuss vational research, is also called naturalistic observation
both quantitative and qualitative observational research, because the observation is done in real-world or naturalistic
what they are, the methods employed and advantages and settings (Johnson & Turner, 2003). It is typically open-end-
disadvantages of each. ed and exploratory. The purpose of this method is to obtain
detailed descriptions of observed phenomenon in order to
Quantitative Observational Research In quantitative ob- explain unfolding processes and to identify principles and
servational studies, a complex phenomenon is reduced to a patterns of behavior within specific events, sometimes in
number of measurable and observable behavioral variables; single cases, but also across cases. Researchers who conduct
these variables are defined and a system for measuring them qualitative observational research take extensive field-notes
is determined before the observation is conducted. Data and may/not use audio and video recordings to establish
are recorded in quantitative observational studies through a record of the observation or to use for analysis purposes
categorical systems. That is, researchers who employ these after the observation. Within these “narrative systems” (Ev-
data collection practices typically use a finite number of ertson & Green, 1986), descriptions of events are recorded
preset categories or units of observation. The categories are using spoken or written language (p. 170), and the duration
defined in advance and are based on philosophical, theoreti- of the event can be a single event (the first day of school), a
cal, empirically derived, or experience-based beliefs about critical incident (the first hour of school), or a longer period
the nature of the process, event, or individual or group under of time (the first 6 weeks of a reading/writing workshop).
study. The observer can only record those items listed. These Researchers using narrative systems consider meaning to
systems are generally recorded as the behavior occurs (dur- be situation specific.
ing the observation), as ratings at the end of a set period of The marking of units in qualitative observational research
time, or as tallies on a checklist. Two types of boundaries generally takes place during the analysis of the data rather
are generally used in category and checklist systems—a than live, as in quantitative observational research. Units of
time sampling (unit boundaries of events are ignored) and observation related to narrative systems are both deductive
event (the observation begins at the onset of the event and and inductive and are drawn from theoretical research across
ends with its closure). When categories and checklists are disciplines and specified on a conceptual or theoretical ba-
used, smaller units of behavior are typically recorded which sis. The type of unit and the relationship between the units
require low-inferences on the part of observers. The units are related to both the question under study as well as the
to be marked are generally derived deductively, reflect a theoretical framework of the analysis. Finally, units can be
behavioral stance, and are discrete and simple units (coded defined as functional (units are based on the purpose the
in only one category) (Evertson & Green, 1986, p. 175). observed behavior serves), situational (units are what people
When ratings are the form of system used for quantita- are doing, how they are doing it, and what definitions they
446 Misty Sailors and Margaret Flores

have for these actions), and inferential (units are inferred In summary, observational research allows the researcher
from patterns across behaviors) (Evertson & Green, 1986, to directly document and describe what people do without
pp. 176–177). In some cases, units are built up from discrete having to rely on what people say they do. It can, with
stand-alone units to ones that form categories to larger proper training and education, allow for relatively objective
units that then form themes through a constant-comparison documentation of behaviors. It provides for contextualiza-
approach (Strauss & Corbin, 1990). In other cases, codes tion that operates in social settings. And, it can be used to
(units) are identified and combined into concepts (contain stimulate change and verify that change occurred. However,
similar content that allows data to be grouped), which are if not triangulated or combined with other methods of data
then combined into categories, which are then used to gener- collection, observational research can create an unclear
ate a theory (Glaser & Strauss, 1967). picture of what is meant by what is happening. Without
As with quantitative observational research, there are careful attention to discreteness, participant behaviors may
advantages and disadvantages to qualitative observational be influenced (and thus, affected) if the participants know
research. Qualitative observational research allows for in- they are being observed. Observational research is time
depth understandings of the phenomenon under study that consuming and thus, large groups, extensive observations,
cannot be obtained from quantitative observational research. and longitudinal studies may not be realistic because of
And, if it is in-depth enough, the researcher may get to what the cost associated with this method. Finally, a described
has been called “backstage behavior” (what people say and theoretical grounding of the study is necessary so that what
do with their closest friends or when acting naturally) rather the observer “sees” is what the data tells her she “sees”
than just to “front stage behaviors” (what people want or and not what she wants to “see” (Johnson & Turner, 2003;
allow the researcher to see; Goffman, 1959). Because it is Suen & Ary, 1989).
generated through a “data driven” process, the hypotheses
and theories generated through this method represent move-
Observational Research in General Education
ment toward a more representative explanation of reality
Settings
for participants (Mertens, 2005).
There are also disadvantages to qualitative observa- The earliest evidence of the use of systematic observational
tional research. First, the data recorded and subsequently research came from studies conducted by Wrightstone
analyzed are constrained by the observer’s perceptual (1934, cited in Sweetman, 1988) in which he measured
framework, insight, training and written and/or oral fluency. teacher’s handling of discussions in classrooms. He began
These methods require highly sophisticated observers who by developing nine categories of teacher’s behaviors and
have proper training in advanced sociology and/or social later developed sub-categories that scored the teacher’s
anthropology—part of that training must be focused on orientation toward instruction and the prohibition of dis-
choosing when to collect contextual data and when to hone cussions. He later extended his system to include pupil
in on behaviors that are the focus of the study. The observer behaviors. This research was the beginning of what came
must make constant decisions as what to record and what to be known as Interactive Research, research that explored
to ignore among the array of simultaneous occurring be- the relationship between teachers and their classes (Sweet-
haviors in classrooms and naturalistic research settings. man, 1988, p. 44). This line of research explored whether or
Further training must take place around inferring as a way not related classroom and instructional behaviors could be
of making sense of participant actions without the observer reliably and validly identified (Evertson & Green, 1986).
projecting her own reality onto the situation. Finally, prop- Interactive research continued throughout the 1940s as
erly conducted qualitative observational research studies the area and research methods and tools continued to grow
require continuous observations over extended periods of (Evertson & Green, 1986) and culminated with the now
time, making them time consuming and expensive. famous Flanders Interactive Category System (Flanders,
1970), one of many instruments developed during this pe-
Mixed Methods Observational Research Finally, as John- riod (Gordon & Jester, 1973; Rosenshine & Furst, 1973).
son and Turner encourage (2003), some researchers use both Flanders was interested in the “talk” in classrooms as it
qualitative and quantitative observational research methods might reflect a “democratic” or “authoritative” classroom
in well-developed studies. Dubbed “intramethod mixed structure. The Flanders observation system, known as
research” (p. 313), this method mixes the characteristics of FIAC, was focused on the characterization of teacher and
both; an a priori instrument might be combined with exten- pupil talk in classroom along the dimensions of direct and
sive field notes during and after the observation. Further, indirect. Direct teacher talk, for example, would include
“intermethod mixing” (p. 314) can also be combined in content questions directed at students or reprimands in the
observational research studies. Data can be supplemented behavioral area. Student talk, for example, would include
and expanded with questionnaires and/or interviews, for coding of student responses to questions or student initiated
example. Tashakkori and Teddlie (2003) argue that distin- questions. The coding of talk through the Flanders system
guishing observational techniques from the design of stud- was then used to study the relationship between patterns
ies allows for the use of multiple modes of data collection of talk and student outcomes—ranging from achievement
techniques from either or both approaches. to attitudes toward school and learning. The system was
 Observational Research 447

designed to record the sequence of behavioral events. The the relationship between teacher expectations and student
behaviors were divided between teacher talk (Indirect achievement. The studies documented teaching behaviors
Influence: accepts feelings, praises or encourages, accepts associated with levels of expectation and the relationship be-
or uses ideas of student, asks questions; Direct Influence: tween teacher behaviors and student achievement. Brophy’s
lecturing, giving ideas, criticizing or justifying authority) (1973) tool included a combination of low-inference and
and Student talk (student talk—response, student talk— high-inference observation systems to measure classroom
initiation, silence or confusion). The observer using the processes including the Brophy–Good, Dyadic Interaction
FIAC records behaviors every 3 seconds. The most basic Coding System (Brophy & Good, 1970). Thousands of
form of analysis is to compute frequency analysis for the correlations were computed between scores on process
categories and more complex analyses focus on contingen- measures and student gain. The findings from these stud-
cies and co-occurrence. ies suggested a large number of process variables related
Most of the observation systems developed during this to both academic and managerial aspects of teaching. In
period within the research in teaching community were fo- several areas, differences between the effects of certain
cused solely on observable behaviors. Some of the systems teacher behaviors were noted in relation to work in high-
emphasized “high inference” coding while other systems SES versus low-SES classrooms.
relied more heavily on “low-inference” systems. Rosen- The final influential study that continues to guide
shine and Furst (1973) define a low-inference measure as observational research methods, The Beginning Teacher
a rating system that classifies specific, denotable, relatively Evaluation Studies (BTES), Phase II, had as its goal the
objective classroom behavior and is recorded as frequency illustration of the relationship between classroom observa-
accounts by the observer. They describe high-inference tions of teaching and student achievement growth in read-
measures as a rating system that requires an observer to ing and mathematics. The study was framed around John
make an inference from a series of classroom events us- Carroll’s theoretical work (1963) on learning as it relates
ing specific constructs, such as satisfaction, enthusiasm, to aptitude and the opportunity to engage with the content
clarity. Many of these systems included both types of to be learned. Within this study, the variables related to
information. “time” (i.e., engaged/on-task time, allocated time) were
Research on teaching flourished as it relied on tools to found to be highly associated with student achievement. In
observe teaching behaviors (termed “process” variables) addition, the researchers found support in the observational
and correlated them with student outcome measures (termed data for a model of direct instruction that featured specific
“product” variables). Rosenshine and Fursts’ call for studies elements of effective lessons. Differences in effective prac-
that would progress following a “descriptive-correlation- tices were noted across grade levels and different content
experimental feedback loop” (p. 131) set the standard for areas (Berliner, 1990; Fisher et al., 1978; McDonald &
the next decade of research in teaching. Funding by the US Elias, 1976).
Office of Education and the National Institute of Education These three lines of research that capitalized on obser-
served as sources of influence during this phase and three vations in classrooms and other naturalistic settings were
large studies guided the development of observational re- heavily influential in guiding other observational studies
search in classrooms to study teaching and learning. The that centered on research in reading (Hoffman et al., in
first of these, The Follow-Through Studies, evaluated the press). However, they, nor landmark studies in the field of
effects of Head Start (Stallings, 1975). The COI (Classroom behavioral research (that also used observational methods)
Observation Instrument) was developed for data collection such as Hall, Lunch, and Jackson (1968), Walker and Buck-
and documented activities, materials used, grouping patterns, ley (1968), and Semmel (1975), systematically focused on
and interactions. The COI included 602 categories describing children who struggled with learning to read or children
behaviors of teachers and students. Interactions were scored who were eligible for special education services under
in 5-minute sequences. Observers completed an average of IDEA. Thus, in this research review we will attempt to: (a)
four observation sequences each hour during a 5-hour ob- Describe the state of affairs of observational research as it
servation day. The behaviors included attention to such areas relates to reading disabilities; (b) Identify the patterns of
as focus (e.g., academic, social) and discourse patterns (e.g., the use of observational research within the field of research
question, statement). In addition to the interaction data, the on reading disabilities; (c) Determine the availability of
observer would gather data on grouping and organization in tools within the field of research on reading disabilities;
the classroom as well as the availability of materials. High (d) Offer a set of criteria for observational research as it
levels of reliability were established as the observers went relates to reading disabilities, and thus; (e) Demonstrate
through rigorous training and the data collected as part of that observational research is a viable line of inquiry into
this study were monitored closely. The use of this instrument research on reading disabilities.
(and this research) demonstrated strong positive relation-
ships between the use of behaviors associated with direct
Methods
instruction models and student achievement gains.
The second of these influential studies, The Texas Our task was to inspect the research literature focused on
Teacher Effectiveness Studies, were designed to explore reading instruction with the abovementioned population
448 Misty Sailors and Margaret Flores

that relied on the direct observation of teaching and to included authors and graduate research assistants). A con-
report on the range of methods and strategies used. We sensus was required for a study to move into the review.
developed an initial set of criteria to focus our search. We Of the 42 studies we identified through our electronic and
limited our focus to research reports that (a) were published hand search, only 33 studies met the criteria we established
in scholarly, refereed research journals; (b) reported on the for this review (see bibliography below). We excluded, for
gathering of new data or on a new analysis of existing data; example, studies that focused on post-secondary students
(c) focused on teachers and teaching in the area of read- (e.g., Butler, 1998), writing (e.g,, Miller, 2003), and volun-
ing; (d) described some authentic act(s) of teaching; (e) teers (e.g., Pullen, Lane, & Monaghan, 2004).
reported on the methods used to observe teaching; (f) were For our analysis, we used a constant-comparative meth-
conducted in classrooms and/or clinic settings (EC through odology (Strauss & Corbin, 1990) to identify significant
High School); and (g) involved children who struggled with themes and patterns (e.g., purposes for use of the instru-
learning to read and/or who qualified for special education ment). We reviewed each article, entering relevant method-
services under The Individuals with Disabilities Education ological information (e.g., participants, research questions
Improvement Act (2004). or purpose, observation methods or techniques, procedures
Even with these criteria, we were challenged at times of analysis) into a table. After the table was complete, we
in deciding as to whether a study should or should not be read and reread the information in these studies noting
included in our review. To guide us in these decisions, we patterns in techniques and researchers’ decisions related to
operated under the rule of “cast the net widely” first (i.e., classroom observation. Repeated reading and reviewing of
include even the doubtful cases) and then consider each these articles suggested that the variations in observational
of the borderline cases using a consensus process within tools and methods were in some ways related to the differ-
our team. ing purposes of the studies. The table was then cut apart,
We were open to the inclusion of studies as far back as by individual study, and sorted according to observational
1975 with the enactment of The Education for All Handi- purpose and other criteria.
capped Children Act (currently IDEIA). We began with
a use of an existing database (Hoffman et al., in press),
Findings
expanding it to include a combination of electronic tools
and hand search methods. We searched the Web of Science We set out to identify the patterns of the use of observational
using the following descriptors: TS = reading and (teaching research within the field of reading disabilities. To that end,
or instruction) and research and (primary or elementary or we organized this section around trends and patterns we un-
secondary or middle) and (participant or participants) or covered in our analysis. We begin this section by presenting
(subject or subjects) or (student or students) or (pupil or the trends across time, journals, and topics. We then present
pupils) and (special education) or (learning disabilities) or the themes around the way researchers approached the use
(struggling reader) or (reading disability) or (slow reader) of observational research, focusing on their purposes and
or (low achieving) or (delayed reader) or (at risk) or (reme- the methods for their research. We conclude this section by
dial). We searched ERIC using the following descriptors: offering thoughts on ways in which the field might move
Reading instruction (thesaurus descriptor) and Classroom to capitalize on the power of observational research with
research (thesaurus descriptor) and Elementary and Second- children who struggle with learning to read and who are
ary. Each of the articles identified were read and considered learning disabled.
against the criteria we had established. Each of the stud-
ies was reviewed by at least two or more members of the Trends in Journals and across Time In this first section,
research team until a consensus decision for inclusion or we report on the trends across time and within each of the
exclusion was reached. In addition, we conducted a hand journals that published observational studies during our
search of all articles appearing in the American Educational investigated time period. Our searching led us to 33 studies
Research Journal, Reading Research Quarterly, Journal of that involved observational research of the literacy teaching
Literacy Research (formerly Journal of Reading Behavior), and learning of students who are disabled or who struggle
Journal of Scientific Studies in Reading, Annual Yearbook with learning to read. Figure 38.1 illustrates the journal in
of the National Reading Conference, Elementary School which these studies appeared. Two of these journals, Reme-
Journal, Journal of Special Education, Exceptional Chil- dial and Special Education (n = 9) and Reading Research
dren, Journal of Learning Disabilities, Learning Disabili- and Instruction (n = 7) appear to support the publication
ties Quarterly, Remedial and Special Education, Learning of observational studies in ways that the other journals did
Disabilities Research and Practice, Teacher Education not. The first tends to publish work concerned with learning
and Special Education, Reading Improvement, Reading disabilities (including disabilities related to reading) and
and Writing Quarterly, Annals of Dyslexia, Learning Dis- the latter tends to publish work concerned with children
abilities, and Reading Improvement. We included all of the who struggle with learning to read. It is also important to
studies that met the criteria in the database for analysis. note that these studies appeared in top tier research journals
In the review process, all studies were examined by (Reading Research Quarterly), general education journals
at least two of the members of the research team (which (Elementary School Journal), and teacher education journals
 Observational Research 449

Bibliography of Studies in Review (listed alphabetically)

Allington, R., & McGill-Franzen, A. (1989). School response to reading failure: Chapter 1 and special education. The Elementary School Journal,
89, 529–542.
Anders, P. L., & Gallego, M. A. (1989). Adoption of theoretically-linked vocabulary-reading comprehension practices. In S. McCormick & J. Zutell
(Eds.), Cognitive and social perspectives for literacy research and instruction: Thirty-eighth yearbook of the National Reading Conference
(pp. 481–487). Chicago: National Reading Conference.
Anderson, V. (1992). A teacher development project in transactional strategy instruction for teachers of severely reading-disabled adolescents.
Teaching and Teacher Education, 8, 391–403.
Boyd, F. B. (2002). Motivation to continue: Enhancing literacy learning for struggling readers and writers. Reading & Writing Quarterly, 18,
257–277.
Calhoon, M. B. (2005). Effects of a peer-mediated phonological skill and reading comprehension program on reading skill acquisition for middle
school students with reading disabilities. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 38, 424–433.
Coyne, M. D., Kame’enui, E. J., Simmons, D. C., & Harn, B. A. (2004). Beginning reading intervention as inoculation or insulin: First-Grade
reading performance of strong responders to kindergarten intervention. Journal of learning disabilities, 37, 90–104.
Duffy, A. (2001). Balance, literacy acceleration, and responsive teaching in a summer school literacy program for elementary school struggling
readers. Reading Research and Instruction, 40, 67–100.
Englert, C. S., Zhao, Y., Collings, N., & Romig, N. (2005). Learning to read words: the efects of internet-based software on the improvement of
reading performance. Remedial and Special Education, 26, 357–371.
Fitzgerald, J., & Ramsbotham, A. (2004). First graders’ cognitive and strategic development in Reading Recovery reading and writing. Reading
Research and Instruction, 44, 1–31.
Fuchs, L. S., Fuchs, D., & Kazdan, S. (1999). Effects of peer-assisted learning strategies on high school students with serious reading problems.
Remedial and Special Education, 20, 309–318.
Gelzheiser, L. M., & Meyers, J. (1991). Reading instruction by classroom, remedial, and resource room teachers. Journal of Special Education,
24, 512–527.
Graves, A. W., Plasencia-Peinado, J., Deno, S. L., & Johnson, J. R. (2005). Formatively evaluating the reading progress of first grade English
language learners in multiple language classrooms. Remedial and Special Education, 26, 215–225.
Greenwood, C. R., Tapia, Y, Abbott, M., & Walton, C. A building-based case study of evidence-based literacy practices: Implementation, reading
behavior, and growth in reading fluency, K-4. Journal of Special Education, 37, 95–110.
Hall, L. A. (2007). Bringing television back to the bedroom: Transactions between a seventh grade struggling reader and her mathematics teacher.
Reading Research and Instruction, 46, 287–314.
Kourea, L., Cartledge, G., & Musti-Rao, S. (2007). Improving the reading skills of urban elementary students through Total Class Peer Tutoring.
Remedial and Special Education, 28, 95–107.
Leinhardt, G., Zigmond, N., & Cooley, W. W. (1981). Reading instruction and its effects. American Educational Research Journal, 18, 343–
361.
Marks, M., Pressley, M., Coley, J. D., Craig, S., Gardner, R., Depinto, T., & Rose, W. (1993). 3 teachers adaptations of reciprocal teaching in
comparison to traditional reciprocal teaching. Elementary School Journal, 94, 267–283.
Mathes, P. G., Howard, J. K., Allen, S. H., & Fuchs, D. (1998). Peer-assisted learning strategies for first-grade readers: Responding to the needs
of diverse learners. Reading Research Quarterly, 33, 62–94.
Moody, S. W., Vaughn, S., Hughes, M. T., & Fischer, M. (2000). Reading instruction in the resource room: Set up for failure. Exceptional Chil-
dren, 66, 305–315.
Nierstheimer, S. L., Hopkins, C. J., Dillon, D. R., & Schmitt, M. C. (2000). Preservice teachers’ shifting beliefs about struggling literacy learners.
Reading Research and Instruction, 40, 1–16.
O’Connor, R. E., Fulmer, D., Harty, K. R., & Bell, K. M. (2005) Layers of reading intervention in kindergarten through third grade: Changes in
teaching and student outcomes. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 38, 440–455.
Otaiba, S. A. (2005). How effective is code-based tutoring in English for English learners and pre-service teacher -tutors? Remedial and Special
Education, 26, 245–254.
Rightmyer, E. C., McIntyre, E., & Petrosko, J. M. (2006). Instruction, development, and achievement of struggling primary grade readers. Reading
Research and Instruction, 45, 209–241.
Santoro, L. E., Jitendra, A. K., Starosta, K., & Sacks, G.(2006). Reading well with Read Well: Enhancing the reading performance of English
language learners. Remedial and Special Education, 27, 105–115.
Scharer, P. L. (1991). Moving into literature based reading instruction: Changes and challenges for teachers. In J. Zutell & S. McCormick, (Eds.),
Learner factor/teacher factors: Issues in literacy research and instruction (pp. 409–421). Chicago: National Reading Conference.
Shippen, M. E., Houchins, D. E., Calhoon, M. B., Furlow, C. F., & Sartor, D. A. (2006). The effects of comprehensive school reform models in
reading for urban middle school students with disabilities. Remedial and Special Education, 27, 322–328.
Shippen, M. E., Houchins, D. E., Steventon, C., & Sartor, D. L. (2005). A comparison of two Direct Instruction reading programs for urban middle
school students. Remedial and Special Education, 26, 175–182.
Tancock, S. M. (1997). Catie: A case study of one first grader’s reading status. Reading Research and Instruction, 36, 89–110.
Vadasy, P. F., Jenkins, J. R., Antil, L. R., Phillips, N. B., & Pool, K. (1997). The research-to-practice ball game: Classwide peer tutoring and teacher
interest, implementation, and modifications. Remedial and Special Education, 3, 143–156.
Vaughn, S., Cirino, P. T., Linan-Thompson, S., Mathes, P. G., Carlson, C., Hagan, E., C., et al. (2006). Effectiveness of a Spanish intervention and
an English intervention for English Language Learners at risk for reading problems. American Educational Research Journal, 43, 449–487.
Vaughn, S., Mathes, P., Linan-Thompson, S., Cirino, P., Carolson, C., & Pollard-Durodola, S., et al. (2006). Effectiveness of an English interven-
tion for first-grade English Language Learners at risk for reading problems. Elementary School Journal, 107, 153–181.
Vaughn, S., Moody, S. W., & Schumm, J. S. (1998). Broken promises: Reading instruction in the resource room. Exceptional Children, 64,
211–225.
Worthy, J., Patterson, E., Salas, R., Prater, S., & Turner, M. (2002). “More than just reading”: The human factor in reaching resistant readers.
Reading Research and Instruction, 41, 177–201.
450 Misty Sailors and Margaret Flores

American Education Research Journal

Elementary School Journal
Exceptional Children
Journal of Learning Disabilities
Journal of Special Education
Journal

National Reading Conference …

Reading and Writing Quarterly
Reading Research and Instruction
Reading Research Quarterly
Remedial and Special Education
Teaching and Teacher Education

0 2 4 6 8 10 Figure 38.1 Distribution of studies by research

Number of studies journal.

(Teaching and Teacher Education). There appears to be a focused their attention in elementary schools (n = 22) while
growing consensus that observational research “counts” as the remainder were divided between middle schools (n = 4),
a method of research on reading disabilities. high schools (n = 2), and tutoring settings (n = 1). Two stud-
Our next finding is related to the trends we investigated ies used observational techniques to examine classrooms
centered on observational research across time. Figure 38.2 in both elementary and middle schools.
illustrates the distribution of studies across time (grouped Equal numbers of studies looked at children with learn-
in periods of 2-year intervals). The first study published ing disabilities (n = 10) and children who struggled with
(Leinhardt, Zigmond, & Cooley, 1981) appeared in the learning to read (n = 10). Children within the latter group
American Educational Research Journal, perhaps in some were labeled as delayed (n = 1), at risk (n = 5), low-achievers
ways, setting a tone of the recognition for the use of obser- (n = 2) or resistant readers (n = 1). A small number of these
vational research in special education classrooms (focused studies (n = 4) focused on a combination of children with
on reading instruction). The next to appear was in the an- specific learning disabilities in reading and struggling read-
nual Yearbook of the National Reading Conference (Anders ers. Finally, three of the studies in our database focused
& Gallego, 1989) and The Elementary School Journal on children who struggled with learning to read (or were
(Allington & McGill-Franzen, 1989), albeit at the end of labeled at risk) and were English Language Learners.
that decade. Throughout the 1990s, there appeared to be a
steady publishing of studies that used observational research Trends Across Foci and Topics Explored within Studies
methods as part of their design. Finally, in the most recent In this next section we explore the foci of the studies and
time period (2004–present), there appears to be a surge the topics studied within the research in our database.
of studies that have used observational research methods, There were three categories that these studies appeared
perhaps indicated that observational research in the field to be classified, including studies that explored general
of reading instruction with reading disability populations instructional issues, interventions, and the comparison of
is finding its rightful place in the literature. models, approaches, and/or programs. We will address each
Similarly, there were trends in the participants on whom of these in turn.
the study was focused. The vast majority of these studies
General instructional practices. Under this category,
9 studies in our database set out to explore the general prac-
8 tices of teachers or their knowledge and beliefs. These
7
studies tended to be descriptive in nature. For example,
Number of articles

6
researchers investigated the nature of reading instruction
5
for students with learning disabilities in general educa-
4
3
tion classrooms (Vaughn, Moody, & Schumm, 1998) and
2
in special education classrooms (Leinhardt et al., 1981).
1 Likewise, other research teams explored the nature of
0 reading instruction, comparing instruction in general educa-
Prior to 1990

1990-1991

1992-1993

1994-1995

1996-1997

1998-1999

2000-2001

2002-2003

2004-2005

2006-2007

tion classrooms to that of instruction in special education

classrooms (Allington & McGill-Franzen, 1989). This study
suggested that special education programs studied did not
Time period (two years) enhance either the quantity or quality of reading/language
Figure 38.2 Distribution of studies across time. arts instruction of participating children. Likewise, the
 Observational Research 451

authors were concerned with the small amount of reading/ Finally, Coyne, Kame’enui, Simmons, and Harn (2004)
language arts instruction offered to mainstreamed handi- examined the performance of strong responders to a kinder-
capped children. garten intervention as a way of illustrating that teachers can
Vaughn and her colleagues used the findings from their prevent reading difficulties in young children. And, Vaughn
early work to explore the changes that occurred in instruc- and her colleagues explored the effectiveness of an English
tional practices in general education classrooms after the intervention for first grade English Language Learners at
introduction of local and state mandates (Moody, Vaughn, risk for reading problems (Vaughn et al., 2006b).
Hughes, & Fischer, 2000). Another study in this category
explored the reading demands placed on struggling read- Comparison of existing models, programs, and ap-
ers in their mathematics classroom (Hall, 2007). And, the proaches. Studies in this category set out to demonstrate
final study in this category used classroom observations to the superiority of one model, program or approach over
investigate the correlation between instructional practices existing practices or another model/ program/ and/or ap-
and reading proficiency of struggling readers (Graves, proach for struggling readers and/or children with learning
Plasencia-Peinado, Deno, & Johnson, 2005). disabilities. For example, Vaughn and colleagues (2006a)
Another set of studies, which were also descriptive in studied the effects of two grade one reading interventions,
nature, explored teacher perceptions, social class and the one in English and one in Spanish, with English Language
performance of children who were at risk of learning to read Learners. Other researcher teams were interested in the
(Tancock, 1997) and the receptivity of teachers toward new effects of reading programs on the reading achievement of
instructional practices (Vadasy, Antil, Jenkins, Phillips, & struggling readers and children with learning disabilities.
Pool, 1997). Additionally, others explored the knowledge Such was the study conducted by Englert, Zhao, Collings,
and beliefs of preservice teachers (Nierstheimer, Hopkins, and Romig (2005) who studied the effects of an Internet-
Dillon, & Schmitt, 2000) as they engaged with struggling based software program (TELE-Web) on the improvement
readers. of elementary students’ word recognition performance.
Santaro, Jitendra, Starosta, and Sacks (2006) also looked
Interventions and introductions to innovations. Studies at the effects of a reading program, the Read Well program,
in this category explored the effects of an intervention or an on English Language Learners.
innovation on the learning of children with disabilities and/or Other studies compared programs with other programs.
struggling readers. In some cases, the studies were focused For example, Shippen and colleagues studied the effects
on literacy programs such as the study conducted by Duffy Direct Instruction in two different ways. In their first
(2001) in which she implemented what she called a balanced study, Shippen, Houchins, Stevenson, and Sartor (2005)
and responsive literacy program with struggling readers. explored the effects of a direct and less-direct approach to
Greenwood, Tapia, Abbott, and Walton (2003) investigated reading instruction for urban middle school students. In
the effects of a school-wide reading program, including another study, Shippen, Houchins, Calhoon, Furlow, and
teachers’ implementation and students’ reading behaviors Sartor (2006) directly compared the effects of two popular
and achievement. Others focused on the effects of profes- comprehensive school reform models in reading (Suc-
sional development of evidence-based reading practices cess for All and Direct Instruction) also for urban middle
and the implementation of these practices on the outcomes school students with disabilities. Additionally, the effects
of struggling readers in grades kindergarten through third of Peer-assisted Learning Strategies (PALS) program was
grade (O’Conner, Fulmer, Harty, & Bell, 2005). compared in a first-grade setting (Mathes, Howard, Allen,
Other studies focused more specifically on particu- & Fuchs, 1998) and a high school setting (Fuchs, Fuchs,
lar aspects of reading instruction. For example, Otaiba & Kazdan, 1999).
(2005) focused on code-based instruction and Rightmyer, In summary, studies that have used observational tech-
McIntyre, and Petrosko (2006) focused on phonics instruc- niques, although primarily focused on teachers and children
tion. Still other studies examined the effect on cognitive in elementary schools, have explored a variety of topics and
processes of children with specific reading disabilities in served to fulfill a variety of purposes. In this next section,
reading or struggling readers (Anderson, 1992; Fitzgerald we explore the systems that were used to carry out the
& Ramsbotham, 2004) while others focused on general studies in our database.
comprehension studies (Anders & Gallego, 1989; Marks
et al., 1993). Worthy, Patterson, Salas, Prater, and Turner Systems Used for Observation In this section, we present
(2002) and Boyd (2002) investigated the reading motivation our findings centered on the patterns of systems used for
of resistant and struggling readers (respectively) through the studies in our database. Because we had to rely on the
an intervention; Boyd’s intervention was in a classroom author’s descriptions of the data collected and analyzed and
and Worthy et al.’s came through an after school tutoring because some authors were much more descriptive than
program. Two other tutoring programs explored the role others, we were only able to include 28 studies in this next
of peer tutoring with struggling readers and children with part of our analysis. Included in our findings were varying
specific learning disabilities in reading (Calhoon, 2005; roles that observational data seemed to play in the studies.
Kourea, Cartledge, & Musti-Rao, 2007). In some cases it was the primary source of data, in others
452 Misty Sailors and Margaret Flores

it was a secondary data source. And, in some, it was part simply achieve fidelity measures. That is, the data were
of a complimentary source of data to be analyzed. Within only collected to establish fidelity of implementation of
these sources, we classified the observational data col- the intervention. Of the 10 studies that we classified as us-
lected using Evertson and Green’s system (1986, p. 169). ing observational data as a secondary data source, three of
Additionally, we further categorized these studies based on them did not have adequate descriptions of the type of data
the type of tool used in each. We will address each in this collected (including the instrument used, if any) so we were
section and summarize what we believe to be an exemplar only able to analyze seven studies in this category. Of these
for each category. seven, all but one used the category system, as described by
Evertson and Green (1986) and interestingly, these same
Observational data as a primary data source. In 12 of six were used to establish the fidelity of implementation for
the 28 studies in this analysis, the observational data collect- the innovation introduced in the study. As we have found
ed appeared to be the primary source of data collected for in other research (Hoffman et al., in press), the quality of
the study. In every case, a category system of data recording descriptions of the checklists and rating scales developed
and storage was used (Evertson & Green, 1986). Within this vary widely.
classified set of studies, the purposes of the studies varied, as In one study, for example, there is no description of the
did the tools employed. For example, when the purpose of instrument used, only a mention that fidelity of implementa-
the study was to contextualize and confirm the accuracy of tion had been measured and achieved (Shippen et al., 2006).
self-reported approaches to reading instruction, the research In others, however, the description is detailed and elaborate.
team used an a priori instrument, which was described in For example, in their study that looked examined the effects
detail in the appendix of the article (Mathes et al., 1998). of the Read Well program on the reading performance of
In other cases, where the research team used observations students who were English Language Learners (ELL) and
as measures of implementation (fidelity checks), checklists poor readers and a student who was an English Language
were employed (Coyne et al., 2004). In other cases, where Learner and had a learning disability in reading, Santoro
the purpose of collecting observational data was to offer a et al. (2006) developed a checklist that included critical
window into instruction, researchers used a priori systems, components of the reading program. Each item was evalu-
codification schemes and modified instruments. ated based on its presence or absence from instruction and
Of these studies, one stands out as exemplar. The the quality of the demonstration of instructional items rated
published study provides insight into the most critical using a scale of 0 to 2. Observers established a reliability
components of studies that employ observational research of .85 before initiating observations.
methods—it was connected to theory, employed a system- A study performed by O’Connor, Fulmer, Harty, and
atic set of data collection procedures and the data is tied Bell (2005) was the only one in this category (using ob-
directly to the analysis. In their investigation of the role of servational data as a secondary data source) that used a
literacy instruction in helping the lowest performing first more open-ended system. The purpose of the study was
graders improve their oral reading fluency and nonsense to monitor the long-term effect of sustained layered inter-
word-reading fluency, Graves and colleagues (Graves et al., vention (phonemic awareness, letter-to-sound mappings)
2005) used an existing instrument, the ELLCOI, to docu- efforts across the primary grades. Observations of reading
ment the literacy practices of teachers. The ELLCOI con- instruction lasted 40 to 80 minutes and were conducted
tains six subscales with individual items in each. Subscales twice for the second- and third-grade teachers during their
include (a) explicit teaching, (b) quality of instruction, (c) year as control group and 3 times for teachers in layers one
sheltered English instruction, (d) interactive teaching, (e) and two. The purpose of the observations was to obtain a
vocabulary development, and (f) phonemic awareness and composite picture of student and teacher activities during
decoding. The research team found the ratings within the reading instruction by recorded classroom events as they
subscales (except for phonemic awareness and decoding occurred. Observers described teacher behavior and lesson
instruction) to be correlated to reading achievement (as content in a chronological format. Ongoing field notes de-
measured through a composite reading score consisting of scribed how the teacher delivered instruction, used materi-
posttest performance on oral reading fluency and the read- als, and grouped students. The field notes also described the
ing comprehension measure) in the 14 classrooms in which interactions between students and teachers and the level of
the team worked in California. The subscales were used to engagement of the students with low reading scores. The
measure the reliability. Because they considered their work process of gathering field notes involved recording informa-
to be exploratory, the team offered suggestions for future tional by making entries at 5-minute intervals. A checklist
work on the instrument in refining the subscales. served as an accompaniment to recorded field notes and
provided quick record of room demographics, materials
Observational data as a secondary data source. Some used during instruction, general climate of the classroom,
of the studies in our database seemed to utilize observations groupings of students, and the content of the reading lesson.
as a secondary data source. For example, in their study Observations made in April documented activities that were
of Read Well, Santoro et al. (2006) used student achieve- consistent from those observed in November and February
ment as their primary source of data and observations to and those which were divergent from observations made
 Observational Research 453

in November and February. Inconsistencies were followed reflected the flexibility of the instrumentation involved in
up with interviews. observational studies in this database. This all reflects a
growing advancement of both the method of observational
Observational data as a part of a supportive data research and its role in helping the field understand instruc-
pool. In addition to observations as a primary or second- tional with reading disabilities.
ary data source, there existed in our database a complexity However, there are a few caveats to consider. While
within studies that relied on multiple data sources where there seems to be a surge of observational studies in this
the observational data was the primary source but was field, it would appear that the past two years (through 2007)
supported heavily by a secondary data source, such as saw a drop in the number of published studies that used
interview and/or survey data. Of the 10 studies that fell observation as a method; this has been a common trend
into this category, three used a category system, five used a in other literature reviews we have conducted on observa-
descriptive system and four used a narrative system, based tional research (Hoffman et al., in press). We are unclear
on Evertson and Green’s (1986) classification system; we as to if this is the beginning of a trend and why it may be
could not discern the classification of the final study due so. Our analysis also indicated that the quality of descrip-
to a lack of methodological descriptions. Amongst the lat- tions of the instruments used varied widely, with some
ter two groups, four used video and five used field notes studies reporting carefully the methods used in creating
to gather the observational data. All of the studies in this the checklists and their role in analysis while other studies
group had as their purpose the unveiling of some aspect of were not so carefully. Again, we were unclear as to this
instruction as it pertained to struggling readers or children pattern. Perhaps it is because authors choose not engage
who qualify for special education. in careful documentation, publishers do not require it, or
There was one exemplar in this group, the study con- there is simply not enough space in journals to report this
ducted by Vaughn et al. (1998). The purpose of the study information. Regardless, this was a growing concern as we
was to investigate the extent to which observational find- analyzed this database.
ings from research in general education classrooms would As a result of the concern for quality and from our analy-
be replicated in special education resource room settings. ses of these observational studies in the field of research in
The team conducted observations using adapted (for use reading disabilities, we propose a set of guidelines for future
in resource room) version of the Classroom Climate Scale, observational research. Here we focus on those aspects of
which is designed to provide about teacher and student inter- research that are particularly important to the methodology
actions in settings that include mainstreamed students with surrounding observational research and not to educational
learning disabilities. An additional form was added to the research or reading research more generally considered. The
scale to obtain information about group size, composition, guidelines we propose, for example, are consistent with the
and instructional materials used. The measure has 2 parts: recently issued guidelines for the reporting of educational
quantitative section and descriptive section. The quantitative research as provided by the American Educational Research
section allows the observer to rate (5-pt. scale) the amount Association (2007). These guidelines can be applied across
of time whole group, small group, and individual instruction quantitative, qualitative, and mixed methods studies.
occur; the extent to which the teacher monitors ongoing stu-
dent performance; the amount of time the teacher provided A. Descriptions of systems used—Researchers must be
positive feedback. The descriptive section provides guided clear in describing the selection or development process
questions for the observer about whether the students pres- and the criteria used for the systems used to observe
ent are working on the same activity, whether they follow teaching. There should be a particular attention to the
the same sequence of activities, and whether they use the qualities and the purposes and contexts for the study.
same or different materials. Also recorded are descriptions And, researchers must provide rich and detailed descrip-
of teachers’ adaptations for students and the occurrence tions of the history/past experiences with the tools being
of any word recognition and comprehension activities. used as well as the features of the tools and procedures
Additional observational field notes are recorded on the required with particular attention to any modifications
Classroom Climate Scale to further describe the reading made for the study.
and grouping instruction. B. Presence of researcher—Researchers must be clear in
describing the role they played during the observation
itself. Even though one might be a passive observer (us-
Discussion and Implications for Research
ing a checklist, for example), the mere presence of the
In summary, our analysis of studies that used observational observer in the classroom has the potential to affect the
methods for data collection and analysis varied widely, as teaching that is taking place. Researchers must present
did the use a variety of systems. The combined use of a compelling evidence to demonstrate that the behaviors
priori instruments with the designed-for-a-purpose systems of the teachers (and students) were not influenced by the
in this database focused on a variety of topics, reflecting the presence of the observer. And, if they were, this must
growing understanding of the importance of observational be addressed as a limitation of the study.
research. The variety of ways in which the tools were used C. How much is enough?—There is growing evidence
454 Misty Sailors and Margaret Flores

that researchers must increase the amount of time spent Carroll, J. S. (1963). A model of school learning. Teachers College Record,
in classrooms in order to accurately portray reading 64, 723–733.
Coyne, M. D., Kame’enui, E. J., Simmons, D. C., & Harn, B. A. (2004).
instruction. For example, in their attempt to more fully Beginning reading intervention as inoculation or insulin: First-Grade
define and capture reading instruction, Croninger and reading performance of strong responders to kindergarten intervention.
Valli (2008) discovered that there was more variance in Journal of learning disabilities, 37, 90–104.
teacher-student oral exchanges within lessons enacted Croninger, R. G., & Valli, L. (2008, March). ‘Where is the action?’ Chal-
by the same teacher (84% variance) versus the quality lenges to studying the teaching of reading in elementary classrooms.
Paper presented at the Symposium, Measuring Classroom Instruction:
of interactions associated with schools (9%) and classes The State of the Art, at the annual meeting of the American Educational
(7%). Methodologically, the authors argued, this means Research Association, New York.
that studies of reading must observe multiple lessons Duffy, A. (2001). Balance, literacy acceleration, and responsive teaching
by the same teacher to determine the extent to which in a summer school literacy program for elementary school struggling
practices occur and their effects on student outcomes. readers. Reading Research and Instruction, 40, 67–100.
Englert, C. S., Zhao, Y, Collings, N., & Romig, N. (2005). Learning to
They strongly suggested that a minimum of 6–8 reading read words: the efects of internet-based software on the improve-
lessons be observed in order accurately portray teacher ment of reading performance. Remedial and Special Education, 26,
practices in reading classrooms. 357–371.
Evertson, C. M., & Green, J. L. (1986). Observation as inquiry and
We believe that the adoption of these guidelines within method. In M. C. Wittrock (Ed.), Handbook of research on teaching
(pp. 162–213). New York: Macmillan.
the reading disabilities research community could be use- Fisher, C., Filby, N., Marliave, R., Cahen, L., Dishaw, M., Moore, J., et
ful in promoting quality research. We believe that these al. (1978). Teaching behaviors: Academic learning time and student
guidelines can be of use to researchers designing studies, achievement: Final report of phase III-B, beginning teacher evaluation
editorial advisors reviewing manuscripts, journal editors study. San Francisco: Far West Laboratory for Educational Research
forming guidelines and making decisions on manuscripts, and Development.
Fitzgerald, J., & Ramsbotham, A. (2004). First graders’ cognitive and
and to faculty mentoring the next generation of reading strategic development in Reading Recovery reading and writing.
researchers. Reading Research and Instruction, 44, 1–31.
Flanders, N. A. (1970). Analyzing teaching behavior. Reading, MA:
Addison-Wesley.
References Fuchs, L. S., Fuchs, D., & Kazdan, S. (1999). Effects of peer-assisted learn-
Abrams, B. (2000). The observational research handbook: Understanding ing strategies on high school students with serious reading problems.
how consumers live with your product. Chicago: NTC/Contemporary Remedial and Special Education, 20, 309–318.
Publishing. Gelzheiser, L, M., & Meyers, J. (1991). Reading instruction by classroom,
Allington, R. L., & McGill-Franzen, A. (1989). School response to reading remedial, and resource room teachers. Journal of Special Education,
failure: Chapter 1 and special education students in grades 2, 4, and 24, 512–527.
8. Elementary School Journal, 89, 529–542. Gillham, B. (2008). Observation techniques: Structured to unstructured.
Anders, P. L., & Gallego, M. A. (1989). Adoption of theoretically-linked New York: Continuum.
vocabulary-reading comprehension practices. In S. McCormick & J. Glaser, B. G., & Strauss, A. L. (1967). The discovery of grounded theory:
Zutell (Eds.), Cognitive and social perspectives for literacy research Strategies for qualitative research. Chicago: Aldine.
and instruction: Thirty-eighth yearbook of the National Reading Con- Goffman, E. (1959). The presentation of self in everyday life. New York:
ference (pp. 481–487). Chicago: National Reading Conference. Anchor Books/Doubleday.
Anderson, L. W., & Burns, R. B. (1989). Research in classrooms: The study Gordon, I., & Jester, R. (1973). Techniques of observing teaching in early
of teachers, teaching, and instruction. Oxford, UK: Pergamon Press. childhood and outcomes of particular procedures. In R. M. W. Travers
Anderson, V. (1992). A teacher development project in transactional strat- (Ed.), Second handbook of research on teaching (pp. 184–217). Chi-
egy instruction for teachers of severely reading-disabled adolescents. cago: Rand McNally.
Teaching and Teacher Education, 8, 391–403. Graves, A. W., Plasencia-Peinado, J., Deno, S. L., & Johnson, J. R. (2005).
Angrosino, M. (2007). Doing ethnographic and observational research Formatively evaluating the reading progress of first grade English
(Qualitative research kit). New York: Sage. language learners in multiple language classrooms. Remedial and
Berliner, D. (1990). The nature of time in schools: Theoretical concepts, Special Education, 26, 215–225.
practitioner perceptions. In C. Denham & A. Lieberman (Eds.), Time to Greenwood, C. R., Tapia, Y, Abbott, M., & Walton, C. (2003). A building-
learn (pp. 33–63). Washington, DC: National Institute of Education. based case study of evidence-based literacy practices: Implementation,
Boyd, F. B. (2002). Motivation to continue: Enhancing literacy learning reading behavior, and growth in reading fluency, K-4. Journal of
for struggling readers and writers. Reading & Writing Quarterly, 18, Special Education, 37, 95–110.
257–277. Hall, R. V., Lunch, D., & Jackson, D. (1968). Effects of teacher attention
Brophy, J. E. (1973). Stability of teacher effectiveness. American Educa- on study behavior. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 1, 1–12.
tional Research Journal, 10, 245–252. Hall, L. A. (2007). Bringing television back to the bedroom: Transactions
Brophy, J. E., & Good, T. (1970). Teacher-child dyadic interactions: A between a seventh grade struggling reader and her mathematics teacher.
new method of classroom observation. Journal of School Psychology, Reading Research and Instruction, 46, 287–314.
8(2), 131–137. Hilberg, R. S., Waxman, H. C., & Tharp, R. G. (2004). Introduction: Pur-
Butler, D. L. (1998). The strategic content learning approach to promoting poses and perspectives on classroom observational research. In H. C.
self-regulated learning: A report of three studies. Journal of Educa- Waxman, R. G. Tharp, & R. S. Hilberg (Eds.), Observational research
tional Psychology, 90, 682–697. in US classrooms: New approaches for understanding cultural and lin-
Calhoon, M. B. (2005). Effects of a peer-mediated phonological skill guistic diversity (pp. 1–20). New York: Cambridge University Press.
and reading comprehension program on reading skill acquisition for Hoffman, J. V., Maloch, B. & Sailors, M. (in press). Observations of lit-
middle school students with reading disabilities. Journal of Learning eracy instruction. In P. D. Pearson, E. Moje, & M. Kamil (Eds.), The
Disabilities, 38, 424–433. handbook of reading research, 4th edition. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
 Observational Research 455

Individuals with Disabilities Education Improvement Acts of 2004, Pub. Santoro, L. E., Jitendra, A. K., Starosta, K., & Sacks, G.(2006). Reading
L. No. 108-446, 118 Stat. 2647 (2004) (amending 20 U.S.C.§§ 1440 well with read well: Emhancing the reading performance of English
et seq.). language learners. Remedial and Special Education, 27, 105–115.
Johnson, B., & Turner, L. A. (2003). Data collection strategies in mixed Semmel, M. I. (1975). Application of systematic classroom observation
methods research. In A. Tashakkori & C. Teddlie (Eds.), Handbook to the study and modification of pupil-teacher interaction in special
of mixed methods in social & behavioral research (pp. 297–320). education. In R. Weinberg & F. H. Wood (Eds.), Observation of
Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. pupils and teachers in mainstream and special education settings:
Kourea, L., Cartledge, G., & Musti-Rao, S. (2007). Improving the reading Alternative strategies (pp. 231–264). Minneapolis: University of
skills of urban elementary students through Total Class Peer Tutoring. Minneapolis Press.
Remedial and Special Education, 28, 95–107. Shippen, M. E., Houchins, D. E., Calhoon, M. B., Furlow, C. F., & Sartor,
Leinhardt, G., Zigmond, N., & Cooley, W. W. (1981). Reading instruc- D. A. (2006). The effects of comprehensive school reform models in
tion and its effects. American Educational Research Journal, 18, reading for urban middle school students with disabilities. Remedial
343–361. and Special Education, 27, 322–328.
Marks, M., Pressley, M., Coley, J. D., Craig, S., Gardner, R., Depinto, Shippen, M. E., Houchins, D. E., Steventon, C., & Sartor, D. A. (2005). A
T., et al. (1993). Teachers adaptations of reciprocal teaching in com- comparison of two Direct Instruction reading programs for urban mid-
parison to traditional reciprocal teaching. Elementary School Journal, dle school students. Remedial and Special Education, 26, 175–182.
94, 267–283. Stallings, J. (1975). Implementation and child effects of teaching practices
Mathes, P. G., Howard, J. K., Allen, S. H., & Fuchs, D. (1998). Peer- in follow through classrooms. Monographs of the Society for Research
assisted learning strategies for first-grade readers: Responding to the in Child Development. 40, Nos. 7 and 8 (Serial No. 163).
needs of diverse learners. Reading Research Quarterly, 33, 62–94. Strauss, A., & Corbin, J. (1990). Basics of qualitative research: Grounded
McDonald, F. J., & Elias, P. (1976). A report on the results of phase I I theory procedures and techniques. New York: Sage.
of the beginning teacher evaluation study: An overview. Journal of Suen, H. K., & Ary, D. (1989). Analyzing quantitative behavioral observa-
Teacher Education, 27, 315–316. tion data. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Medley, D., & Mitzel, H. (1963). Measuring classroom behavior by sys- Sweetman, J. (1988). Observational research: A study of discourse and
tematic observation. In N. L. Gage (Ed.), Handbook of research on power. Research Papers in Education, 3, 42–63.
teaching (pp. 247–328). Chicago: Rand McNally. Tancock, S. M. (1997). Catie: A case study of one first grader’s reading
Mertens, D. M. (2005). Research and evaluation in education and psychol- status. Reading Research and Instruction, 36, 89–110.
ogy: Integrating diversity with quantitative, qualitative, and mixed Tashakkori, A., & Teddlie, C. (2003). Issues and dilemmas in teaching
methods (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. research methods courses in social and behavioural sciences: US
Miller, S. D. (2003). How high- and low-challenge tasks affect motivation perspective. International Journal of Social Research Methodology,
and learning: Implications for struggling learners. Reading and Writing 6, 61–77.
Quarterly, 19, 39–57. Vadasy, P. F., Jenkins, J. R., Antil, L. R., Phillips, N. B., & Pool, K.
Moody, S. W., Vaughn, S., Hughes, M. T., & Fischer, M. (2000). Read- (1997). The research-to-practice ball game: Classwide peer tutoring
ing instruction in the resource room: Set up for failure. Exceptional and teacher interest, implementation, and modifications. Remedial and
Children, 66, 305–315. Special Education, 3, 143–156.
Nierstheimer, S. L., Hopkins, C. J., Dillon, D. R., & Schmitt, M. C. (2000). Vaughn, S., Cirino, P. T., Linan-Thompson, S., Mathes, P. G., Carlson,
Preservice teachers’ shifting beliefs about struggling literacy learners. C., Hagan, E., C., et al. (2006a). Effectiveness of a Spanish interven-
Reading Research and Instruction, 40, 1–16. tion and an English intervention for English Language Learners at
O’Connor, R. E., Fulmer, D., Harty, K. R., & Bell, K. M. (2005) Layers risk for reading problems. American Educational Research Journal,
of reading intervention in kindergarten through third grade: Changes 43, 449–487.
in teaching and student outcomes. Journal of Learning Disabilities, Vaughn, S., Mathes, P., Linan-Thompson, S., Cirino, P., Carolson, C., &
38, 440–455. Pollard-Durodola, S., et al. (2006b). Effectiveness of an English inter-
Otaiba, S. A. (2005). How effective is code-based tutoring in English for vention for first-grade English Language Learners at risk for reading
English learners and pre-service teacher -tutors? Remedial and Special problems. Elementary School Journal, 107, 153–181.
Education, 26, 245–254. Vaughn, S., Moody, S. W., & Schumm, J. S. (1998). Broken promises:
Pullen, P. C., Lane, H. B., & Monaghan, M. C. (2004). Effects of a volun- Reading instruction in the resource room. Exceptional Children, 64,
teer tutoring model on the early literacy development of struggling first 211–225.
grade students. Reading Research and Instruction, 43, 21–40. Walker, H. M., & Buckley, N. K. (1968). The use of positive reinforce-
Rightmyer, E. C., McIntyre, E., & Petrosko, J. M. (2006). Instruction, ment in conditioning attending behavior. Journal of Applied Behavior
development, and achievement of struggling primary grade readers. Analysis, 1, 245–250.
Reading Research and Instruction, 45, 209–241. Worthy, J., Patterson, E., Salas, R., Prater, S., & Turner, M. (2002). “More
Rosenshine, B., & Furst, N. (1973). The use of direct observation to study than just reading”: The human factor in reaching resistant readers.
teaching. In R. M. W. Travers (Ed.), Second handbook of research on Reading Research and Instruction, 41, 177–201.
teaching (p. 263–298). Chicago: Rand McNally.
 39
Large Database Analyses
THERESE D. PIGOTT
Loyola University Chicago

KENNETH WONG
Brown University

This chapter will discuss the nature of evidence on reading Nature of Evidence from Nationally Representative
disabilities drawn from the use of large databases. Since Databases
the Snow, Burns, and Griffin (1998) review of research
on preventing reading difficulties in young children, there Since the passage of the No Child Left Behind (NCLB) leg-
have been a number of influential reports based on large islation, policymakers have focused considerable attention
databases. There are two main categories of large databases on experimental research that examines the effectiveness
that researchers may use to study reading disabilities. First, of reading interventions. Experimental research provides
there are cross-sectional, nationally representative data important evidence about causal relationships, especially
sets that collect measures of reading achievement either with regard to the efficacy of supportive interventions for
at one time point only or are repeated with independent children or adults with reading disabilities. There remains,
samples at different time points. Nationally representative however, a set of questions not easily addressed by experi-
cross-sectional data sets include the National Assessment mental research.
of Educational Progress (NAEP), and the National As- Representative, large scale databases can address ques-
sessment of Adult Literacy (NAAL). Second, there are tions of prevalence, prevention and treatment of reading dis-
longitudinal data sets that follow a single cohort over time. abilities that are potentially generalizable to the population.
Many of these data sets are nationally representative of a Nationally representative, observational studies can provide
target population in the first wave of data collection, but estimates of the rate of diagnosed reading disabilities and
may not be representative of the target population at a the characteristics of those children and adults with read-
later wave. The longitudinal data sets most relevant to the ing problems. Researchers can use large scale longitudinal
study of reading disability include two early childhood databases to examine the development of reading difficul-
longitudinal studies, the Early Childhood Longitudinal ties over time as children move through formal schooling
Study – Kindergarten (ECLS-K), and the Early Child- in order to identify correlates of later reading difficulty. In
hood Longitudinal Study – Birth Cohort, (ECLS-B), the some limited ways, large scale databases can also provide
NICHD Study of Early Child Care and Youth Development evidence about the effectiveness of widely used interven-
(SECCYD), and the Education Longitudinal Study (ELS). tions for individuals with reading disabilities.
In this chapter, we examine the nature of the evidence In the United States, both the National Center for Educa-
about reading disabilities that are possible from secondary tion Statistics (NCES) and the National Institute of Child
analyses of large-scale databases, and we raise a number Health and Human Development (NICHD) have supported
of substantive and methodological issues. For example, several large scale data collection efforts that provide
how generalizable are the findings from large databases? descriptive information about the prevalence of reading
What kinds of conclusions can be drawn and how closely disabilities and the outcomes of children and adults with
can we link these findings to policy and to practice? What reading difficulties, both at single time points and across
are the realistic applications and implications of these time. These databases include a rich array of measures of
findings? In light of the current emphasis on experimental individual children or adults, and information about the
research, what role can research using large-scale databases educational, home and work environments of these chil-
play in understanding, preventing, and treating reading dren gathered either from the respondent or others close
disabilities? to the respondent. Many of these databases can be linked

456
 Large Database Analyses 457

to Census data or to surveys of particular elementary and period (Berends, 2006) since the same individuals are not
postsecondary institutions. Thus, these databases provide studied at each time point. Below are short descriptions of
both individual level and contextual level information the current cross-sectional databases relevant for reading
that researchers can use to identify and estimate the as- disabilities researchers.
sociations between reading disabilities and individual and
contextual characteristics. While secondary data analysis The National Assessment of Educational Progress
cannot provide strong evidence about causal effects of in- (NAEP) The NAEP is a nationwide assessment given to a
terventions, analyses using large scale databases can help representative sample of students in the United States. Every
the field in shaping next steps in a research agenda. For 2 years, reading and mathematics are assessed at Grades
example, estimating the prevalence of reading disabilities 4 and 8, with plans to add Grade 12 reading in 2009. In
helps focus limited resources toward individuals in need of general, the sampling scheme involves selecting representa-
interventions. Using longitudinal data to identify possible tive schools within particular geographic regions. Within
predictors of later reading difficulties assists researchers schools, approximately 60 students are randomly selected
to design better assessment instruments and procedures within the target grades, and then are randomly allocated
for diagnosing individuals at risk. Examining the reading to one of the subject tests given that year.
skills of individuals who report participating in widely used In 2007, the most recent reading assessment, fourth-
intervention strategies such as adult basic skills training or graders were assessed in their ability to read for literary
small-group pull-out reading instruction can also provide experience and for information. Eighth graders were also
some evidence about efficacy of these programs. Thus, assessed in these two contexts as well as in reading to
secondary data analyses can inform and sometimes inspire perform a task (National Assessment Governing Board,
more focused and local research of individuals with read- 2006). The 2009 NAEP Reading Assessment will introduce
ing disabilities. a new reading framework (American Institutes for Research,
The following sections discuss the nature of the evi- 2007). In 2009, fourth, eighth, and 12 graders will be as-
dence in cross-sectional and longitudinal surveys, briefly sessed in reading using two different types of texts: literary
describing the databases available for reading disability and informational. Vocabulary will also be directly assessed
research, and providing examples of how these surveys in all grade levels.
have been utilized to increase our understanding of read-
ing disabilities. How reading disabilities are measured. Students are
selected to participate in NAEP assessments randomly
without regard to disability status. Once a student is se-
Nationally-Representative Cross-Sectional Surveys
lected, schools identify which students have (a) a disability,
One relevant set of questions about reading disabilities including a learning disability; and (b) have an Individual-
concerns estimating the incidence and prevalence of reading ized Education Program (IEP) (National Assessment of
difficulties in the population and in particular sub-groups Educational Progress, 2001). Students that are identified
(Snow et al., 1998). A second important question in the with a disability and have an IEP can complete the NAEP
reading disabilities research involves understanding the using an allowable accommodation. Students whose dis-
characteristics of individuals whose reading assessment abilities require accommodations not allowed by NAEP
scores are lower than the general population. Nationally are exempted from completing the assessments. School
representative, cross-sectional surveys can address aspects professionals fill out a questionnaire for each student with
of these important questions. a disability indicating the type of accommodation needed
In general, cross-sectional studies use survey sampling for the particular student (National Center for Education
techniques to obtain a representative sample of the target Statistics, 2008d). Allowable accommodations for NAEP
population. Respondents in these surveys usually com- Reading include using magnification, having directions read
plete a number of assessments, and often the research aloud, taking the test in small groups, extra time, and breaks.
plan includes gathering contextual information about the Similar accommodations are allowed for students who are
educational setting or workplace of the respondent. With English Language Learners (ELL). In the 2007 assessment,
the proper use of survey sampling weights, the statistical 43% of the assessed students with disabilities were given
analysis of cross-sectional surveys provides estimates that extra time, with the next most common accommodation,
a researcher can use to make inferences to the population taking the assessment in a small-group, used with 10% of
(Levy & Lemeshow, 1999). the assessed students with disabilities. Similar percentages
The cross-sectional surveys with information on read- of assessed eighth grade students with disabilities were al-
ing disabilities are either conducted at a single time point, lowed extra time or could take the test in a small group.
or, in the case of the NAEP, are repeated at different time-
points with different samples of students. Researchers Research issues for the NAEP. The NAEP reading as-
can use repeated cross-sectional surveys like the NAEP to sessments can be used for assessing the incidence rate of
monitor trends across time in the United States, but cannot students with learning disabilities and the reading ability
assess how individuals might change over that same time level of these students who can be accommodated for the
458 Therese D. Pigott and Kenneth Wong

assessment. Trends in these incidence rates can also be of schooling scoring higher on assessments of prose literacy.
tracked over time (National Center for Education Statistics, This finding was also discussed by Strucker, Yamamoto,
2008e). There are few studies using the NAEP to examine and Kirsch (2007) in their study of the relationship between
the performance of students with reading disabilities. The adult reading skills and the assessment instruments used
NAEP is most often mentioned with regard to the number in the NAAL.
of children identified as learning disabled and the types Other studies have used the NAAL to examine character-
of accommodations most used on the assessments. For istics of adult readers, some with a particular focus on adults
example, a number of studies have been prepared for the with low levels of literacy. A study by Sheehan-Holt and
NCES with regard to the use of accommodations for learn- Smith (2000) used the 1992 NAAL to examine the reading
ing disabled students (Abedi, Lord, Kim, & Miyoshi, 2001; assessments and reading practices of adults who reported
Lutkus, Mazzeo, Zhang, & Jerry, 2004; Stancavage, Makris, participation in basic skills education. They found that after
& Rice, 2007; Weston, 2002). controlling for demographic and educational variables, there
were no positive associations between participation in basic
The National Assessment of Adult Literacy (NAAL) Giv- skills education and literacy proficiencies. However, they
en in 1992 and again in 2003, the NAAL studied the literacy did find that reading practices were significantly higher for
skills of a nationally representative sample of adults aged those who had taken a basic skills course compared to those
16 and over. The 2003 assessment also over-sampled adults who reported not having this training. Other studies have
in prison. The design of the NAAL precludes any inference examined the reading performance and practices of other
to the level of individual adults; not every adult completed groups of students such as community college graduates
the same items so that inferences about literacy can only (Howard & Obetz, 1996) and in the general population
be made to the population of U.S. adults or to major sub- (Smith, 1996). Most of this research has focused on the
groups of U.S. adults. earlier survey of adult literacy; more research is needed
The main NAAL survey included questions related to the into the characteristics of adults in the 2003 administration
comprehension of three types of materials. Prose literacy of NAAL, especially of that subset of adults at the lowest
included the ability to read and comprehend documents levels of literacy.
such as newspapers and instructional materials (continu-
ous texts). Document literacy relates to the knowledge and Other cross-sectional surveys. Other resources such as
skills needed to understand non-continuous texts such as job the Current Population Survey or the National Household
applications, maps, and drug labels. Quantitative literacy Survey provide estimates of adults and children identified
includes skills related to computations such as balancing a as having general learning disabilities. These surveys rely
checkbook or completing an order form. on parent or self-report for the designation of disabled, and
thus provide some general estimates of disabilities in the
How are reading disabilities measured. There are population. In addition, researchers may be interested in
two ways of identifying NAAL respondents with reading the characteristics of the schools that students attend. For
disabilities. First, approximately 6% of respondents in example, a researcher using NAEP data may want to exam-
the 2003 NAAL identify themselves as having a learning ine contextual features of the schools attended by students
disability. Second, a supplemental assessment, the Adult who had extra time to complete the NAEP. The Common
Literacy Supplemental Assessment (ALSA), was given to Core of Data and the Schools and Staffing Survey can be
approximately 3% of the sample who could answer only a linked to NAEP to provide information about the schools
few of the NAAL questions. The assessments in the ALSA included in that particular NAEP sample.
focused on identifying letters, numbers and words, and to
comprehend simple documents. The 3%–5% of the popu- Methodological Issues with Cross-Sectional Surveys The
lation who were assessed using the ALSA could also be analysis of these nationally representative cross-sectional
studied to examine the characteristics of U.S. adults with surveys requires the use of weights in order to obtain the
the lowest levels of literacy. correct population estimates. Certain statistical analysis
programs such as STATA are designed to incorporate these
Research issues in the NAAL. As in the NAEP, the weights into analyses. In some cross-sectional databases,
NAAL can be used to estimate a population incidence sub-populations of interest to a reading researcher may not
level, in this case, the number of adults who self-report constitute a representative sample, and thus results based on
learning disabilities. According to the summary report for these subsets may not be used to support inferences to the
the 2003 NAAL assessment, approximately 6% of adults population. However, studying these smaller sub-samples
indicate they have a reading disability (Kutner et al., 2007). may still provide insight into aspects of reading disabilities
The NAAL has also been used by researchers to examine, even if generalizable inferences are not possible.
for example, the relationship between formal schooling A second issue is the treatment of nested data. When
and reading proficiency. Johnson (2001) found a positive researchers are interested in the school contexts of students
association between years of formal schooling and prose with disabilities, multilevel modeling techniques such as
reading proficiency, with adults who completed more years hierarchical linear modeling or structural equation modeling
 Large Database Analyses 459

are needed to examine the relationships between student and Childhood Longitudinal Survey, Kindergarten (ECLS-K)
school characteristics when students are nested in schools. and the Early Childhood Longitudinal Survey, Birth cohort
(ECLS-B) are two overlapping longitudinal databases
Limitations of Cross-Sectional Data for Studying Reading focusing on the growth and development of children from
Disabilities One limitation with nationally representa- birth through Grade 8. In 1998, the ECLS-K collected data
tive data sets concerns the definition and identification of on a representative sample of 1,000 schools with kinder-
students with reading disabilities. Stancavage, Makris, and garten classrooms. Within each school, approximately 23
Rice (2007) found that schools reported a wide range of children were selected for a series of assessments starting
evidence used to make decisions about providing accom- in the fall of the kindergarten year. Parents and teachers
modations for students to participate in NAEP testing and also completed surveys about the children, and information
about excluding particular students from participating in was gathered about the school environment and classroom
NAEP. These inconsistencies reflect the issues in the field curriculum. The same cohort of children were assessed in
with identifying students at risk for reading difficulties. the spring of kindergarten, the fall and spring of first grade,
Thus, estimates of reading disabilities using even carefully the fall and spring of third grade, fifth grade, and eighth
designed nationally representative data sets suffer from the grade (National Center for Education Statistics, 2008b). The
problems with identification and diagnosis of reading dis- ECLS-B follows a representative sample of 14,000 children
abilities. As in any large scale databases, researchers should born during 2001 through their kindergarten year. Informa-
use a range of variables to identify the subset of students tion was collected about these children at 9 months, 2 years,
with reading disabilities and report on these selection deci- 1 year before kindergarten, and their kindergarten year. The
sions in any analyses of these data. surveys include direct child assessments as well as reports
from parents (including fathers), caregivers, and teachers
(National Center for Education Statistics, 2008a).
Longitudinal Large Scale Databases
Longitudinal surveys are particularly useful for studying How reading disabilities are measured. In the ECLS-
how students or adults change over time. Typically, these K, the parent and teacher questionnaires include questions
surveys include at least three data collection points (usually about whether the child has been diagnosed with a learn-
more), starting with a nationally representative sample at ing disability, and what services have been provided to the
the first wave. While the data remain representative of the child. Parents, for example, are asked if the target child has
population at wave one, attrition naturally contributes to a been evaluated by a professional and been diagnosed with
loss of participants in subsequent waves of the survey. For a learning disability, received any special services such as
reading disability researchers, longitudinal databases are speech and language therapy over the past year, or were
useful for two types of research questions. For example, fol- enrolled in special education services (National Center for
lowing infants or young children through the early elemen- Education Statistics, 2008c). Teachers are asked if the target
tary school years could uncover correlates and predictors of child has received individual or small group pull-out tutor-
later reading difficulties. At the other end of the continuum, ing in reading, or if the child participates in a Title I reading
databases that follow adolescents diagnosed with reading program. If the child has an individual education program
disabilities provide information about how these students plan (IEP), the special education teacher is asked to identify
negotiate transitions to high school, postsecondary educa- the type of disability (such as autism, behavior or learning
tion and the workforce. disability), whether the child has IEP goals in reading, and
For reading disability research, there are two major the types of the services provided for the child.
sets of longitudinal data sets. The first set examines young The ECLS-B data set provides scores for individual chil-
children either at birth or at kindergarten and follows these dren on a number of cognitive scales. Children at 9 months
children over a period of time. Researchers can (and have) and 24 months of age are assessed using the Bayley Short
used these databases to address questions related to when Form–Research Edition (Bayley, 1993). Preschool and kin-
children are first identified with reading disabilities, the dergarten children are given items from the ECLS-K as well
achievement outcomes of these children over time, and the as from cognitive assessments such as the PPVT-II (Dunn &
children’s family and school contexts. The second set of Markwardt, 1981) and the WJ-HI (Woodcock & Johnson,
large scale databases examines the transition of adolescents 1990). There are no measures that directly indicate a child
to high school, postsecondary options, and the workplace. has been diagnosed with a reading disability. Instead, the
In addition, any given time period included in these longi- researcher using the ECLS-B needs to define scores on a
tudinal databases can be used in a cross-sectional study of given assessment as indicating risk of a reading disability.
a target sample of students. The sections below describe For example, Rosenberg, Zhang, and Robinson (2008) used
some of the major longitudinal data sets that hold the most the ECLS-B assessments at 9 and 24 months to estimate
promise for reading disability research. the number of children who would qualify for Part C early
intervention services under the Individuals with Disabilities
The Early Childhood Longitudinal Survey, Kindergar- Act (IDEA). Part C services are provided for children who
ten (ECLS-K) and Birth Cohort (ECLS-B) The Early are under the age of three and have developmental delays.
460 Therese D. Pigott and Kenneth Wong

In the Rosenberg et al. study, children were identified as Phase IV continuing through ninth grade. Though not a
eligible for Part C services if they fit one of the following nationally representative data sample, the SECCYD has
two criteria: (a) birth weight less than 1500 grams, or (b) collected a complex set of measures from approximately
scoring 1.0 standard deviations lower than the mean on both 1,000 children and their families over time.
the cognitive and motor scales of the Bayley Short Form
or scoring 1.5 standard deviations lower than the mean on How reading disabilities are measured. There are
either scale. two main measures that a researcher could use to identify
children with reading disabilities in the SECCYD database.
Research issues for the ECLS-K and ECLS-B. Given First, teachers are asked whether an individual child has or
the longitudinal nature of these two databases, researchers is receiving special education services. Second, the SEC-
can examine the growth trajectories of particular subsets CYD includes several measures of a child’s pre-reading
of children such as those in the ECLS-K who receive indi- and reading skills that could be used to identify children
vidualized or small group instruction in reading, or those at risk of a reading disability. These measures include the
children who scored well below the mean on cognitive as- Bayley Scales of Infant Development (Bayley, 1993) and the
sessments in the ECLS-B. While there have been several Woodcock-Johnson scales (Woodcock & Johnson, 1990).
studies of ECLS-K cohorts growth in reading over time, few,
if any, focus directly on children diagnosed with a learning Research issues in the SECCYD. As in the ECLS-K
disability (National Center for Education Statistics, 2007). and ECLS-B studies, researchers can use the SECCYD to
Relatively fewer studies have used the ECLS-B to examine examine the growth trajectories of children identified or
longitudinal trends since this database has more recently at risk for reading disabilities over time. In addition, the
been released. SECCYD could be used to examine the individual charac-
There have been a number of studies examining the teristics, home environment and early care experiences of
growth trajectories of students with reading disabilities children at risk of developing reading disabilities. For ex-
using representative data sets of more targeted populations. ample, La Paro, Olsen, and Pianta (2002) used the SECCYD
For example, Shaywitz, Shaywitz, Fletcher, and Escobar, to examine developmental precursors to special education
(1990) followed Connecticut schoolchildren from kin- eligibility. Children eligible for special education were
dergarten through high school. A similar study by Catts, identified by two different methods. First, some children
Fey, Tomblin, and Zhang (2002) followed a representative were identified by medical professionals as having special
sample of children in Iowa. Both studies examined the cor- needs as reported by parents in an interview. Second, other
relates and precursors of later reading disability. children were identified based on consistently scoring 1.5
Both the ECLS-K and ECLS-B have been used as a standard deviations below the mean on three assessments
cross-sectional database, such as in the estimation of Part given from 15 to 36 months of age: Bayley Mental Develop-
C eligible children in the Rosenberg et al. (2008) study. ment Scales, Bracken Basic Concept Scale and the Reynell
Two reports by the NCES also examine characteristics Developmental Language Scale. As in the Rosenberg et al.
of children in special education at one wave of the ECLS (2008) study using ECLS-B, La Paro et al. also found many
(Herring, McGrath, & Buckley, 2007; Holt, McGrath, & children eligible for special services may not be identified,
Herring, 2007). When using the ECLS databases for cross- thus missing important opportunities for support.
sectional inferences, the researcher needs to keep in mind With the exception of La Paro et al. (2002), much of
that attrition naturally occurs over time in longitudinal the current research using the SECCYD has not focused
databases, and thus not all waves of data are nationally on children with special needs or with learning disabili-
representative. Researchers need to select the appropriate ties. Since the SECCYD is not a nationally representative
weights to ensure that estimates can support inferences to sample, estimates at any given time point cannot be used
a particular population. to make inferences to the population. With the collection of
Phase IV data, the SECCYD could provide a rich database
The National Institute of Child Health and Human De- for examining the growth of children from 1 month through
velopment Study of Early Child Care and Youth Develop- age 14, especially for those children whose low reading
ment (NICHD SECCYD) The NICHD SECCYD study scores indicate potential for reading disabilities.
was initiated in 1991 to follow a cohort of children born
in 1991 at ten sites across the country. This longitudinal The Education Longitudinal Survey of 2002 (ELS) The
study was designed to address questions about the relation- ELS survey follows a representative cohort of students who
ships between children’s early care experiences and later were in their sophomore year of high school in 2002 into
outcomes. Assessments of child, care environment and postsecondary education and/or the workforce. The sample
home environment were gathered at several times during was augmented in 2004 to obtain a representative sample
the child’s development. Phase I measures were gathered at of high school seniors. The data collected include academic
1 month of age through 3 years of age. Phase II measures achievement, attitudes toward school and future plans along
took place from 54 months of age through first grade. Phase with information about their transition to postsecondary
III follows children from second through third grade, with education or the workforce after high school graduation.
 Large Database Analyses 461

For those students going on to postsecondary education, addition, for studies such as the NELS and the ELS, stu-
information was collected about where students applied, dents may move across time into different contexts, such
where they were accepted, and where they enrolled. The as high schools or postsecondary institutions. Techniques
survey also includes information from the student’s high such as hierarchical or multi-level modeling can be used to
school teachers, and from their parents. account for the nesting and clustering effects (Raudenbush
& Bryk, 2002).
How reading disabilities are measured. In the first A second issue is the repeated measures of students over
wave of the ELS (when students are in 10th grade), parents time. Hierarchical linear modeling also provides a flexible
are asked if their child has a learning disability, and if so, if data analysis method for handling repeated assessments
it is a specific learning disability. In addition, proficiency of individuals when the timing of those assessments may
scores on a reading assessment are provided for each stu- differ. For example, the assessment of the first wave of
dent. These three proficiency levels are described as follows: 23,000 kindergarten children in the ECLS-K took place
(a) Level 1—simple reading comprehension, (b) Level from September through the middle of December. For
2—Simple inferences beyond the author’s main thought, students entering kindergarten, the difference between one
and (c) Level 3—Complex inferences requiring multiple day and three months in formal instruction could be great,
sources of information. From the first wave of data, 89% and could add confounding variance to the assessment re-
of high school sophomores could perform Level 1 tasks, 46 sults. Raudenbush and Bryk (2002) and Singer and Willett
% could perform Level 2, and 8% could perform at Level 3 (2003) both provide suggestions for analyzing longitudinal
(Ingels et al., 2005). These proficiency scores could also be data when individuals differ in their assessment date or are
used to identify students with low levels of reading skill. missing particular time points.

Research issues in the ELS. The base year, first and Limitations of Longitudinal Databases for Studying Read-
second follow-up of the ELS are completed with the third ing Disabilities The major limitation for using large da-
and final follow-up expected in 2013. The first follow-up tabases remains the identification of students with learning
collected data from base year students who would have been disabilities. Hodapp and Krasner (1994) acknowledge these
in their senior year of high school. This follow-up includes limitations in their study of four low incidence disabilities
the high school transcripts from all students in the baseline using NELS:88, but also argue for the use of nationally
year. The second follow-up collects data from students when representative data that are beyond the resources of single
they would complete their second year of postsecondary researchers to reproduce. In addition, the cost and advance
education. Some of the sample students will have entered planning for large scale databases results in definitions of
the workforce. Researchers could use the ELS to examine learning disabilities that may be out-dated by the time the
the transitions to postsecondary education or the workforce data is released for public use.
for the group of students whose parents indicated that they
had learning disabilities and whose reading proficiency
Discussion and Recommendations
level was low. Since the ELS database is relatively new, few
studies have been published (see annotated bibliography The nationally representative cross-sectional and longitudi-
from NCES) using this data. nal databases available to reading disability researchers can
address aspects of three important issues: the prevalence
Other Longitudinal Databases The National Education of reading disabilities among children and adults, the cor-
Longitudinal Survey of 1988 (NELS 88) is a longitudinal relates and precursors of reading disabilities in children
database that followed a cohort of eighth-grade students in and adults, and the characteristics and skills of students and
1988. Assessments and surveys from students, parents and children who are identified as reading disabled. A number
teachers were gathered on this cohort in 1990, 1992, 1994, of these nationally representative databases have yet to be
and 2000. In the NELS, parents, teachers, school officials, used to focus on reading disabilities, including the ECLS-
and the students themselves are asked whether the target Birth cohort and the 2003 administration of the National
child has a learning disability. A study published by NCES Assessment of Adult Literacy. Studies using these data-
(Rossi, Herting, Wolman, & Quinn, 1997) found that these bases can allow nationally representative inferences about
four methods of identifying children with a disability did aspects of reading disabilities, and can suggest directions
not select the same students, highlighting again one major for research that would focus on more local and contextual
drawback of using large databases for studying reading issues in the field.
disabilities. A major drawback of these databases is the identification
of students with learning disabilities in general and read-
Methodological Issues with Longitudinal Surveys There ing disabilities more specifically. As seen in the examples
are two aspects of nationally representative longitudinal of research in this chapter, researchers have used multiple
surveys that are important in secondary data analysis indicators and variables in a given database to select par-
methods. First, as in cross-sectional surveys, students are ticipants who likely have a reading disability. This difficulty
nested in schools and other educational institutions. In with identifying reading disabled individuals reflects the
462 Therese D. Pigott and Kenneth Wong

continued work in the field to find more accurate methods the National Adult Literacy Survey. Washington, DC: National Center
for the early detection of reading difficulties. for Education Statistics.
Kutner, M., Greenberg, E., Jin, Y., Boyle, B., Hsu, Y.-C., Dunleavy, E., et
In addition to refining measures or indicators of reading al. (2007). Literacy in everyday life: Results from the 2003 National
disabilities, other opportunities exist for gathering large Assessment of Adult Literacy. Washington, DC: Institute of Education
databases to inform our knowledge of reading disabilities. Sciences, National Center for Education Statistics.
Reporting requirements and accountability measures first La Paro, K. M., Olsen, K., & Pianta, R. C. (2002). Special education
initiated by NCLB have encouraged many states and school eligibility: Developmental precursors over the first three years of life.
Exceptional Children, 69(1), 55–66.
districts to gather more systematic data about the progress of Levy, P. S., & Lemeshow, S. (1999). Sampling of populations: Methods
students’ reading growth. For example, the use of response and applications (3rd ed.). New York: Wiley.
to intervention as a diagnostic technique (Fletcher, Coulter, Lutkus, A. D., Mazzeo, J., Zhang, J., & Jerry, L. (2004). Including special-
Reschly, & Vaughn, 2004) has led many schools to collect needs students in the NAEP 1998 Reading Assessment: Part II, results
data to chart the progress of students in their reading skills. for students with disabilities and limited English-proficient students.
Princeton, NJ: Educational Testing Service.
These local databases may prove to be another rich source National Assessment Governing Board. (2006). Reading framework for
for studying the prevalence, prevention, and treatment of the 2007 National Assessment of Educational Progress. In U.S. De-
individuals with reading disabilities. partment of Education (Ed.). Washington, DC: National Assessment
Governing Board.
National Assessment of Educational Progress. (2001). 2001 SD/LEP
References questionnaire. Retrieved from http://nces.ed.gov/nationsreportcard/
tdw/pdf/instruments/2001_SDLEP.pdf
Abedi, J., Lord, C., Kim, C., & Miyoshi, J. (2001, September). The National Center for Education Statistics. (2007). Early Childhood Lon-
effects of accommodations on the assessment of LEP students in gitudinal Study: Data products and publications. Retrieved June 30,
NAEP. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education, Office of 2008, from http://nces.ed.gov/ecls/bibliography.asp
Educational Research and Improvement, National Center for Educa- National Center for Education Statistics. (2008a). Early Childhood Lon-
tion Statistics. gitudinal Survey (ECLS) Birth cohort: Study information. Retrieved
American Institutes for Research. (2007). Reading framework for the 2009 July 1, 2008, from http://www.nces.ed.gov/ecls/birth.asp
National Assessment of Educational Progress (pre-publication ed.). National Center for Education Statistics. (2008b). Early Childhood
Washington, DC: AIR. Longitudinal Survey (ECLS) Kindergarten cohort: Study informa-
Bayley, N. (1993). Bayley Scales of Infant Development (2nd ed.). San tion. Retrieved July 1, 2008, from http://www.nces.ed.gov/ecls/
Antonio, TX: Psychological Corporation. kindergarten.asp
Berends, M. (2006). Survey methods in educational research. In J. L. National Center for Education Statistics. (2008c, June 29). ECLS Kinder-
Green, G. Camilli, & P. B. Elmore (Eds.), Handbook of complemen- garten year: Fall parent questionnaire. Retrieved July 1, 2008, from
tary methods in education research (pp. 623–640). Mahwah, NJ: http://nces.ed.gov/ecls/kinderinstruments.asp
Erlbaum. National Center for Education Statistics. (2008d, May 13). NAEP inclu-
Catts, H. W., Fey, M. E., Tomblin, J. B., & Zhang, X. (2002). A longi- sion policy. Retrieved July 1, 2008, from http://www.nces.ed.gov/
tudinal investigation of reading outcomes in children with language nationsreportcard/about/inclusion.asp
impairments. Journal of Speech, Language and Hearing Research, National Center for Education Statistics. (2008e). The Nation’s report
45(6), 1142–1157. card: Reading report card — Trend in fourth grade NAEP average
Dunn, L. M., & Markwardt, F. C. (1981). Manual for Peabody Picture reading scores by students with disabilities who could be assessed.
Vocabulary Test — Revised. Circle Pines, MI: American Guidance Retrieved July 1, 2008, from http://nationsreportcard.gov/read-
Service. ing_2007/r0014.asp
Fletcher, J. M., Coulter, W. A., Reschly, D. J., & Vaughn, S. (2004). Raudenbush, S. W., & Bryk, A. S. (2002). Hierarchical linear models:
Alternative approaches to the definition and identification of learning Applications and data analysis methods (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks,
disabilities: Some questions and answers. Annals of Dyslexia, 54(2), CA: Sage.
304–331. Rosenberg, S. A., Zhang, D., & Robinson, C. C. (2008). Prevalence of
Herring, W. L., McGrath, D. J., & Buckley, J. A. (2007). Demographic and developmental delays and participation in early intervention services
school characteristics of students receiving special education in the for young children. Pediatrics, 121(6), 1503–1509.
elementary grades. Washington, DC: Institute of Education Sciences, Rossi, R., Herting, J., Wolman, J., & Quinn, P. (1997). Profiles of students
National Center for Education Statistics. with disabilities as identified in NELS: 88. Washington, DC: U.S. De-
Hodapp, R. M., & Krasner, D. V. (1994). Reflections on “Using large, partment of Education, National Center for Education Statistics.
national data bases in special education research.” Exceptionality, Shaywitz, S. E., Shaywitz, B. A., Fletcher, J. M., & Escobar, M. D.
5(2), 103–108. (1990). Prevalence of reading disability in boys and girls: Results of
Holt, E. W., McGrath, D. J., & Herring, W. L. (2007). Timing and duration the Connecticut Longitudinal Study. Journal of the American Medical
of student participation in special education in the primary grades. Association, 264, 998–1002.
Washington, DC: Institute for Education Sciences, National Center Sheehan-Holt, J. K., & Smith, M. C. (2000). Does basic skills education
for Education Statistics. affect adults’ literacy proficiencies and reading practices? Reading
Howard, J., & Obetz, W. S. (1996). Using the NALS to characterize the Research Quarterly, 35(2), 226–244.
literacy of community college graduates. Journal of Adolescent and Singer, J. D., & Willett, J. B. (2003). Applied longitudinal data analysis:
Adult Literacy, 39, 462–467. Modeling change and event occurrence. New York: Oxford University
Ingels, S. J., Burns, L. J., Charleston, S., Chen, X., Cataldi, E. F., & Owings, Press.
J. A. (2005). A profile of the American High School sophomore in 2002: Smith, M. C. (1996). Differences in adults’ reading practices and literacy
Initial results from the base year of the Education Longitudinal Study proficiencies. Reading Research Quarterly, 31, 196–219.
of 2002. Washington, DC: National Center for Education Statistics. Snow, C. E., Burns, M. S., & Griffin, P. (Eds.). (1998). Preventing reading
Johnson, S. T. (2001). Adults performing at the two lowest literacy levels. difficulties in young children. Washington, DC: National Academies
In C. F. Kaestle, A. Campbell, J. D. Finn, S. T. Johnson, & L. J. Mi- Press.
kulecky (Eds.), Adult literacy in America: A first look at the results of Stancavage, F., Makris, F., & Rice, M. (2007). SD/LEP inclusions/
 Large Database Analyses 463

exclusions in NAEP: An investigation of factors affecting SD/LEP Weston, T. J. (2002, July). The validity of oral accommodation in testing.
inclusions/exclusions in NAEP. Washington, DC: American Institutes Palo Alto, CA: American Institutes for Research.
for Research. Woodcock, R. W., & Johnson, M. B. (1990). Manual for the Woodcock-
Strucker, J., Yamamoto, K., & Kirsch, I. (2007). The relationship of the Johnson Tests of Achievement-Revised. Allen, TX: RCL Enterprises.
component skills of reading to IALS performance: Tipping points and
five classes of adult literacy learners. Cambridge, MA: National Center
for the Study of Adult Learning and Literacy.
 40
Policy, Research, and Reading First
NAOMI ZIGMOND, RITA BEAN, AMANDA KLOO, AND MELISSA BRYDON
University of Pittsburgh

Policy, Research, and Reading First greater role, often focusing its work on policies designed
to improve students’ reading achievement. These efforts
There are three challenges that will have to be met before have produced state-by-state standards for what students
education is transformed into an evidence-based field: the
should know and be able to do at various grade levels and
rigor, relevance, and utilization of education research.
(Whitehurst, 2003, p. 1)
at the time of graduation from high school, and large-scale
school reform efforts that feature increased accountability
Education policy refers to the collection of laws or rules and measurement of students’ academic progress (Valencia
that govern the operation of education systems. Examples of & Wixson, 2000). They have also produced a heightened
policy topics include school size, class size, school choice, interest in policy research, in the contexts in which policy
school privatization, tracking, teacher certification, teacher is developed and implemented, and in the outcomes of
pay, teaching methods, curricular content, and graduation policy on front-line educators and their students. By 2000,
requirements. Debates on these topics take place in local policy chapters (McGill-Franzen, 2000; Valencia & Wix-
town meetings, city and county governments, state leg- son, 2000) were included for the first time in volume 3 of
islatures, professional forums, and other national arenas, the Handbook of Reading Research (Kamil, Mosenthal,
with arguments supported by strong opinion, emotion, and Pearson, & Barr, 2000).
occasionally, research data. Because the Tenth Amendment In this chapter, we begin where those earlier chapters
to the U.S. Constitution limits federal involvement in lo- left off, with a description of the continuing federal inter-
cal education matters, most education policy debates are est in increasing student achievement. We discuss what
decided at the state and local levels; nevertheless, while the might be called the “third generation” of federal education
federal role in education may be limited, it can be highly policy making (see McLaughlin, 1992, for a description
significant. One good example of this limited-but-significant of the first two generations) using the Reading First ini-
role is the Reading First initiative in the No Child Left tiative as an illustrative case. Policy makers in this third
Behind Act of 2001. generation legislation sought to build their mandates on
Early federal legislative actions related to education, be- a strong empirical research base, having been convinced
ginning in the 1960s, were not spurred by research. Rather, by researchers that “although we do not know everything,
they were attempts to eradicate social inequities through what we do know is information in which we can have con-
educational initiatives. Title I, for example, was developed fidence,” [and] it is important that that information be put
to fund supplemental reading programs for “disadvantaged” into practice (McCardle & Chhabra, 2004, p. 476). Policy
or poor children, and was an effort to more equitably makers believed that the time had come for the federal
distribute educational opportunities (McGill-Franzen, government to tie education funding to implementation of
2000). Likewise, Congressional passage of PL 94-142, the “proven practices” that would dramatically improve read-
groundbreaking Education of All Handicapped Children ing instruction for students in high poverty low achieving
Act of 1975 entitling students with disabilities to a free and schools. Scientifically based reading instruction (SBRR)
appropriate public education, was motivated by a desire for was the answer to student underachievement and Reading
civil rights, social justice, and equal opportunity, and not by First was the mechanism to get those scientifically based
research evidence of the value of special education. instructional practices implemented.
In the 40 years since these early forays into educational This chapter is divided into four segments. In the first
policy, the federal government has assumed a greater and segment, we review background information that helps

464
 Policy, Research, and Reading First 465

explain the emergence of Reading First policies. In the education had not produced the evidence needed to make
second, we draw on our experience with Reading First in decisions about educational practices. “Educational prac-
Pennsylvania to demonstrate that even well -intentioned tice and research are badly in need of reform,” proclaimed
implementations of Reading First directives did not always Whitehurst in 2003 (p. 1). It was not just that policy mak-
produce outcomes consistent with those previously reported ers had difficulty interpreting the research that had been
in the research literature. In the third segment, we move reported. Questions were raised about the quality or rigor
beyond Pennsylvania to discuss the design and results of of the research that had been conducted and the merits of
the national impact study of the Reading First implementa- various research methodologies for answering questions
tion. Finally, we expand on the ideas of McLaughlin, 1992 essential to policy. Whitehurst (2003), for example, noted
and Coburn (2006) in a discussion of the importance of that “over the past decade, 38% of the primary research
context in the implementation of educational policy and reports in the American Educational Research Associa-
the futility of seeking simple, easy answers to the complex tion’s two premier journals involved qualitative methods”
problems of schooling America’s children, especially those (p. 1). Such research designs, he maintained, could not be
who struggle to learn to read. used to draw causal conclusions and thus were not useful
in addressing practical issues of program efficacy—the
primary interest of policy makers. Policy makers wanted
The Road to Reading First
clear, definitive answers that would enable them to create
McGill-Franzen (2000), in the Handbook of Reading Re- and pass legislation to improve instruction. They wanted to
search (vol. III), summarizes the policy history of reading ed- know which instructional approaches were best for teach-
ucation and the research that relates that policy to instruction ing disabled readers. What materials should be used? How
in the schools. She describes the various iterations of Title should teachers be prepared to teach struggling readers?
I from its focus on simply providing additional resources Educational researchers answered cautiously, pointing out
to disadvantaged students to its attention to specific issues that the road to “scientific” knowledge is long and often
of teaching and learning. She and others (see Valencia & tedious (Hess, 2008). Moreover, they acknowledged, dif-
Wixson, 2000; Pearson, 2004) have also described the flurry ferent research methodologies address different questions
of political activity, especially in California, that led to the for different audiences. Experimental psychologists and
ascendance then fall-from-grace of constructivist, literature- reading researchers were not nearly as equivocal as they
based, whole-language reading pedagogy in the face of stepped into the void. Citing “reliable, replicable research”
declining NAEP test scores in 1992 and again in 1994. No supported by National Institutes for Child Health and Hu-
matter that the implementation of whole language may have man Development (see Lyon, 1995; Lyon & Chhabra, 1996;
been suspect, that not all teachers had received appropriate McCardle & Chhabra, 2004) they advocated a set of explicit
training, and that there were clear misapplications of the ap- instructional practices emphasizing phonemic awareness
proach; poor test scores led California legislators to demand and phonics. They backed their advocacy with data from
a change in reading pedagogy. And reading achievement NICHD sponsored research involving large samples of
had become politicized. It emerged as an important policy students, experimental designs that included random as-
issue for those seeking and holding the office of President signment of treatments to teachers and/or schools, and tried
of the United States. President Clinton, for example, in 1994 and true outcome measures (see Foorman, Francis, Fletcher,
established America Reads, the national volunteer tutoring Schatschneider, & Mehta, 1998). Soon, publications like
program and, during his administration, urged passage and Preventing Reading Difficulties in Young Children (Snow,
funding of the Reading Excellence Act, which awarded $230 Burns, & Griffin, 1998), and the National Reading Panel
million to 17 states to support reading instruction. States Report (2000) formed the basis for legislative changes af-
were required to improve reading instruction and to show fecting teacher preparation and school practices in teaching
evidence of this improvement with data showing increasing reading, especially at the beginning stages. No Child Left
numbers of students reading at proficiency levels. Congress Behind (2001) was the culmination of this effort to fash-
would provide some resources to ensure high-quality in- ion federal education policy based on sound “scientific”
struction for all students—including students with reading research. In fact, “NCLB mentions ‘scientifically-based
disabilities, in exchange for which states would yield to research’ 110 times” (Slavin, 2002, p. 15). Scientifically
requirements for accountability. based research, particularly the research supported by the
As the 20th century neared an end, strong voices urged NICHD, would serve as the basis for the Reading First
Congress to increase funding for research and syntheses initiative authorized within the act to transform reading
of research that could serve as a foundation for legisla- instruction in Grades K–3.
tive action (see Song, Coggshall, & Miskel, 2004). Loud
complaints were heard that, despite decades of funding for Reading First: From Research to Policy to Instruction
the National Institute of Education (renamed the Office Reading First was the largest—and yet most focused—
of Educational Research and Improvement and renamed early reading initiative this country had ever undertaken.
again the Institute of Education Sciences), research in It supported states
466 Naomi Zigmond, Rita Bean, Amanda Kloo, and Melissa Brydon

…as they work with their districts to ensure that teachers Pennsylvania Reading First
learn about instruction and other activities based on scien-
tifically based reading research, implement programs that Pennsylvania took very seriously the Reading First non-
are based on this research, and use rigorous assessments negotiables. Drawing on the research-based assertions in
with proven validity and reliability that effectively screen, the Call for Proposals, CFDA Number 84.357 (Federal
diagnose and monitor the progress of all students. (US Register, 2002; U.S. Department of Education, 2002b), the
Department of Education, 2002a, p. 2) Pennsylvania proposal dated May 15, 2002, outlined the
steps the Pennsylvania Department of Education leader-
And, it had a lofty goal: “to give teachers across the nation ship would take to insure that “every activity [supported
the skills and support they needed to teach all children to by Reading First funds] promotes reading [instruction that]
read fluently by the end of third grade” (U.S. Department of is anchored in SBRR” (Zogby, 2002, p. 16). Pennsylvania
Education, 2002a, p. 1). But it was also highly prescriptive. promised to “assist local education agencies in identifying
It proclaimed that “scientifically based reading research effective and empirically-validated instruction methods by
has identified five essential components of effective read- releasing a list of materials that meet the broad framework
ing instruction. To ensure that children learn to read well, of SBRR” (p. 16). The proposal focused not only on what
explicit and systematic instruction must be provided in to teach but also on how to teach, pledging reading instruc-
[those] five areas.” (p. 3). It prescribed the amount of tion in an uninterrupted block of at least 90 minutes daily;
time to be allocated to reading instruction: “a protected, careful and deliberate sequencing of skills; explicit and
uninterrupted block of time … of more than 90 minutes challenging instruction that requires of students a deeper
per day” (p. 6). It defined the components of a required and more robust understanding of the skills, structure,
assessment system: and processes associated with reading; and flexible and
fluid instructional groupings that provide opportunities
A high-quality, effective reading program must include
rigorous assessments with proven validity and reliability. for more intensive and strategic reading instruction. The
These assessments must measure progress in the five es- Pennsylvania Application for Reading First Funds promised
sential components of reading instruction … and identify that Reading First schools would be “required to develop
students who may be at risk for reading failure or who are comprehensive, prevention-oriented screening, diagnostic,
already experiencing reading difficulty. A reading program and classroom-based instructional assessments that are used
must include screening assessments, diagnostic assessments to guide instruction and to develop flexible, homogeneous
and classroom-based instructional assessments of progress. groupings of students” (p. 19), and specified that “Read-
(U.S. Department of Education, 2002a, p. 7) ing First schools in Pennsylvania [would…] use a portion
of their funds to implement the Dynamic Indicators of
Moreover, it defined the elements of an effective state-level,
Basic Literacy Skills (DIBELS) as the screening and the
district-level, and school-level professional development
progress monitoring assessments” (p. 35). Finally, the
plan.
proposal specified that each Reading First school would
Well-designed professional development aligns clearly have a designated reading or literacy coach to “ensure that
with the instructional program, including its research base, there is high fidelity in the implementation of assessment
as well as with State academic and performance standards. and reading instruction in classrooms [through] on-going
… Professional development must prepare all teachers to and in-classroom support” (pp. 40–41).
teach all of the essential components of reading instruc-
tion, and to know how they are related, the progression in Outcomes of Reading First Policy Implementation in
which they should be taught, and the underlying structure Pennsylvania From 2003 to 2009, Rita Bean, Naomi
of the English language. Teachers also must understand
Zigmond, and colleagues at the University of Pittsburgh
why some children have difficulty learning to read well
were engaged in a third-party evaluation of the Pennsyl-
and learn how to administer and interpret assessments of
student progress. Professional development should also vania Reading First initiative. We were contracted to do a
prepare teachers to effectively manage their classrooms program evaluation, to track changes in student achieve-
and to maximize time on task. (U.S. Department of Edu- ment on high stakes statewide accountability assessments
cation, 2002a, p. 7) associated with the implementation of Reading First in
Pennsylvania schools, to study the degree of implementation
Reading First defined a role for reading or literacy coaches of RF elements in schools that received RF funding, and to
in school-based professional development. “Adequate time document the state role in leading the RF initiative across
must be available for teachers to learn new concepts and the Commonwealth. For this chapter, the PA Reading First
to practice what they have learned. Coaches … provide External Evaluation provides the platform from which we
feedback as new concepts are put into practice” (U.S. De- can discuss the ways in which federal policy has influenced
partment of Education, 2002a, p. 7). And it required state instruction. It also serves as an example of how factors other
applications for Reading First funding to “satisfactorily than research (e.g., social pressures, politics, and the local
address all program requirements before the Department context) contribute to the enactment of education policy in
awards funds to States” (p. 8). schools. In the course of our work we have recorded a high
 Policy, Research, and Reading First 467

degree of compliance in implementing the key elements of Reading First called for yearly implementation of a
Reading First in the 160-plus schools representing 32 school screening measure, a brief procedure designed as a first step
districts and 3 charter schools across the Commonwealth of in identifying children who may be at high risk for delayed
Pennsylvania (Reading First Data Online, 2008). And we development or academic failure and in need of further
have seen significant increases in the proportion of third diagnosis of their need for special services or additional
graders in Reading First schools attaining proficiency on reading instruction. Reading First schools were to recognize
the statewide accountability assessment (Zigmond & Bean, the importance of utilizing early literacy assessment tools
2008). But we have also documented some unanticipated to improve decision making regarding curriculum design
findings that lead us to question the “scientific” foundations and instructional practice.
of some of the Reading First mandates and to question the Timely identification depends on the availability of valid
translation of some of this scientific research into education and reliable screening measures of core reading skills that
policy. We report findings on the implementation of three are predictive of later reading achievement and that can
facets of Reading First in Pennsylvania. In each example, guide the development of high intensity interventions in the
we begin with the “research-based” assertion found in the classroom. Based on the outcomes of the screening process
Reading First Guidance document (U.S. Department of in the fall, students would be grouped into one of three tiers
Education, 2002a) and a statement of the research that was of reading instruction: Tier 1-progressing as expected, Tier
provided to undergird the suggested policy. 2-requires moderate intervention, or Tier 3-requires substan-
Our work did not start out as “policy research” but like tial and intensive intervention to both catch up and prevent
many literacy researchers (see Valencia & Wixson, 2000), future failure. Tier placement would guide differentiated
we found ourselves drawn into work that can, in fact, inform instruction and groupings would be flexible enough to allow
future policy. In our evaluation data on how federal Reading for students to be regrouped for instruction based on their
First policy has been implemented in Pennsylvania we find subsequent winter and spring scores.
reason to challenge the assertion that, “Quite simply, Read- The Dynamic Indicators of Early Literacy Skills (Good
ing First focuses on what works, and … support[s] proven & Kaminski, 2002) had been developed to meet just this
methods” (U.S. Department of Education, 2002a, p. 1). need. It is a low-stakes measure of early literacy skills that
purportedly could be used to predict student performance
Universal Screening to Prevent Reading Failure on high-stakes outcome measures (Kaminski & Good, 1996;
Assertion 1: “Screening assessments determine which Good et al., 2001.) The DIBELS are a series of subtests mea-
children are at risk for reading difficulty and need suring the foundational reading skills of phonological and
additional support” (U.S. Department of Education, phonemic awareness, alphabetic principle, and oral reading
2002a, p. 7). fluency. The DIBELS benchmark assessments administered
Research-to-policy: A screening measure like the DI- three or four times each year (approximately every 12 to 13
BELS can be used to identify students at risk for weeks) are designed to indicate which students are falling
reading failure, target those students for immediate behind early enough in their school careers to change their
interventions, and prevent reading failure by third reading trajectories (Good et al., 2001). For Pennsylvania
grade. Reading First schools, DIBELS was recommended as the
foundation for instructional decision making; teachers
Federal reading policy, as articulated in Reading First, would use DIBELS screening scores to make grouping
charged schools with the daunting task of developing and resource allocation decisions including increased
school-wide reading assessment and intervention systems instructional time, additional instructional personnel, and
beginning in the early grades to prevent reading failure differentiated instructional plans.
from taking hold. Policy makers were responding to re- A longitudinal analysis of three years of Pennsylvania
search evidence that reading failure can be prevented if it Reading First data (2004–2006) examined whether the use
is identified and treated early (National Institute of Child of DIBELS in an assessment model that leads to grouping
Health and Human Development, 2000; National Research and instructional changes three times per year reliably
Council, 1998). Several authors had determined that with identifies first grade students at-risk for reading failure
appropriate intervention, the reading performance of low- and those who are not, as measured by end-of-third-grade
performing and at-risk students could reach grade-level achievement on the Pennsylvania System of School Assess-
expectations within the first three years of school, and ment (PSSA; Kloo, 2006). Kloo examined the predictive
on-grade-level performance could be sustained through- relationship between first grade students’ early achieve-
out successive grade levels (Chard & Kame’enui, 2000; ment on DIBELS subtests and their later achievement on
Coyne, Kame’enui, & Simmons, 2001; Good, Simmons, & the DIBELS oral reading fluency subtest and the Reading
Kame’enui, 2001; Torgeson, 2000; Torgeson et al., 2001). portion of the third grade PSSA. Prediction variables in-
In other words, identification and intensive intervention cluded students’ risk status in first grade (indicated by their
early in a student’s career could positively alter an estab- proficiency classification on the fall Phoneme Segmentation
lished reading trajectory (National Research Council, 1998; Fluency (PSF), fall Nonsense Word Fluency (NWF), and
Torgeson et al., 2001). winter Oral Reading Fluency (ORF subtests)) as well as
468 Naomi Zigmond, Rita Bean, Amanda Kloo, and Melissa Brydon

TABLE 40.1
2004–2006 Longitudinal Relationship between First Grade Predictors and Third Grade Outcomes in PA Round 1 and
Round 2 Reading First Schools
1st Grade Measures Third GRADE ORF Third GRADE PSSA
Correlation Combined Unique Correlation Combined Unique
Explained Explained Explained Explained
Variance Variance Variance Variance
Winter DIBELS ORF .38 .15 * .39 * .40 .16 * .39 *
Fall DIBELS NWF .41 .17 * .15 * .42 .18 * .13 *
Fall DIBELS PSF .42 .18 * .08 * .42 .18 .03
Student SES .45 .20 * .13 * .44 .19 * .13 *
Student Minority Status .48 .23 * .15 * .45 .20 * .09 *
School .50 .25 * .13 * _ _ _
* Significant at the p < . 01 level.

school, minority status, and socioeconomic status (SES) to The goal of the federal Reading First initiative was to
further explain variability in achievement outcomes. increase our country’s literate population. Policy makers
Table 40.1 provides the correlations and explained vari- drew on a preventive medicine model and the experimen-
ance (combined and unique) for each first grade variable to tal work of NICHD researchers to combat reading failure
each third grade outcome. Students’ first-grade performance through early screenings and intervention. Struggling
on the winter ORF subtest was more predictive of end-of- readers would be caught early and through early interven-
third grade performance on the DIBELS ORF than first tions, no child would be left behind. In seeking a simple
grade performance on the fall NWF or PSF subtests. But, solution (find them and fix them) to a complex problem
despite their statistical significance, first grade DIBELS (underachievement in third grade), policy makers did not
scores explained only 15% of the variance in students’ foresee the limited predictive value of the early screening
third-grade ORF scores; 85% of the remaining variance measure then available, the DIBELS, to indicate students’
was left unexplained. Ultimately, the combination of all long-term reading achievement (Kloo, 2006). They did
variables (i.e., first grade DIBELS fall/winter scores; mi- not question whether the components assessed in DIBELS
nority status; SES; school) explained only one-quarter of were the critical components, whether schools would be
the variability in end-of-third grade DIBELS ORF scores. able to use the results of the DIBELS in meaningful ways,
And, the significance of this combined prediction must be or whether prescriptions to teach the constrained skills
interpreted with caution, because of the large number of measured in DIBELS (Paris, 2005) would actually lead to
students in the analyses (n = 9,685). long-term gains. Instead, they mandated an over-reliance
Backward elimination techniques were used to determine on simple (short and quick) benchmark assessments in an
the practical significance of each predictor in the regression early intervention framework that had yet to be proven ef-
model. These results suggested that students’ achievement fective in a large-scale implementation.
on the DIBELS ORF subtest in January of first grade was
uniquely moderately predictive of their third grade ORF Closing the Achievement Gap for English Language
achievement (.39). The NWF and PSF subtests were far Learners
less predictive (.15, and .08, respectively). In fact, students’ Assertion 2: An eligible local educational agency that
race, minority status, and school of attendance explained receives a Reading First sub grant must use the funds
more of the variance in third grade ORF scores than first [for] selection and implementation of a program of
graders’ ability to segment phonemes. reading instruction based on scientifically based read-
Similar results were obtained for the analysis of stu- ing research that includes the essential components of
dents’ early first grade DIBELS scores and their eventual reading instruction and provides such instruction to
third-grade achievement on the higher stakes PSSA. Data children in kindergarten through grade 3 … includ-
suggest that the DIBELS measures administered in first ing children… identified as having limited English
grade were generally not predictive of third grade reading proficiency (U.S. Department of Education, 2002a,
achievement for students in these Reading First schools. pp. 31–32).
Overall, the DIBELS reading subtests designed to be indica- Research-to-Policy: What we have learned from research
tors of students’ overall reading “well being” in first grade about best-practices in teaching reading to native
together explained only 18% of the variance in third grade English speakers who are struggling readers applies
PSSA Reading scores. First grade winter ORF explained equally well to teaching underachieving English
the largest amount of variance (.39) compared to the other language learners. Research-based reading instruction
DIBELS subtests and demographic variables when unique is research-based reading instruction; good teaching
contributions were examined. is good teaching.
 Policy, Research, and Reading First 469

An ever-growing number of school age children in the within their third grade data set; in some schools English
United States come from families where English is not the language learners constituted more than one-half of the
primary language spoken in the home. Between 1979 and third-grade class.
1999, the number of language-minority students in the At the start of Reading First (spring 2004), only 14%
United States nearly doubled from 6 million to 14 million, of the 1,070 third-grade English language learners in RF
respectively (Kindler, 2002). Some researchers estimate that schools scored in the range of Proficient or Advanced on
by the year 2050, the percentage of children in the United the Pennsylvania System of School Assessment, the PSSA,
States who arrive at school speaking a language other than and 67% scored in the below basic range. Among minority
English will reach 40%. Various national studies have also students in Reading First schools, the percent of proficient
indicated that these second language learners are demon- third graders in 2004 was 32.3% and among Caucasian
strating significantly lower levels of academic achievement students it was 60.1%. Four years later, in spring of 2008,
as compared to native English-speaking students in the the percentage of English language learners scoring in the
United States. Among students who speak English as the Proficient range on the third grade accountability test had
primary language in the home, 10% failed to finish high increased to 40.9%, still well below the percent of Cauca-
school in 2004, in comparison to 51% of language-minority sian native speakers (73.3%) or minority native speakers
students who speak English with difficulty (National Center (52.3%) scoring at or above Proficiency (see Figure 40.1)
for Education Statistics, 2004). Specific to reading achieve- but a significant improvement none the less. The percent-
ment, it has been estimated that less than 20% of English age of ELL students scoring in the below basic range was
language learners scored above the state-established norm reduced to 20%. A plot of the changes in percent proficient
in at least 25 states (Kindler, 2002). Because of the continu- over time shows that, after a slow start, the ELL subgroup
ing increase in the number of language-minority students had a steeper trajectory of growth (slope = +7.3% per
in U.S. public schools and their generally low levels of year) than both Caucasian native speakers (slope = +3.4%
overall academic achievement and attainment of literacy per year) and minority native speakers (slope = +5.0% per
skills, English language learners (ELLs) were included as year).
one of the disaggregated subgroups specifically targeted Furthermore, for all three subgroups of third graders,
in Reading First. the greater their exposure to Reading First, the higher the
In the Pennsylvania Reading First implementation, there students’ achievement. Table 40.2 provides a recalculation
were just over 1,000 third graders designated as English of the third grade achievement data by the number of years
language learners at the start of Reading First in 2003–04; in a Reading First school. For all three subgroups, students
the number increased to over 1,400 by 2007–08. These who have been in a Reading First school for Grades 1, 2,
students constituted a disproportionately high percentage of and 3 perform significantly higher on the end-of-third-grade
Reading First third graders (9.9% to 12.6%, respectively); test than students who spent only 2 years in a Reading First
across the state, only 1.8% of third-grade students taking the school or students who entered a Reading First school for
PSSA were designated as ELL in 2008. English language the first time in third grade. The ELL subgroup shows the
learners attended only 78 of the 159 Reading First schools greatest effects of time in Reading First.
in 2003–04, 90 of the schools in 2007–08. Some of these The very positive outcome data on English language
schools had only one or two English language learners learners in Pennsylvania Reading First was encouraging,

80

70

60

50

40

30

20

10

0
2004 2005 2006 2007 2008

ELL 14 12.9 17.7 32.3 40.9

White not ELL 60.1 60.6 62.9 67.7 73.3

Minority not ELL 32.3 36.1 39.5 46.5 52.3

Figure 40.1 Percent of third grade students proficient on PSSA by subgroup and year.
470 Naomi Zigmond, Rita Bean, Amanda Kloo, and Melissa Brydon

TABLE 40.2
Scaled Score Performance of Third Graders by Subgroup and Years of Exposure to Reading First Instruction
ELL White not ELL Minority not ELL F, p
# M SD # M SD # M SD
1 year in RF 1,765 1092.8 270.3 2,386 1284.9 215.6 7,455 1192.3 222.4 F(2,3814) = 49.88
p < .001
2 years in RF 986 1144.8 183.7 2,183 1301.0 202.6 6,240 1209.4 187.5 F(2,8453)=18.5
p < .001
3 years in RF 1.246 1174.0 165.7 4,002 1315.4 172.6 8,509 1219.5 180.4 F(2,21850)=37.32
p < .001

though surprising. According to some researchers, we instruction… [The] delivery mechanisms should
currently know rather little about reading instruction for include the use of coaches who provide feedback
English language learners (McCardle, Mele-McCarthy, & as instructional strategies are put into practice (US
Leos, 2005). The few studies that have examined the use of Department of Education, 2002a, p. 26).
explicit, systematic phonics, fluency, or comprehension in- Research-to-Policy: Job-embedded professional devel-
struction with English language learners have shown mixed opment, delivered by a reading coach hired specifi-
results (e.g., Denton, Anthony, Parker, & Hasbrouck, 2004). cally to work with teachers, will result in changes in
Past research has also shown that some English language classroom instruction and an improvement in school
learners who respond well to supplemental reading inter- reading performance.
ventions do not continue to thrive in the general education
classroom after supplemental services are discontinued. Reading First required State Education Agencies to
Beginning in the spring of 2002, a panel of 13 experts design professional development programs “to ensure that
in second-language development, cognitive development, all teachers have the skills they need to teach [reading] ef-
curriculum and instruction, assessment, and methodology fectively” (U.S. Department of Education, 2002a, p. 1) and
was formed to review the available research on the develop- “that “professional development be an ongoing, continuous
ment of literacy skills in language-minority students. The activity, and not consist of ‘one-shot’ workshops or lectures”
goal of this National Literacy Panel on Language-Minority (p. 26). In doing so, federal education policy was drawing
Children and Youth (August & Shanahan, 2006) was to on the growing research evidence that quality teaching
“identify, assess, and synthesize research on the education contributes to enhanced student achievement (see Rivkin,
of language-minority children and youth with respect to Hanushek, & Kain, 1998; Sanders & Horn, 1998), that
their attainment of literacy, and to produce a comprehen- “teacher effectiveness is the major factor influencing student
sion report evaluating and synthesizing this literature” (p. academic gains” (Sanders & Horn, 1998, p. 225), and that
xiv). Following two rounds of external reviews and numer- professional development requires extensive support and
ous drafts, the report was made available in 2006, but not extended periods of training (NRP, 2000). In addition, “best
without criticism and controversy regarding its release to practices” in professional development had been found to
the public. include an emphasis on the content or subject matter being
One of the key findings of the report is that research taught; active, in depth learning opportunities over time;
that examines the acquisition of literacy skills in a second alignment of teachers’ learning opportunities with their
language continues to be extremely limited and the long- real work experiences; and teachers working together in
term effects of systematic and explicit instruction based communities of learning (see American Educational Re-
on the core elements of an effective reading program for search Association, 2005; Desimone, Porter, Garet, Yoon,
English language learners still needs to be determined & Birman, 2002: Richardson & Placier, 2001; Sparks &
(Linan-Thompson, Vaughn Prater, & Cirino, 2006). Nev- Loucks-Horsley, 1990).
ertheless, years earlier, Congress had set education policy To accomplish its professional development objectives,
that required schools to use “scientifically based” reading Reading First sanctioned the role of the school-based
research in teaching these and other ‘special needs’ students literacy coach. Although literacy coaching was not spe-
and to demonstrate improvements in student achievement cifically mentioned in the Reading First legislation, the
they had no scientific basis to expect. In Pennsylvania, the Guidance for the Reading First Program (US Department
use of such scientifically based instruction has seemed to of Education, 2002a) suggests that school-based coaches
make a difference for the ELL students in Reading First could play a critical role in providing teachers with the in-
schools. depth professional development that would enable them to
teach using scientifically based reading research. Literacy
Coaching Teachers to Change Instructional Practices and or reading coaches would be right there in the school de-
Increase Student Achievement veloping and implementing workshops in which teachers
Assertion 3: Professional development… will prepare could learn new skills and information and providing the
teachers in all the essential components of reading ongoing support that would assure implementation of the
 Policy, Research, and Reading First 471

new knowledge and skills in teachers’ classrooms. In other RF schools in Pennsylvania were no exception. The
words, those writing about professional development for Pennsylvania Reading first grant required schools to employ
the RF guidance document made an inferential leap from a coach whose workload would consist of no more than 24
evidence about best practices for effective professional teachers although the grant did not specify criteria for quali-
development to making the suggestion that schools might fications and job descriptions; these details were left to the
want to employ coaches to implement the PD for teachers districts. In the course of our evaluation of Reading First in
in Reading First schools. Research evidence about effects Pennsylvania, we required coaches to submit daily logs of
of professional development is limited, however. In the their activities during three weeks in the fall, three weeks in
Report of the National Reading Panel (NRP, 2000), only 21 the winter, and three weeks in the spring, so that we could
studies met the criteria for inclusion, although the results document the ways in which coachers were providing the
of most of those did indicate positive teacher and student ongoing, job-embedded professional development called for
outcomes. However, the focus of the NRP analyses was in the Reading First plan. Then, we summarized coaches’
on duration and content rather than on the actual delivery logs of activities into five major categories: (a) working
mechanism (workshops, coaching, etc.). In a more recent with teachers (one-on-one coaching); (b) school level
review of professional development for the What Works coaching (group coaching and outreach); (c) direct service
Clearinghouse (WWC), only nine studies of 1,300 identified to students (instruction and assessment); (d) administrative
as potentially eligible met WWC standards (Yoon, Duncan, and clerical work; and (e) personal growth as a coach. In
Lee, Scarloss, & Shapley, 2007). All nine studies included Table 40.3 we present the coaching data for the 2006–07
workshops or summer institutes and all but one had follow- school year. Reading First coaches allocated a little more
up activities ranging from discussions and conversations, to than one-third of their effort to coaching (teacher level:
some modeling and observations. Results of the nine studies 19.3%; school level: 17.6%). In other words, in a 40-hour
indicated that duration was an important factor; when there week, coaches were spending the equivalent of about 15
were more than 14 hours of professional development, there hours a week or 3 hours a day in activities we considered
was a positive and significant effect on student achievement. to represent coaching. The remainder of their time was
However, given the variability in study designs, it was dif- spent doing administrative/clerical work (33.0%), providing
ficult to draw any conclusions about specific patterns or direct service to students (19.4%), or attending professional
characteristics of effective PD. Rather, results from Yoon development sessions (10.8%). Our finding, that coaches are
and colleagues indicated the need for more rigorous stud- not spending the majority of their time coaching, has been
ies about professional development, especially about its reported in other studies of coaching. In a report from the
relationship to student achievement. It is clear that when Regional Educational Laboratory (Yoon et al., 2007), Read-
Reading First was written into law, there was little empirical ing First coaches across five states spent only 26% of their
evidence about coaching, or how it should be defined, or workweek actually coaching (Deussen, Coskie, Robinson,
what its links are to teacher practice and student learning. & Autio, 2007). Similar time data were reported in studies
And those who wrote about coaching in the early years of coaches in initiatives other than Reading First (Coggins,
of Reading First admitted that there was little in the way Stoddard, & Cutler, 2003; Feldman & Tung, 2002; Marsh
of scientifically based evidence about particulars like the et al, 2008). And in a survey conducted by the International
necessary qualifications for coaches, activities that appear Reading Association (Roller, 2006), the greatest percentage
essential, and outcomes on teacher practices and student of coaches who responded indicated that they spent 2 to 4
effects (Snow, Ippolito, & Schwartz, 2006). Nevertheless, hours per week in coaching-like tasks.
states across the country adopted coaches and coaching as We also surveyed teachers in Reading First schools about
the approach to use for improving instructional practices their experiences with the school-based literacy coach. We
in reading. received responses from approximately 1,800 teachers dur-

TABLE 40.3
How Coaches Allocate Their Time in Reading First Schools (n = 146)
Activity Mean % time SD Activity Mean % time SD
Teacher Level Direct Service
C/T conference 4.42 8.22 Instruct 7.84 14.74
Observe 6.79 12.97 Assess 11.57 19.36
Co-Teach 4.84 10.89 Admin/Clerical
Model 3.20 8.75 Data 5.82 11.64
School Level Plan/Org 11.24 15.42
Meeting (group) 14.13 22.16 Admin 15.89 18.15
Conduct PD 1.72 9.44 Personal PD 10.83 29.11
Outreach 1.72 8.03
472 Naomi Zigmond, Rita Bean, Amanda Kloo, and Melissa Brydon

ing each of two years (2006–07, 2007–08), a response rate going, subject-specific professional development (Guskey,
of 83% and 89%, respectively, representing teachers in more 2000), there are few studies that provide the database needed
than 95% of the schools involved in Pennsylvania Reading to understand what literacy coaching is, how it should be
First. In both years, most teachers reported that coaches conducted, when, and with whom, or to link coaching to
talked with them informally and worked with them in grade short-term or long-term effects on teacher practices and
level team meetings; fewer than 10% of the teacher respon- student achievement. Instead, “literacy coaching is being
dents indicated that coaches never participated with them widely implemented based on its convergence with theory
in those activities. In contrast, approximately 60% of the and the wisdom of practitioners, before rigorous evaluations
teachers indicated that coaches never co-taught with them have been carried out” (Snow et al., 2006, p. 36).
and 30% or more indicated that coaches never observed, Our point is that there was little basis in research to
modeled, or assisted in planning (see Figure 40.2). support Reading First’s embrace of coaches as the primary
The data indicate that most teachers perceived that source of professional development for teachers. Neverthe-
coaches worked with them in group meetings, most often less, coaching became “very hot” (Cassidy & Cassidy, 2008,
grade level meetings, but did not spend time with them in p. 1), and having a coach became the potential solution for
the classroom, modeling, co-teaching, watching, and giving educational ills. It became policy although there was little
feedback. We conclude that coaches must be targeting their to no scientific evidence of who should be hired, what those
efforts, working individually with only a few, specific teach- coaches should do, and with whom.
ers rather than with all the K–3 teachers in their school. In Pennsylvania Reading First schools, student achieve-
These data are a reminder that research on literacy ment did improve even though coaches were not spending
coaching is in its infancy. Indeed, in a recent review of the majority of their time on tasks generally considered to
the literature on literacy coaching from 1992–2007, Bean, be coaching, and many K–3 teachers reported never experi-
Belcastro, Hathaway, Risko, Roskos, & Rosemary (2008) encing observations or feedback from their coach (Zigmond
found only 28 studies published in peer-reviewed journals & Bean, 2008). Coaching may be an appropriate model
that met their criteria for high quality research. Sixteen of for improving teacher practices and student achievement,
these studies addressed peer coaching, not the model of but at this time we have little evidence as to what it is that
coaching advocated in Reading First or other current initia- coaches do that makes a difference, or how their presence
tives. Only three included measures of student achievement. interacts with other variables in the school that might also
For example, in a recent report of middle school coaches in contribute to improving teaching and learning.
Florida, Marsh et al. (2008) found that teachers and prin-
cipals were very supportive of coaches and believed that
Beyond Pennsylvania: The National Impact Study of
these coaches had positive effects on them and their school,
Reading First
but there were mixed results about the impact of coaching
on student achievement. Research currently underway (see The Pennsylvania Reading First evaluation data showed
Bianacrosa, Bryk, & Dexter, 2008) may help educators remarkable growth in students’ reading achievement in
understand better the potential and power of coaching but Reading First schools especially at the third-grade level
the empirical evidence is not yet available. (Zigmond & Bean, 2008). In fact, third-grade achievement
So, although the idea of coaching is consistent with re- in Pennsylvania Reading First schools improved at a faster
search evidence about the importance of job-embedded, on- rate than in non-Reading First schools across the Com-

70.00
60.00
50.00
40.00
30.00
20.00
10.00
0.00 2006-07
RF coach visits to
observe class

RF coach assists in
planning lessons

RF coach models
instructional techniques

RF coach and I co-teach

RF coach helps
assess students

RF coach works with

grade level teachers

RF coach and I
talk informally

2007-08

Figure 40.2 Percent of teachers indicating coach activity that never occurs.
 Policy, Research, and Reading First 473

monwealth. But it would be incorrect to conclude that these was flawed, that the focus of Reading First on instruction
positive outcomes were obtained by translating research into in explicit pre-reading/reading skills was too narrow, and
policy—and policy into school practice. Quite the contrary, that the notion that improved decoding and fluency would
many policy guidelines in Reading First were based on lim- automatically lead to better comprehension was not sup-
ited or incomplete research evidence. Legislation and policy ported in research. Supporters of Reading First focused on
were influenced more by the interpretations of research the limited value of the study and its findings for policy
by those in positions of power or those who were trusted makers and practitioners. They point out that the RFIS did
by legislators than by actual scientifically based empirical not use a random control treatment design; instead, it used
findings. It should come as no surprise, therefore, that two a regression discontinuity design in which schools within
national studies of Reading First, a survey conducted by the a district were matched (e.g., non-RF schools that were
Center for Education Policy and a congressionally mandated similar to RF schools were identified for the study). Because
evaluation of Reading First (the Reading First Impact Study, the research design compared RF and non-RF schools
RFIS), produced equivocal results. within districts, there was no control for contamination or
“bleed-over” of the intervention strategies between RF and
State and Local Education Officials Cite Reading First non-RF schools. Districts that received RF funding often
Policies as Important in Lifting Achievement for Struggling
encouraged all schools within the district to use the assess-
Schools (Center for Education Policy, 2007)
ment and instructional practices supported by RF. In fact,
Federal Path for Reading Questioned: Reading First Poor districts were encouraged to do so within the Reading First
Results Offer Limited Guidance (Education Week, 2008) guidelines (U.S. Department of Education, 2002b).
In addition to the contamination effects, there was no
The first headline, above, summarizes findings from the control for treatment variability although RF was imple-
survey by the Center for Education Policy of officials in mented in many different contexts, with differing degrees
states and districts that had received Reading First monies. of fidelity to the design promulgated by the federal policy,
Overall, these officials were very positive about the impact then interpreted by states, and reinterpreted by districts. As
of Reading First on both teachers and students. But the sec- Foorman commented in Education Week (Manzo, 2008, p.
ond headline highlights the disappointing student outcomes 1), “my one complaint about this evaluation is that its design
in the Reading First Impact Study (RFIS) conducted by Abt was powered to ask a limited question (Does RF work on
Associates with MDRC and Westat (Gamse, Jacob, Horst, average?) rather than the contextual question of: Under
Boulay, & Unlu, 2008). The RFIS examined the impact of what conditions does RF work and why?” An answer to this
Reading First funding on 248 schools, 125 of which were second question would have enabled educators and policy
Reading First schools (in 13 states, in a total of 17 school makers to determine how to make necessary changes in pro-
districts and one statewide program); it includes data from gram design and implementation. In a similar vein, Francis
3 years (2004–05, 2005–06, and 2006–07) of the 6-year (2008) called for evaluations that lead to an understanding
Reading First initiative (2002–08). of the factors that influence treatment effectiveness, such
The results of the national RFIS study were as follows: as “number of RF schools that an LEA is trying to serve,
When compared with non-Reading First schools, there the grade-level configuration of the school, the number
was a statistically significant increase in the Reading First of schools served by an individual reading coach, and the
schools of the amount of instructional time spent on the five degree to which assessments are used to inform instruction”
essential components of reading instruction in Grades 1 and (p. 11). To the Francis list, we would add such factors as
2. Also, Reading First produced a positive and statistically school leadership and its commitment to RF; proportions
significant impact on multiple practices promoted by the of high-poverty and low-achieving students in the building;
initiative (i.e., coaching support, professional development, annual teacher, principal, and coach turnover; and numbers
amount of reading instruction, and intervention support for of years that the school has functioned as a Reading First
struggling readers). First graders in Reading First schools school. And like Francis (2008), we would want to parcel
scored significantly better than their peers in comparison out the effects on student achievement of experiencing a
schools on a measure of decoding. However, Reading First Reading First education for 1, 2, or 3 years.
did not produce a statistically significant impact on student In its response to the Reading First Interim Report
reading comprehension test scores in first, second, or third (Gamse, Bloom, Kemple, & Jacob, 2008), the Reading
grade (Gamse, Jacob, et al., 2008). First Federal Advisory Committee (2008) made several
These results have been met with disappointment and recommendations about the future of Reading First: they
consternation among policy makers who had expected urged Congress and other policy makers to seek and analyze
that the infusion of billions of dollars and a prescriptive data from multiple sources about the effectiveness of RF; to
set of regulations would show significant improvements in recognize the limitations of the National Impact Study; and
third-grade reading comprehension/achievement. Critics to incorporate the necessary funds for rigorous evaluations
of Reading First used the results of the national impact of future legislation. Instead, Congress has slashed funding
study to support their views that the basic tenet of Read- for Reading First, and some in Congress have proposed
ing First, to teach five essential components of reading, that the Reading First initiative be eliminated from future
474 Naomi Zigmond, Rita Bean, Amanda Kloo, and Melissa Brydon

funding authorizations, although this reaction appears to may provide not only more evidence of the effectiveness of
have been influenced as much by the many controversies Reading First, but also evidence about the factors that deter-
surrounding program management and implementation as mine its successes and or failures. History tells us, however,
by the data presented in the Impact Study report (Gamse, that policy makers will not wait for these additional sources
Jacob, et al., 2008). of data. Rather, they have been and will be influenced by
the results of the one major study, by the conversations they
have with influential lobby groups or with knowledgeable
Research to Policy to Implementation
individuals whom they trust, and by the pressures that come
Research to Policy Since the enactment of No Child Left from their own constituents. Moreover, they will need to fit
Behind, there has been overwhelming support at the federal educational funding demands with other pressing concerns
level for “research that applies rigorous, systematic and related to the economy, to national security, and to the priori-
objective procedures to obtain valid knowledge relevant to ties set by a new administration in Washington.
reading development, reading instruction, and reading diffi-
culties” (US Department of Education, 2002a, p. 3). Making Policy to Implementation Policy making in education is
a clear distinction between most educational research and not like prescribing a pill. Educational policy implementa-
“scientifically based reading research,” policy makers are tion is a complex social process. For example, Coburn (2006)
calling for experimental research designs with randomized conducted a year-long ethnographic study of one school’s
controls as the “gold standard” for obtaining results that can response to the California Reading Initiative. Her position
inform What Works Clearinghouse (WWC) recommenda- was that local schools and educators are also policy makers,
tions. Pearson (2004) criticizes this singular approach to given that “their decisions and actions shape how policies
research, claiming that “reading research can never be play out in practice” (p. 344). Coburn’s findings provided
truly rigorous, indeed truly scientific, until and unless it ample evidence that the teachers and the principal of this one
privileges all of the empirical and theoretical methodologies school were instrumental in defining how a specific policy
that characterize the scientific disciplines” (p. 234). Pearson about reading instruction unfolded. Teachers and principals
compares educational research with research in the medical participated in a set of activities that helped them negotiate
profession, noting that random trials in medicine are used how the policy would be enacted in their school. Although
only after researchers have utilized a wider range of meth- the principal had a great deal of influence, her influence was
odologies such as observation, case studies, and “just plain mediated by her ability to construct ideas that resonated with
messing around” (p. 234). Pearson also asserts that the road a number of teachers. And the voices of teachers—especially
from research to policy is a treacherous one. First, policy grade level teams and informal networks—also affected
makers use research in a selective, uneven, or opportunistic decision making at that school. According to Coburn (2006,
manner. Second, some science is more important than other p. 373), “both formal and informal organizational structures
science. And third, when research findings aren’t definitive, matter” in understanding how policies are implemented on
ideology and belief may become privileged. the ground. Indeed, often initiatives are characterized by a
In other words, as mentioned previously, policy makers process of mutual adaptation that is based on local factors,
are seldom guided by research findings alone, and Reading including the beliefs and perspectives of teachers within a
First is a good case in point. For one thing, policy makers local site (McLaughlin, 1990).
and researchers operate on a different time frame, creat-
ing an “uneasy relationship” between research and policy
Conclusions
(Hess, 2008, p. 8). Policy makers often need quick answers
to complex questions; researchers work at a slow, steady We chose to focus on the story of Reading First as an ex-
pace, looking for consistencies and convergence in their ample of how research, politics, and social pressures from
findings. For another, as politicians, policy makers must be individuals as well as groups interact to influence how
sensitive to the demands of their constituents and of special educational policy is made and how it is enacted. Reading
interest groups that attempt to sway their thinking. Policy First is one of the most comprehensive, far-reaching, well
is often the outcome of many competing interests (Hess, funded, and controversial legislative actions undertaken by
2008, p. 2) with “policymakers primarily use[ing] research Congress; it was designed to promote a specific approach
to support their existing political positions” (McDonnell, to reading instruction, reading assessment, and professional
2008, p. viii). development for teachers. We tried to illustrate how sweep-
As educational researchers, our hope is that additional ing generalizations about grounding policy in research can
impact reports of Reading First implementations in indi- be misleading, and how policy that may be well intentioned
vidual schools, districts, or states will provide important does not always produce the intended results.
data about Reading First, its strengths, and its limitations. We draw four conclusions from our research. First,
Achievement data are available at the state level, given education policy matters for all students, but especially for
that every state has been required to complete and submit those with reading difficulties: students with learning dis-
an evaluation report at the end of each year. As individual abilities, students-of-color, those whose primary language
evaluations differ in designs and measures, these state data is not English, and students living in poverty have all been
 Policy, Research, and Reading First 475

affected by policies generated by local, state, and federal can mean many things: Five categories of literacy coaches in Reading
governments. It would appear that the climate created by First. ERIC #:497517
Federal Register. (2002, April 2). CFDA 84.357 Reading First—Applica-
placing an emphasis or focus on achieving a particular tions for State Grants, Volume 67, No. 63, p. 15553.
goal—in this case, the goal of making certain that all Feldman J., & Tung, S. (2002). The role of external facilitators in whole
students improve their reading performance—is impor- school reform: Teachers’ perceptions of how coaches influence school
tant. Second, policy is affected by many factors; scientific change. Boston: Center of Collaborative Education. (ERIC Document
knowledge is one of them, but often pressures from special Reproduction Service No. ED470680).
Foorman, B. R., Francis, D. J., Fletcher, J. M., Schatschneider, C., &
interest groups and individuals can affect the interpretation Mehta, P. (1998). The role of instruction in learning to read: Prevent-
of such knowledge and influence how policy is enacted ing failure in at-risk children. Journal of Educational Psychology,
and implemented. Third, in its implementation at local 90(1), 37–55.
levels, policy is influenced by contextual factors such as Francis, D. (2008, June). Reading First impact study: What have we learned
the knowledge, beliefs, and motivations of the implement- and where do we go from here? Paper presented at the Institute of Edu-
cation Sciences Research Conference, Washington, DC, September.
ers. Any evaluation of policy must take into consideration Gamse, B. C., Bloom, H. S., Kemple, J. J., & Jacob, R.T. (2008). Reading
these mediating factors. Finally, we do not already have all First Impact Study: Interim Report (NCEE 2008-4016). Washington,
the answers and much more research is needed, especially DC: National Center for Education Evaluation and Regional Assistance,
research related to struggling readers, to undergird policy Institute of Education Sciences, U.S. Department of Education.
and to determine whether such policy works, for whom, and Gamse, B. C., Jacob, R. T., Horst, M., Boulay, B., & Unlu, F. (2008).
Reading First impact study final report executive summary (NCEE
how. This research, however, will not be informative unless 2009-4039). Washington, DC: National Center for Education Evalu-
policy researchers and researchers interested in learning and ation and Regional Assistance, Institute of Education Sciences, U.S.
instruction work together to generate and communicate the Department of Education.
results of their efforts. Good, R. H., & Kaminski, R. A. (2002). Dynamic indicators of basic
literacy skills. Eugene: University of Oregon..
Good, R. H., Simmons, D. C., & Kame’enui, E. J. (2001). The importance
References and decision-making utility of a continuum of fluency-based indicators
of foundational reading skills for third-grade high-stakes outcomes.
American Educational Research Association. (2005). Teaching teachers: Scientific Studies of Reading, 5(3), 257–288.
Professional development to improve student achievement [Brochure]. Guskey, T. (2000). Evaluating professional development. Thousand Oaks,
Research Points 3(1). CA: Corwin Press.
August D., & Shanahan, T. (2006). Report of the national literacy panel Hess, F. M. (2008). When research matters: How scholarship influences
on language minority children and youth, Philadelphia: Erlbaum education policy. Cambridge, MA: Harvard Education Press.
Biancarosa, G., Bryk, A., & Dexter, E. (2008, March). Assessing the Kamil, M., Mosenthal, P. B., Pearson, P. D., & Barr, R. (2000). Handbook
value-added effects of literacy collaborative professional development of reading research (Vol III). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
on student learning. Paper presented at the Annual Conference of the Kaminski, R. A., & Good, R. H., III. (1996). Toward a technology for
American Educational Research Association, New York City. assessing basic early literacy skills. School Psychology Review, 25(2),
Bean, R., Belcastro, E., Hathaway, J., Risko, V., Roskos, K., & Rosemary, 215–227.
C. (2008, March). Synthesis of research about literacy coaching. Paper Kindler, A. L. (2002). Survey of the states’ limited English proficient stu-
presented at the Annual Conference of the American Educational dents and available educational programs and services. 2001–2002
Research Association, New York City. summary report. Washington, DC: National Clearinghouse for English
Cassidy, J., & Cassidy, D. (2008, February). What’s Hot for 2008? Reading Language Acquisition.
Today, 25(4), 1, 10–11. Kloo, A. (2006). The decision-making utility and predictive power of DI-
Center for Education Policy. (2007). Moving beyond identification: Assist- BELS for students’ reading achievement in Pennsylvania’s reading first
ing schools in improvement. Washington, DC: Author. schools Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Pittsburgh,
Chard, D. J., & Kame’enui, E. J. (2000). Struggling first grade readers: Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania.
The frequency and progress of their reading. Journal of Special Edu- Linan-Thompson, S., Vaughn, S., Prater, K., & Cirino, P. T. (2006). The
cation, 34(1), 28–38. response to intervention of English language learners at risk for reading
Coburn, C. E. (2006). Framing the problem of reading instruction: Using problems. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 39(5), 390–398.
frame analysis to uncover the microprocesses of policy implementa- Lyon, G. R. (1995). Toward a definition of dyslexia. Annals of Dyslexia,
tion. American Educational Research Journal, 43(3), 343–349. 45, 1–27.
Coggins, C. T., Stoddard, P., & Cutler, E. (2003, April). Improving instruc- Lyon R., & Chhabra, V. (1996) The current state of science and the future
tional capacity through field-based reform coaches. Paper presented at of specific reading disability. Mental Retardation and Developmental
the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, Disabilities Research and Reviews, 2, 2–9.
Chicago. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED478744) Manzo, K. (2008, December 3). Federal path for reading questioned:
Coyne, M. D., Kame’enui, E. J., & Simmons, D. C. (2001). Prevention and ‘Reading First’ poor results offer limited guidance. Education Week,
intervention in beginning reading: Two complex systems. Learning 28, 1, 16–17.
Disabilities Research & Practice, 16 (2), 62–73. Marsh, J. A., McCombs, J. S., Lockwood, J. R., Martorell, F., Gershwin,
Denton, C. A., Anthony, J. L., Parker, R., & Hasbrouck, J. (2004). Effects D., Naftel, S., et al. (2008). Supporting literacy across the sunshine
of two tutoring programs on the English reading development of state: A study of Florida middle school reading coaches. Rand Cor-
Spanish–English bilingual students. The Elementary School Journal, poration: Santa Monica, CA.
104, 289–305. McCardle, P., & Chhabra, V. (Eds.). (2004). The voice of evidence in
Desimone, L. M., Porter, A. C., Garet, M. S., Yoon, K. S., & Birman, B. F. reading research. Baltimore, MD: Brookes.
(2002). Effects of professional development on teachers’ instruction: McCardle, P., Mele-McCarthy, J., & Leos, K. (2005). English language
Results from a three-year longitudinal study. Educational Evaluation learners and learning disabilities: Research agenda and implications for
and Policy Analysis, 24(2), 81–112. practice. Learning Disabilities Research & Practice, 20, 68–78.
Deussen, T., Coskie, T., Robinson, L., & Autio, E. (2007, June). “Coach” McDonnell, L. (2008) Forward. In F. M. Hess (Ed.), When research
476 Naomi Zigmond, Rita Bean, Amanda Kloo, and Melissa Brydon

matters: How scholarship influences education policy (pp. vii–x). Chhabra (Eds.), The voice of evidence in reading research (pp.445-
Cambridge, MA: Harvard Education Press. 462). Baltimore, MD: Brookes.
McGill-Franzen, A. (2000). Policy and Instruction: What is the relation- Slavin, R. E. (2002). Evidence-based education policies: Transforming
ship? In M. L. Kamil, P. B. Mosenthal, P. D. Pearson, & R. Barr (Eds.), educational practice and research. Educational Researcher, 31(7),
Handbook of reading research (Vol. 3, pp. 889–908). Mahwah, NJ: 15–21.
Erlbaum. Snow, C. E., Burns, M. S., & Griffin, P. (Eds.). (1998) Preventing reading
McLaughlin, M. W. (1990). The RAND change agent study revisited: difficulties in young children. Washington, DC: National Academies
Macro perspectives and micro realities. Educational Resarcher, 19(9), Press.
11–16. Snow, C., Ippolito, J., & Schwartz, R. (2006). What we know and what
McLaughlin, M. W. (1992). Educational policy, impact on practice. In M. we need to know about literacy coaches in middle and high schools:
Aiken (Ed.), American Educational Research Association encylopedia A research synthesis and proposed research agenda. In Standards for
of educational research (pp. 375–382). New York: Macmillan. middle and high school literacy coaches (pp. 35–49). Newark, DE:
National Institute of Child Health and Human Development (NICHD). International Reading Association. Retrieved from http://www.reading.
(2000). Report of the National Reading Panel. Teaching children to org/resources/issues/reports/coaching.html
read: An evidence-based assessment of the scientific research litera- Sparks, D., & Loucks-Horsley, S. (1990). Models of staff development.
ture on reading and its implications for reading instruction: Reports In W. R. Houston (Ed.), Handbook of research on teacher education
of the subgroups. (NIH Publication No 00-4754). Washington, DC: (pp. 234–250). New York: Macmillan.
U.S. Government Printing Office. Also available on-line at http:www. Torgeson, J. K. (2000). Individual differences in response to early inter-
nichd.nih.gov/publicatons/nrp/report.htm ventions in reading: The lingering problem. Learning Disabilities
National Center for Education Statistics. (2004). Language minorities and Research and Practice, 15(4), 303–323.
their educational and labor market indicators—Recent trends. Re- Torgeson, J. K., Alexander, A. W., Wagner, R. K., Raschotte, C. A., Voeller,
trieved June 1, 2008, from http://nces.ed.gov/pubs2004/2004009.pdf K., & Conway, T. (2001). Intensive remedial instruction for children
National Reading Panel (2000). Teaching children to read: An evidence- with severe reading disabilities: Immediate and long-term outcomes
based assessment of the scientific research literature on reading and its from two instructional approaches. Journal of Learning Disabilities,
implications for reading instruction. Rockville, MD: National Institute 34, 33–58, 78.
of Child Health and Human Development. U.S. Department of Education. (2002a, April). Guidance for the Reading
National Research Council. (1998). Preventing reading difficulties in young First program. Washington, DC: Office of Elementary and Secondary
children. Washington, DC: National Academy Press. Education. Retrieved from http://www.ed.gov/programs/readingfirst/
Paris, S. G. (2005). Reinterpreting the development of reading skills. guidance.pdf
Reading Research Quarterly, 40(2), 184–202. U.S. Department of Education. (2002b). No Child Left Behind: A desktop
Pearson, P. D. (2004). The reading wars. Educational Policy, 18, reference. Washington, D.C: Office of Elementary and Secondary
216–252. Education. Retrieved from http://www.ed.gov/admins/lead/account/
Reading First Data Online. (2008). Retrieved from http://readingfirstdata- nclbreference/page_pg5.html#i-b1
online.org/state/PA.aspx Valencia, S., & Wixson, K. (2000). Policy-oriented research on literacy
Reading First Federal Advisory Committee. (2008). Response to the standards and assessment. In M. L. Kamil, P. B. Mosenthal, P. D.
Reading First impact study. Retrieved January 5, 2009, from http:// Pearson, & R. Barr (Eds.), Handbook of reading research (Vol. 3, pp.
ednews.org/articles/28504/1/ 909–935). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
Richardson, V., & Placier, P. (2001). Teachers change. In V. Richardson Whitehurst, G. J. (2003). Rigor, relevance, and utilization. APS Observer
(Ed.), Handbook of research on teaching (4th ed., pp. 905–947). (1050-4672), 16(12), 1.
Washington, DC: American Educational Research Association. Yoon, K. S., Duncan, T., Lee, S., W-Y, Scarloss, B., & Shapley, K. (2007).
Rivkin, S. G., Hanushek, E. A., & Kain, J. K. (1998). Teachers, schools Reviewing the evidence on how teacher professional development af-
and academic achievement. Unpublished manuscript. fects student achievement (Issues & Answers Report), REL 2007-No.
Roller, C. (2006). Reading and literacy coaches report on hiring re- 033. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education, Institute of
quirements and duties survey. Newark, DE: International Reading Education Sciences, National Center for Education Evaluation and
Association. Regional Assistance, Regional Educational Laboratory Southwest.
Sanders, W. L., & Horn, S. P. (1998). Research findings from the Tennessee Retrieved from http://ies.ed.gov/ncee/edlabs
value-added assessment system (TVASS) database: Implications for Zigmond, N., & Bean, R. M. (2008). External evaluation of Reading First
educational evaluation and research. Journal of Personnel Evaluation in PA. Annual report. Pittsburgh, PA: University of Pittsburgh.
in Education. Retrieved from http://www.sasinschool.com/evass/ Zogby, C., (2002). Pennsylvania Department of Education Application
resources/publications/pdf/Reearch_Findings_TVASS_DB.pdf for Reading First Funds (CFDA 84/357), Unpublished grant ap-
Song, M., Coggshall, J. G., & Miskel, C. G. (2004). Policy and research: plication.
When are we today and where are we going? In P. McCardle & V.
 41
Meta-Analysis of Research on Children
with Reading Disabilities
H. LEE SWANSON
University of California

With the increase of primary research on reading dis- ability. A meta-analysis is appropriate for correlational
abilities, meta-analysis has become an essential tool for research when one attempts to determine the degree to
synthesizing the overwhelming number of results. The which bivariate relationships generalize across studies (e.g.,
term meta-analysis, first coined by Gene Glass in 1976, Hedges & Olkin, 1985; Hunter & Schmidt, 2004). In addi-
refers to a statistical technique used to synthesize data from tion, Hedges and Olkin (1985) argue that correlation coef-
separate comparable studies in order to obtain a quantitative ficients are a scale-free measure of the relationship between
summary of research that addresses a common question variables, and as such are “invariant under substitution of
(Cooper & Hedges, 1994). Prior to conducting a meta- difference of different but linearly equitable measures of
analysis, the researcher defines the problem, collects the the same construct. The correlation coefficient is therefore
research relevant to the problem, and evaluates the quality a natural candidate as an index of effect magnitude suitable
of the data (Cooper, 1998). The procedures for conducting for cumulation across studies” (p. 223).
a meta-analysis are described in detail in Cooper (1998), The second, called the d-index by Cohen (1988), is a
Cooper and Hedges (1994), Hedges and Olkin (1985), and scale-free measure of the separation between two group
Lipsey and Wilson (2001). means that is used when one variable in the relation is
There are a number of advantages of meta-analysis over dichotomous (children with reading disabilities, RD, vs.
traditional narrative techniques for synthesizing research children without RD) and the other is continuous. Cal-
(see Rosenthal & DiMatteo, 2001, for a full review). First, culating the d-index for any study involves dividing the
the structured methodology of meta-analysis requires care- difference between the two group means by either their
ful review and analysis of all contributing methodologically average standard deviation or the standard deviation of the
sound research. As such, meta-analysis overcomes biases control group. To make ds interpretable, statisticians have
associated with the reliance on single studies, or subsets adopted Cohen’s (1988) system for classifying ds in terms
of studies that inevitably occur in narrative reviews of a of their size (i.e., .00–.19 is described as trivial; .20–.49,
literature. Second, meta-analysis allows even small and non- small; .50–.79, moderate; .80 or higher, large). Cohen’s d
significant effects to contribute to the overall conclusions (1988) is further weighted by the reciprocal in the sampling
and avoids wasting data because a sample size was too small variance (Hedges & Olkin, 1985). The dependent measure
and significance was not achieved. Finally, meta-analysis for the estimate of effect size (ES) can be defined as ES =
can address questions about variables that moderate effects. d/(1/v), where d [Mean of RD group – Mean of comparison
Specifically, meta-analysis provides a formal means for group)/average of standard deviation for both groups], and
testing whether different features of studies explain varia- v is the inverse of the sampling variance, v = (Nrd+Nnrd)/(Nrd
tion in their outcomes. x Nnrd) + d2/[2(Nrd + Nnrd)] (Hedges & Olkin, 1985). Thus,
There are many different metrics to describe an effect effect sizes are computed with each effect size weighted by
size, two are briefly summarized. The first effect size metric the reciprocal of its variance, a procedure that gives more
is the r-index, or the Pearson product-moment correlation weight to effect sizes that are more reliably estimated. As
coefficient. The correlational data collected from studies suggested by Hedges and Olkin (1985), the majority of
typically use Hunter and Schmidt’s (2004) psychometric syntheses remove outliers from the analysis of main effects.
meta-analytic method. This method is preferred to others Outliers are defined as ESs lying beyond the first gap of at
because it provides for estimating the amount of variance least one standard deviation between adjacent ES values in
attributed to sampling errors, range restriction, and unreli- a positive direction (Bollen, 1989).

477
478 H. Lee Swanson

The researcher also determines whether a set of ds or rs (d) that evidence-based instruction has been presented
share a common effect size (i.e., was consistent across the under optimal conditions but deficits in isolated cognitive
studies) by category (e.g., phonological awareness, rapid processes remain, and (e) that cognitive processing deficits
naming). For the category of each dependent measure, a are not directly caused by environmental factors (e.g., so-
homogeneity statistic Q (chi-square) determines whether cioeconomic status, SES) or contingencies.
separate ESs within each category share a common ES In essence, the identification of children with RD re-
(Hedges & Olkin, 1985). The statistic Q has a distribution quires the documentation of normal intelligence and defi-
similar to the distribution of Chi-square with k-1 degrees cient reading performance after intense instruction has been
of freedom, where k is the number of effect sizes (ES). A provided. Historically and even in some current settings,
significant Chi-square indicates that study feature signifi- the identification of children with RD has been clouded by
cantly moderates the magnitude of ESs. If the homogene- practices that focus on uncovering a significant discrepancy
ity is not achieved (which is usually the case), subsequent between achievement in reading and general psychometric
analyses determine variables (e.g., age, IQ) that moderates intellectual ability (see Hoskyn & Swanson, 2000, for a
the outcomes. State-of-the art meta-analytic procedures review of this literature). The validity of the discrepancy
use a mixed-regression to examine whether particular approach has been questioned and other approaches are
characteristics of studies moderate the effect sizes (e.g., being formalized. One of these approaches focus children’s
Bryk & Raudenbush, 1992). Meta-analysts decide whether response to intervention (RTI). The goal of RTI is to monitor
a fixed-effects or random-effects model of error underlies the intensity of instruction and make systematic changes in
the generation of study outcomes. In a fixed-effects model, the instructional context as a function of a student’s overt
all studies are assumed to be drawn from a common popula- performance (see Fuchs, Mock, Morgan, &Young, 2003,
tion. As such, variance in effect sizes is assumed to reflect for a review). This is done by considering various tiers of
only sampling error, that is, error solely due to participant instructional intensity. It is assumed that children identified
differences. In a random-effects model of error, studies with RD are in many cases over identified and that when
are expected to vary also as a function of features that can exposed to evidence-based instruction in reading, the gap
be viewed as random influences. Thus, in a random-effect between poor readers and efficient readers will be narrowed.
analysis, study-level variance is assumed to be present as an Within this current zeitgeist that emphasizes RTI, we review
additional source of random influence. If it is the case that our results related to our meta-analysis of the literature.
the meta-analyst suspects a large number of these additional The first meta-analysis reviewed focuses on identify-
sources of random error, then a random-effects model is ing the cognitive mechanisms that underlie word recogni-
most appropriate in order to take these sources of variance tion difficulties, the second on the role of intelligence in
into account. If the meta-analyst suspects that the data are the assessment process, the final addresses the issue of
most likely little affected by other sources of random vari- identifying effective procedures for intervention.
ance, then a fixed-effects model can be applied.
Identifying Cognitive Processes Critical to Reading
What cognitive processes underlie reading disabili-
Review of Meta-analysis Studies Addressing
ties? A popular assumption is that children with RD
Questions Related to Reading Disabilities
have specific localized low-order processing deficits. A
Given the above overview of meta-analysis, my col- component consistently implicated in RD is phonological
leagues and I have used meta-analysis procedures to ad- awareness. Phonological awareness is “the ability to attend
dress three major questions that have plagued the field of explicitly to the phonological structure of spoken words”
RD. Prior to addressing these questions, however, I will (Scarborough, 1998, p. 95). Abundant evidence shows that
briefly review some critical assumptions related to the children with RD have problems in processing phonologi-
diagnosis and treatment of RD. Traditionally, the case for cal information (e.g., see Stanovich & Siegel, 1994, for a
RD (in contrast to other reading problems in children) rests review). Recently, some studies have suggested other pro-
on three assumptions: (a) reading difficulties are not due to cesses, such as rapid naming and working memory, may
inadequate opportunity to learn, general intelligence, or to be involved in reading acquisition that are as important as
physical or emotional/behavior disorders, but to basic dis- phonological awareness (e.g., Cutting & Denckla, 2001;
orders in specific cognitive information processes, (b) these Swanson & Alexander, 1997). For example, Wolf, Bowers,
specific information processing deficits are a reflection of and Biddle (2000) suggest that both phonological awareness
neurological, constitutional, and/or biological factors, and (PA) and rapid naming (RAN) (the ability to name a series
(c) these specific information processing deficits underlie of visual symbols, e.g., colors, pictures, letters, numbers,
a limited aspect of academic behavior (i.e., reading). Thus, words, as quickly as possible with minimal amount of error)
to assess RD at the cognitive level, systematic efforts are contribute unique variance to reading. More specifically,
made to detect: (a) normal psychometric intelligence, (b) Wolf and Bowers (1999) have proposed a double-deficit
below normal achievement in reading (e.g., word recogni- hypothesis, which suggests that some deficits in reading
tion), (c) below normal performance in specific cognitive may be related to the speed of with which one can name
processes (i.e., phonological awareness, working memory), aloud a series of letters, objects, and numbers, as well as
 Meta-Analysis of Research on Children with Reading Disabilities 479

to deficits in phonological awareness. Additional studies phonological awareness, naming speed, reading, and related
suggest other processes such as those related to orthography abilities (e.g., vocabulary, IQ, spelling, memory). Correla-
(e.g., Cunningham & Stanovich, 1990; Torgesen, Wagner, tions (N = 2,257) corrected for sample size, restriction in
Rashotte, Burgess, & Hecht, 1997) and working memory range, and attenuation were analyzed across 49 independent
span (e.g., Siegel & Ryan, 1989) contribute statistically samples. The results show that a prototypical study yields a
significant amounts of variance to reading. For example, in mean correlation size on reading variables of approximately
terms of orthographic processing, Olson, Kliegel, David- .42, with a sample size of 101 participants and a mean age
son, and Foltz (1985) presented poor readers with real and of 10 years.
pseudo-words (e.g., rain-rane) and required participants Particular attention in this synthesis, however, was
to select the correct spelling. Several studies suggest that directed at the interrelationship among PA, RAN, and real
poor readers can be characterized by their inability to retain word reading. When corrected for sample size and sample
information in memory while simultaneously processing heterogeneity (variations in SES, ethnicity, age), the syn-
the same or other information (e.g., Siegel & Ryan, 1989; thesis found that the majority correlations related to PA
Swanson & Alexander, 1997). This skill is critical to a wide and RAN were in the low range (mean r = .38). Further,
range of reading tasks because an important requirement of correlations between real word recognition, PA and RAN
many reading activities is that incoming information must were also in the low to moderate range (.35 to .50). The
be temporarily preserved while other information is being average correlation was .48 between PA and real word
acquired or manipulated. recognition, and .46 between RAN and real word recogni-
To be sure, the current literature weighs heavily on the tion. More importantly, the magnitude of the correlations
side of phonological and rapid naming processing deficits among RAN/PA, real word reading/PA, and real word
as the major sources of reading difficulties (e.g., Vellutino, reading/PA measures were significantly lower in reading
Fletcher, Snowling, & Scanlon, 2004; Wagner, Torgesen, disabled/poor reader samples. This finding will be discussed
Laugheon, Simmons, & Rashotte, 1993). Nevertheless, an further below.
understanding of the interplay between multiple processes The overall results related to the correlations were sub-
is necessary before one has an adequate account on the mitted to a factor analysis. The mean weighted corrected
major information processing variables that contribute to correlations across the 49 independent samples were orga-
reading. Swanson, Trainin, Neceochea, and Hammill (2003) nized into a 10 × 10 correlation matrix and are shown in
completed a meta-analysis that investigated the correla- Table 41.1. The matrix was submitted to a maximum likeli-
tional evidence on the relationships between phonological hood factor analysis. 1 Three important findings related to
awareness, rapid naming speed, and sight recognition of the factor analysis emerged. First, as shown in Table 41.2,
real words. Reading ability was narrowly confined to word RAN and PA measures loaded on separate factors. The PA
reading and those variables (phonological awareness and measures loaded meaningfully on the pseudo-word reading
rapid naming speed) that have been identified in the litera- factor, whereas the RAN measures loaded meaningfully on
ture as critically related to RD. There were three primary the reading comprehension factor. Second, neither RAN nor
purposes of their meta-analysis : (a) conduct a meta-analysis PA measures loaded meaningfully on real word recogni-
of correlations between phonological awareness (PA), tion measures. This was an unexpected finding because of
rapid naming (RAN), and word reading, (b) identify some the emphasis given in the literature to these measures as
the variables that moderate those correlations (e.g., age predictors of reading success. Finally, spelling was mean-
groups, SES, types of criterion reading measures used to ingfully related to pseudo-word reading (Factor 1), real
classify skilled and readers at-risk), and (c) use these meta- word reading (Factor 2), and aspects of vocabulary and
analytically derived correlations for investigating models orthography (Factor 5).
of the relationships between reading and various cognitive The critical question that this synthesis addressed, how-
processes. More importantly, the analysis investigated ever, was whether RAN and PA measures were the best
potential competing processes (e.g., spelling, orthography, measures for enhancing our understanding of children with
vocabulary, memory) that may also play an important role RD. As previously stated, the double deficit hypothesis as-
in predicting reading. sumes that RAN and PA measures operate as independent
The PsycINFO, MEDline, ERIC, and Dissertation Ab- systems but share equally important variance with word
stracts on-line databases were systematically scanned for identification. This leads to the prediction that RAN and
studies reported from 1966 to 2001. The computer search real word reading load on one factor and PA and real word
strategy used key search terms related to reading (e.g., recognition would load on another factor. Thus, one would
reading, word recognition, regular words, irregular words, expect at least two factors to clearly emerge in the present
exception words, comprehension), naming speed (e.g., nam- data set—one that shows a factor with meaningful loadings
ing speed, RAN, naming latency speed), and phonological of PA and real word reading and another factor that shows
coding or awareness or reading skills (e.g., pseudo-words, a meaningful loading of RAN and real word reading. This
word attack, segmentation, phonological coding, sublexical finding did not emerge, suggesting that measures of PA and
route, nonword reading, phonological skill). The synthesis RAN were not directly relevant to our understanding of real
summarized research examining the relationship between word reading performance. The results do show, however,
480 H. Lee Swanson

TABLE 41.1
Intercorrelations Among Cognitive Measures in Meta-Analysis of Swanson et al. (2003).
Measures 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
1. Word 1.0 .43 .42 .69 .42 .38 .41 .78 .37 .74
2. Phonol. 1.0 .36 .52 .28 .42 .33 .52 .30 .49
3. Rapid Naming 1.0 .53 .36 .26 .41 .53 .27 .60
4. Pseudo word 1.0 .63 .34 .52 .77 .54 .67
5. Intelligence 1.0 .42 .54 .70 .45 .68
6. Vocabulary 1.0 .34 .58 .39 .44
7. Ortho/homo 1.0 .64 .38 .61
8. Spelling 1.0 .53 .80
9. Memory 1.0 .48
10 Reading comprehension 1.0
Note. Phonol. = Phonological awareness, Ortho/homo = Orthography/homophones, Reading comp.= Reading comprehension, Word = real word
recognition, RAN= rapid naming.
Source. Table adapted from Swanson et al. (2003)

that PA (though not as strong as spelling) shares a similar memory), the magnitude of the coefficients for PA and
construct with pseudo-word reading. However, this load- RAN measures were in the same range as IQ, vocabu-
ing is only slightly better than memory (.40 vs. .39) and lary, orthography, and memory. These findings remain
the loading of both variables is reduced substantially in the stable even after partialing for variations in the samples
oblique rotation. Interestingly, we find that RAN measures as a function of age, SES, distribution of reading ability,
do load highly on reading comprehension. The only vari- gender and ethnic representation.
able that was found meaningful across several factors was 2. RAN measures share a moderate relationship to mea-
spelling. Measures of spelling were relevant on measures sures of pseudo-word reading and spelling. Of the seven
of pseudo-word reading, real word reading and vocabulary. variables correlated with RAN (PA, pseudo-words, IQ,
Thus, it appears to us that less emphasis should be given to vocabulary, orthographic, spelling, memory), pseudo-
PA and RAN measures when attempting to classify children word reading (.48) and spelling (.45) yield the stron-
at risk for reading when compared to spelling. gest correlations. However, the magnitudes of these
Five other important findings emerged concerning these correlations were in the moderate range (.40 to .60).
relationships when applied to understanding RD. Further, the magnitude of the correlations between RAN
measures with PA (.38), IQ (M = .33), vocabulary (.24)
1. No clear advantages were found for measures of PA and orthographic processing (.38), and memory (M = .29)
RAN when compared to other variables when predicting were in the low range (.20 to .40).
real word recognition. That is, when we compared the 3. Age does not appear to play a significant role in mod-
magnitude of the coefficients for eight variables (see erating the correlations between PA and RAN. Some
Table 41.1) correlated with real word reading (PA, RAN, have argued that magnitude of the correlations between
pseudo-words, IQ, vocabulary, orthographic, spelling, PA and RAN varies as a function age (Wolf & Bowers,
1999). However, no significant patterns emerged in this
TABLE 41.2 synthesis that would support the conclusion that cor-
Maximum Likelihood Loadings with Varimax Rotation relations between RAN and PA are reliably different in
Factor 1 2 3 4 5 magnitude with variations in age.
Word recognition .28 .88 .12 .25 .25 4. Measures of PA did not share a similar factor with
Phon. Awareness .40 .18 .01 .33 .30 measures of RAN. Measures of RAN were more likely
Rapid naming .35 .15 .11 .49 .21 to share variance with text comprehension (perhaps as
Pseudo Wd. Rd. .83 .35 .33 .24 .15
an indirect measure of fluency) than word recognition,
whereas measures of PA were more likely to share vari-
Intelligence .23 .13 .90 .20 .29
ance with pseudo-word reading. Thus, we did not find
Vocabulary .11 .16 .19 .16 .57
support for the notion that RAN measures share impor-
Orth/homophones .28 .10 .29 .37 .42 tant variance with phonological awareness skills.
Spelling .41 .44 .34 .30 .62 5. The magnitude of the correlations that emerge for
Memory .39 .11 .24 .25 .28 skilled/average readers or mixed samples of readers
Comprehension .21 .43 .39 .74 .27 cannot be generalized to poor readers. Disabled/poor
Note. Phon. Awareness=phonological awareness, Pseudo Wd Rd=Psuedoword
readers had lower RAN/PA coefficients (.22) than
reading, Orth/homphones=Orthography/homophones, Comprehension=Reading skilled/average readers (.42) or samples that combined
comprehension. Italics are coefficients .40 or greater. the two groups (.40). In addition, poor readers had lower
 Meta-Analysis of Research on Children with Reading Disabilities 481

real word recognition/PA coefficients (.30) than skilled/ in these three meta-analyses are reviewed in Stuebing et al.
average readers (M = .52) or for some combinations of (2002). Stuebing et al. considered the Hoskyn and Swanson
poor/skilled readers (r = .56). Overall, the results show (2000) selection process of studies more conservative of the
that correlations related to poor readers are substantially three, and therefore I want to highlight the findings related
weaker than those associated with skilled readers. These to the relevance of IQ from that meta-analysis. Hoskyn
findings call into question whether coefficients found in and Swanson’s (2000) meta-analysis focused only on pub-
skilled readers or a multisample context generalize to a lished literature comparing children who are poor readers
single sample of poor readers. Thus, models of normal but either had higher IQ scores than their reading scores
reading based on correlational data may not apply to or had IQ scores commiserate with their reading scores.
participants with poor or disabled reading skills. Although the outcomes of Hoskyn and Swanson’s synthe-
sis generally supported current notions about comparable
What can be concluded from this meta-analysis of correla- outcomes on various measures among the discrepancy and
tions to word recognition and RD? Overall, the synthesis non-discrepancy groups, a regression analysis predicting the
was consistent with the current literature suggesting that magnitude of effect sizes between the two groups showed
isolated processes, such as phonological coding, do play that verbal IQ significantly moderated the magnitude of
a modest part in predicting real word reading and pseudo- effect sizes. That is, although the degree of discrepancy
word reading. However, the meta-analysis highlights the between IQ and reading was irrelevant in predicting effect
importance of additional processes (e.g., intelligence, sizes, the magnitude of differences in performance (effect
vocabulary) as playing just as important role in read- sizes) between the two groups was significantly related to
ing. Thus, this synthesis suggests that the importance of verbal IQ. Hoskyn and Swanson found that when the effect
phonological awareness may have been overstated in the size differences between discrepancy (reading disabled
literature. A similar observation has been made by Bishop group) and non-discrepancy groups (low achievers in this
and Adams (1990) in which they state that “Phonological case) on verbal IQ measures were greater than 1.00 (when
factors are of particular theoretical interest because they the mean verbal IQ of the RD group was approximately 100
seem able to explain variation in reading acquisition that and the verbal IQ mean of the low achieving [LA] group
is not accounted for in terms of other, more general, verbal was approximately 85), the approximate mean effect size
abilities. However, it should be emphasized that other lan- on various cognitive measures was statistically significant.
guage skills exert the major influence in reading progress” In contrast, when the effect size for verbal IQ was less than
(pp. 1046–1047). 100 (the mean verbal IQ for the RD group was approxi-
mately 95 and the verbal IQ mean for the LA group were
The Role of Intelligence at approximately 90) estimates of effect size on various
How import is intelligence to the assessment of cognitive measures was close to 0 (M = –0.06). Thus, the
RD? The second issue raised in the literature on RD is further the RD group moved above verbal IQs in the 90
directed to the role intelligence plays in defining RD. Should range, the greater the chances their overall performance on
IQ be maintained in current models of RD? As suggested cognitive measures would differ from the low achiever. In
in the previously aforementioned meta-analysis of correla- short, although the Hoskyn and Swanson’s (2000) synthesis
tions (Swanson et al., 2003), the magnitude of the correla- supports the notion that “ the degree of differences in IQ and
tion among word identification, phonological processing, achievement” are unimportant in predictions of effect size
memory, rapid naming, and intelligence measures does differences on various cognitive variables, the magnitude of
not differ significantly. Thus, IQ was no less important in differences in verbal IQ between these two ability groups
predicting word recognition than other cognitive variables. with reading recognition scores below the 25th percentile
In the field of RD, intelligence has long been viewed as a did significantly moderate general cognitive outcomes.
measure of aptitude and is a critical construct in assess- Interestingly, Stuebing et al. (2002) in their meta-analy-
ment. However several authors have argued that variations sis concluded that IQ was irrelevant in explaining cognitive
in IQ tell us little about differences in processing when and related processing differences between children with
groups are defined at low levels of reading (e.g., Fletcher, RD (high IQ-low reading) and poor readers (low IQ and
Francis, Rourke, Shaywitz, & Shaywitz, 1992; Francis et reading). However, as shown in their table 6 of their results,
al., 2005). Clearly, Individuals with Disabilities Education IQ accounted for substantial amount of the explainable
Improvement Act (IDEIA, 2004) has nudged the field away variance in reading (explainable variance ranges from ap-
from using IQ as a measure of aptitude for determining RD. proximately .47 to .58). This is certainly not a good argu-
However, are variations in IQ and reading really irrelevant ment to support the notion that IQ is completely irrelevant
to our understanding of RD? I will briefly review three to reading level. Moreover, robust differences on measures
meta-analyses on this issue. between the two groups were found in a large meta-analysis
Three meta-analyses were completed prior to the passing by Fuchs, Mathes, Fuchs, and Lipsey (2000). Fuchs, Fuchs,
of IDEIA (2004; Fuchs, Fuchs, Mathes, & Lipsey, 2000; et al. (2000) comparing low achieving students with and
Stuebing et al., 2002; Hoskyn & Swanson, 2000) that ad- without RD, found moderate effect sizes (ES = .61, see p.
dressed the role of IQ in defining RD. The contradictions 94) in favor of low achievers without RD. In conclusion,
482 H. Lee Swanson

these major syntheses of the literature suggest that removing heterogeneity into the sample when compared to studies that
IQ as an aptitude measure in classifying children as RD, selected samples based on psychometric criteria. Second, is
especially verbal IQ, from assessment procedures is not there an interaction between IQ and reading performance
uniformly supported when synthesizing the literature. in treatment outcomes? They found that the magnitude of
treatment outcomes was related to a reading × intelligence
How important is IQ in treatment outcomes? One interaction. The influence of IQ scores on the magnitude of
obvious test for assessing the validity of IQ as part of the the treatment outcomes became especially relevant when
identification criteria that has been overlooked in the meta- reading scores were below the 25th percentile. The effect
analysis literature is whether IQ is related to treatment sizes were moderate (0.52) when intelligence was above
outcomes. Although isolated studies have found very little 90, but substantial (.95) when IQs scores were below 90.
relevance related to IQ levels and treatment outcomes (e.g., Thus, the implication of these findings is that variations in
Vellutino, Scanlon, & Lyon, 2000), a meta-analysis of the IQ and reading cannot be ignored when predicting treat-
literature on the issue across an array of intervention studies ment outcomes.
yields a different conclusion. More specifically, responsive- Two other important findings emerge from subsets of
ness to instruction across a broad array of studies has been the Swanson and Hoskyn (1998) data set when it focused
a missing test in the majority of validity studies eschewing primarily on studies that included adolescents (Swanson,
the role of intelligence. 2001; Swanson & Hoskyn, 2001). First, studies with
Thus, a review of the next meta-analyses addresses adolescent samples that had discrepancies in intelligence
whether variations in how samples with RD are defined in and reading were more likely to yield lower effect sizes in
terms of intelligence and reading have any relationship to treatment outcomes than those studies with adolescents that
treatment outcomes. It would seem that efforts to complete- reported aggregated IQ and reading scores in the same low
ly disband IQ measures in assessing children’s response to range (e.g., Swanson, 2001). Second, the results showed
instruction would be premature if children high and low in that treatment outcomes related to reading recognition and
IQ respond differently (quantitatively or qualitatively) as reading comprehension varied as a function of IQ. Effect
a function of treatment. One means of evaluating whether sizes for word recognition studies were significantly related
aptitude variations in an RD sample interact with treatment to samples defined by cut-off scores (IQ > 85 and reading
is to compare the relationship between treatment outcomes < 25th percentile), whereas the magnitude of effect size for
with multivariate data that include different configurations reading comprehension studies were sensitive to discrepan-
of how samples with RD are defined (Swanson & Hoskyn, cies between IQ and reading when compared to competing
1999). This can be accomplished by placing studies on the definitional criteria.
same metric (e.g., effect size) and comparing the magni- A conclusion that can be drawn across the aforemen-
tude of these outcomes as a function of variations in the tioned meta-analyses is that variations in IQ (at least
sample definition (e.g., on measures of intelligence and aggregated at the study level) are relevant in terms of
reading). The most comprehensive data on this issue to date moderating treatment outcomes. When children with RD
(Swanson, Hoskyn, & Lee, 1999) shows that significant RD and poor readers are compared across cognitive measures
definition × treatment interactions exist across evidence (Hoskyn & Swanson, 2000) and treatment outcomes (effect
based studies (see Swanson & Hoskyn, 1999, for review). sizes; Swanson et al., 1999), a synthesis of the literature
More specifically, Swanson and colleagues found that in- suggests that IQ (especially verbal IQ) moderates cognitive
dividual variations in IQ and reading level were important and treatment effects in children with RD.
moderators of instructional outcomes in both group design
(Swanson & Hoskyn, 1998, 1999) and single subject design Determining the Best Intervention Model
studies (Swanson & Sachse-Lee, 2000). They also found in Effective Intervention—what works? The final issue
their meta-analysis of intervention studies that variations our meta-analyses addressed is related to a practical is-
in standardized IQ and reading significantly moderated sue of identifying the best instructional intervention for
the magnitude of treatment effects (Swanson & Hoskyn, children with RD. A few years ago, a major meta-analysis
1998). Summarized below is a brief overview of the results was funded by the U.S. Department of Education to syn-
of their meta-analyses. thesize experimental intervention research conducted on
In general, the meta-analyses were conducted across children with LD over a 35-year period (see Swanson et al.,
180 group design and 85 single subject design studies. The 1999). Greater than 80% of these experimental intervention
analysis addressed two fundamental questions about the studies focused on children with RD. Swanson and several
role of IQ (Swanson & Hoskyn, 1998; Swanson & Sachse- of his colleagues (e.g., Swanson, 1999a; 2001, Swanson
Lee, 2000). First, does it matter whether IQ is reported? & Deshler, 2003; Swanson & Hoskyn, 1998; Swanson &
Their synthesis found that studies that failed to report Sachse-Lee, 2000) synthesized articles, technical reports,
psychometric information on participants with RD yielded and doctoral dissertations that reported for both group de-
significantly higher effect sizes than those studies that sign and single design studies. Condensing 2,000+ effect
reported psychometric information. Thus, poorly defined sizes, they found a mean effect size of .79 for children with
samples inflated treatment outcomes by introducing greater RD in the treatment condition versus children with RD in
 Meta-Analysis of Research on Children with Reading Disabilities 483

the control condition for group design studies (Swanson & procedures seldom provide information that assesses the
Hoskyn, 1998) and 1.03 for single subject design studies stability and/or durability of intrinsic cognitive processing
(Swanson & Sachse-Lee, 2000). According to Cohen’s deficits under instructional conditions. Recent RTI studies
(1988) classification system, the magnitude of the ES was have done much to put instruction in the context of the
large. Thus, on the surface, the results were consistent with assessment process. For example, if an individual at risk
the notion that children with RD are highly responsive to for RD has an inability to remember (e.g., access) specific
intense instruction. However, when children with RD were aspects of language (phonological information) during read-
compared to children without RD (average achievers) of ing instruction, then clear documentation must be provided
the same grade or age who also were receiving the same that they have been systematically provided direct instruc-
best evidence intervention procedure, effect sizes (ES M = tion in those aspects of language. Further, if phonological
.97, SD = .52) were substantially in favor of non disabled processing is the primary disability experienced by children
children (see Swanson et al., 1999, see pp. 162–169). More with RD, then this area would be less likely to change with
importantly, the mean effect size differences were sub- intense instruction than other cognitive areas (e.g., orthog-
stantially larger and in favor of children without RD when raphy , meta-cognition) or academic domains less likely to
compared to children with RD on the same treatment condi- draw on phonological processing (e.g., mathematics).
tion (ES = 1.44; Swanson et al., p. 168) when psychometric This latter point is the focus of my concern. Several
scores related to IQ and reading were not included as part well-designed studies (e.g., Vellutino et al., 1996) suggest
of sampling procedure. Thus, the magnitude of response that children who do not respond adequately to intense
to experimental treatment by children with RD could not instruction are considered classically learning disabled (in
be adequately interpreted even when compared to children the sense that they have fundamental processing limita-
without RD without recourse to psychometric measures. tions). This makes good sense. If children suffer from an
More importantly, effective instructional procedures did intrinsic processing deficit (phonological processing that
little to bridge the gap related to performance differences is constitutionally based), then one would expect marginal
between children with and without RD with evidence-based outcomes even when SES, parent support, and other vari-
instruction (i.e., treatments found to be highly effective in ables are controlled. For example, a child who is blind
samples of children with and without RD). from birth, but asked to produce the correct sound from
The next meta-analysis reviewed focuses on reading a visual stimulus in well-designed treatments is going to
outcomes when comparing treatment and control condi- have difficulty encoding visual information even when
tions (Swanson, 1999b). In reviewing this literature, three motivation or other environmental factors are controlled.
observations emerged: (a) several outcome measures in Likewise, well-designed instruction in phonological pro-
reading instruction studies are confounded with treatment cessing may produce some positive results, but if RD is
activities (the independent and dependent measures are related to constitution-based disorder clearly there should
not orthogonal), and (b) effect sizes on transfer measures be some serious constraints in performance when compared
were weak (e.g., word recognition. effect sizes < .30), and with other academic domains or even to other children
(c) reading outcomes were not directly related to intense with poor reading skills. Unfortunately, a meta-analysis of
one-to-one phonics instruction (see Swanson, 1999b, table the literature finds weak support for the assumption that
4). A fixed effects regression analysis of the effect sizes performance on phonological measures are less likely to
comparing treatment with control conditions found that change (yield lower effect sizes) than performance in other
the magnitude of the effects sizes were largest (experi- domains or processes. Swanson and Hoskyn (1998) found in
mental condition when compared to the control condition a meta-analysis of group design studies that when controls
for children with RD) when there was a highly structured were made on methodological variables (e.g., variation in
core of instructional components (e.g., systematic repeated components of instruction, teacher effects), the magnitude
and explicit practice, advanced organizers, sequencing, of change (as measured by effect size) in word recognition
teacher modeling, consistent probing, see Swanson, 1999b, and phonological skills, was in the same moderate range
for review). The regression analysis also showed that the as a number of other domains (e.g., memory, writing,
contribution to effect size (treatment vs. control) as a func- intelligence scores, global achievement, mathematics). If
tion of the degree or intensity of phonological instruction, response to treatment is a good test of theory (.e.g., such
when the aforementioned variables were entered into the as the phonological core model, see Stanovich & Siegel,
regression analysis, was nonsignificant when predicting 1994, for a review), then I don’t think one can create the
performance on real word recognition tasks. argument that instructional difficulties reside primarily with
Before I proceed further on our findings, I would like to phonological processing measures.
make two statements. First, research in the last few years Another problematic aspect of emphasizing a phonologi-
has done much to change our focus on the importance of cal model is that the magnitude of outcomes on transfer
directly instructing children with RD in phonological skills. measures (reading of real words as opposed to direct skill
Several recent studies have made a significant contribution measures, e.g., word attack or pseudo-word reading) as
to our knowledge about effective reading instruction (e.g., a function phonological processing instruction is weak.
Vellutino et al., 2004). Second, traditional assessment In a synthesis of several studies that included real word
484 H. Lee Swanson

recognition as a dependent measure, when treatment com- treatment outcomes included: teacher effects (studies that
ponents that include a basic instructional core (e.g., drill, used the identical experimenter for treatment and control
repetition, and practice) were entered first into a mixed in administrating treatments yield smaller effect sizes than
regression model in predicting word recognition, seg- those studies that used different experimenters in admin-
mentation training and individual instruction did not enter istering treatments—this condition may be analogous to
significantly in predicting outcomes (see Swanson, 1999b, three tiered instruction), reliance on “non” norm referenced
pp. 518–519). This finding is not unlike those of isolated measures (studies that did not use standardized measures
studies. A study by Foorman et al. (1997) also found that had much larger effect sizes than those that reported us-
when SES, and IQ were controlled that variations in reading ing standardized measures), and heterogeneous sampling
instruction (analytic phonics, synthetic phonics vs. whole (e.g., studies that included both elementary and secondary
word) did not significantly predict real word reading (see students yielded larger effect sizes than the other age level
p. 270, table 8). Such findings raise questions about the conditions).
primary importance of phonological training (at least as it More importantly, the under-reporting of information
relates to the unit of word analysis) as it applies to improv- related to ethnicity (studies that reported ethnicity yielded
ing word recognition. significantly smaller effect sizes than those that did not
In summary, my point is not to dispute the fact that pho- report ethnicity) and psychometric data (significantly larger
nological processing is a fundamental processing deficit or effect sizes occurred when no psychometric information
that intensive phonological instruction is not important for was reported when compared to the other conditions) posi-
children with RD. Rather, a meta-analysis of the literature tively inflated the magnitude of treatment outcomes. The
suggests if a stubborn resistance to change in a specific magnitude of effect sizes was also influenced by whether
psychological process such as phonological awareness studies relied on federal definitions (studies that did not
after intense systematic instruction is a critical base for report using the federal definition [PL-94-142] yielded the
validating the cognitive basis of RD, then research is not larger weighted effect score than those that did) or reported
conclusive on this issue. using multiple definitional criteria (studies that included
There were two practical findings from our synthesis of multiple criteria in defining their sample yielded smaller
reading interventions as applied to the treatment of RD that effect sizes than those that did not report using multiple
need to be highlighted. First, combined direct and explicit criteria) in selecting their sample.
strategy instruction (explicit practice, elaboration, strategy In summary, our meta-analyses show that “best evi-
cuing) and small group interactive settings best predicted dence” studies on instructional interventions are moderated
the size of treatment outcomes for children with RD across by a host of environmental and individual differences vari-
various academic domains (Swanson et al., 1999). The ables that make a direct translation to assessing children at
implication of this finding is that a combination of direct risk for RD as a function of educational intervention (i.e.,
instruction and cognitive strategy instruction provided the RTI) difficult. In addition, although RTI relies on evidence
best evidence-based instructional heuristic for improving based studies in the various tiers of instruction, especially
reading performance in children with RD. However, these in the area of reading, it is important to note that even under
components accounted for less than 21% of the variance in the most optimal instructional conditions (direct instruc-
predicting outcomes (Swanson, 1999b). This finding held tion) for teaching reading less than 21% of the variance in
when controls were made in the analysis for variations in outcomes is related to instructional variables (see Swanson,
methodology and age. This finding is not unlike that of 1999b, table 5).
the National Reading Panel (NRP, 2000) report. Hammill
and Swanson (2006) found from the NRP (2000) that best The Practical Significance of Effect Sizes The results of
practices in reading (teaching of phonics) accounted for less the previous meta-analysis have placed a number of issues
than 10% of the variance in reading treatment outcomes related to definitions and treatment for RD into perspective.
for children at risk for RD. Thus, a tremendous amount of However, an important question emerges as to what can be
variance is unaccounted for in studies considered the “best” considered of practical worth when evaluating effect sizes
of the evidence-based practices. (see Cooper, 1981, McCartney & Rosenthal, 2000, for a
Second, the results of “best-evidence studies” in read- review of this issue). This is an important question because
ing cannot be taken at face value. In our syntheses of the effect sizes in the low range on reading interventions have
literature (Swanson et al., 1999), all studies had well-defined been interpreted as being practically significant (National
control groups and treatments and/or baseline conditions Reading Panel Report, RRP). A recent study (Stuebing,
before their inclusion in the synthesis. Eliminated from the Barth, Cirino, Francis, & Fletcher, 2008) criticized two
synthesis were those studies of poor methodological quality research studies that that called into question conclusions
(see Valentine & Cooper, 2005, for a rationale). Simmerman that could be drawn from the meta-analysis by the National
and Swanson (2001) analyzed these best evidence studies Reading Panel Report (i.e., Camilli, Vargas, & Yurecko,
and found that slight variations in the internal and external 2003; Hammill & Swanson, 2006). In general, the criticisms
validity significantly moderated the magnitude of treatment by Camilli et al. and Hammill and Swanson suggested that
outcomes. Some violations that were significantly related to the effect sizes of systematic phonics instruction provided
 Meta-Analysis of Research on Children with Reading Disabilities 485

by the National Reading Panel Report (d = .41) were into perspective. The corresponding rs were .27, .13, .27,
overstated and the effect size may be actually lower than and .26; and the r-squares were .07, .02, .07, and .07, re-
previously reported (e.g., d = .12 in the Camilli, Wolfe, & spectively. These values suggest that phonics instruction
Smith, 2006) or the effect size is of marginal value (Ham- was only marginally more effective at teaching reading in
mill & Swanson 2006). kindergarten and first grade than non-phonics instruction.
More specifically, the Camilli et al. study (2003, also With regards to the second–sixth, reading disabled group,
reviewed in Camilli et al., 2006) reanalyzed the findings of phonics and non-phonics approaches were about equally
the panel and found that although programs using system- effective.
atic phonics outperformed programs using less systematic The next question focused on whether phonics instruc-
phonics, the effects were relatively small (d = .24). They tion was more beneficial for children who are having diffi-
found that language instruction and tutoring had a moder- culty learning to read than the control condition. In the NRP,
ating effects on reading outcomes suggesting that phonics four groups of poor readers were studied: Kindergarten at
instruction may be not be the major determinate of reading risk (d = .58, moderate, first grade at risk (d = .74, moderate),
outcomes (however, see Stuebing et al., 2008, p. 132, for an second–sixth grade low achievers (d = .15, trivial, not sig-
alternative interpretation). Further, they found that the mod- nificant), and reading disabled, all ages (d = .32, small). The
erator variables were critical in the early grades (because the NRP concluded that “systematic phonics instruction was
data suggest that after about third grade phonics instruction significantly more effective than non-phonics instruction in
may be less effective). These results suggest that phonics helping to prevent reading difficulties among at risk students
instruction cannot stand alone and that other components and in helping to remediate difficulties in disabled readers”
need to be integrated in the reading outcomes. Although (p. 2). The NRP dismissed the nonsignificant Cohen’s d
there have been public reactions the NRP report (e.g., for low achievers because it was unclear why systematic
Shanahan, 2004; Yatvin, 2002) and the Camilli et al. report phonics produced so little growth in these children and sug-
(e.g., Stuebing et al., 2008), much of scientific concerns gested that the finding might be unreliable (p. 2).
have been related to how the controls were defined and/or The rs corresponding to the mean effect sizes for the poor
the purpose of the report (outcomes related to systematic readers were: .28 for kindergarten at risk, .35 for first grade
instruction vs. an isolated focus on phonics). However, at risk, .07 for second–sixth grade low achievers, and .16
the important issue raised in the Camilli et al. studies was for reading disabled. Respective r-squares were: .08, .12,
the practical significance of the effect size provided in the .00, and .02. The finding for the first grade at risk group
NRP report. This issue was dealt with in greater detailed provides some evidence for the phonics instruction. But
in Hammill and Swanson (2006) analysis. taken together, the results of the r-type analysis provided
In their study, Hammill and Swanson (2006) computed weak support for the idea that phonics instruction was
mean effect correlations (rs) and r-squares that correspond preferable to other approaches in developing the skills of
to the reported ds in this report. This conversion allowed children who have difficulty learning to read.
them to calculate point biserial correlational effects, but In response to these criticisms, Stuebing et al. (2008) in-
more specifically to address the proportion of variance dicated that the NRP has practical import. More specifically,
in the outcome variable (reading) that may be predicted they argue that in contrast to the Camilli et al. and Hammill
by (or accounted for or attributed to) two levels of the and Swanson studies, judgments related effect sizes must
independent variable (e.g., intense phonics instruction vs. taken into consideration context. For example, they argued
control situation). The practical value of this conversion that phonics instruction can reduce the number of children
was to show that outcomes provided in the NRP report with reading problems when one considers the base rate of
(restated in terms of the proportion of variance accounted performance. Consistent with several authors, they argued
for) were so small that it left a tremendous amount of against applying effect size with the same rigidity as one
variance related to instruction unaccounted for. Of critical would typically use in a statistical significance testing.
concern in their analysis of the NRP was whether phonics Unfortunately, the field of RD has not provided to date
instruction is more effective when it is introduced to stu- a consensus on the benchmarks in which to put the overall
dents not yet reading, in kindergarten or first grade, than effect sizes in context. To place the findings in some con-
when it is introduced in grades above first after students text, several authors (e.g., Stuebing et al., 2008) who yield
have already begun to read. The NRP concluded from four syntheses of low effect size use the aspirin study reported
mean effect sizes reported for kindergarten and first grade in Rosenthal and Rubin (1982) to illustrate that even when
(d = .55, moderate); second–sixth grades, reading disabled an effect size is small, it could have important implica-
(d = .27, small); kindergarten (d = .56, moderate); and first tions for outcomes. This is usually done by considering the
grade (d = .54, moderate) “these results indicate clearly percentage of the controlled population that the upper half
that systematic phonics instruction in Kindergarten and of the experimental population exceeds (i.e., a binomial
First Grade is highly beneficial and that children at these effect displaying the proportionate treatment vs. controlled
developmental levels are quite capable of learning phonemic subjects above a common threshold-defined arbitrarily as
and phonics concepts” (pp. 2). When the mean effects to an overall median). The procedure becomes problematic,
an r-type statistic were computed, the results were placed however, because it is difficult to decipher the meaning of
486 H. Lee Swanson

other effect sizes that have different control conditions. Bryk, A. S., & Raudenbush, S. W. (1992). Hierarchical linear models:
For example, binomial procedures may actually show that Applications and data analysis methods. Newberry Park, CA: Sage.
Camilli, G., Vargas, S., & Yurecko, M. (2003). Teaching children to read:
some children benefit from whole language instruction. The fragile link between science and federal education policy. Edu-
Regardless of these issues, we think one benchmark was cation Policy Archives, 11, 15. Retrieved May 13, 2003, from http://
established in the Swanson (1999b) meta-analysis that epaa.asu.edu/epaa/v11n15/
found that the overall effect size for measures on word Camilli, G., Wolfe, P. M. & Smith, M.L. (2006). Meta-analysis and reading
recognition for children with RD, regardless of the type of policy: Perspectives on teaching children to Read. Elementary School
Journal, 107, 27–36.
treatment intervention, was about .57. This effect size was Cohen, J. (1988). Statistical power Analysis in the behavioral sciences.
partialed for the methodological variations across studies. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Therefore, if you use that context with an RD sample, the Cooper, H. (1981). On the effects of significance and the significance of ef-
overall .32 of the NPR doesn’t seem that impressive. This is fects. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 41, 1013–1018
not to argue that the effects related to phonics instruction are Cooper, H. M. (1998). Synthesizing Research: A Guide for Literature
Reviews (3rd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
trivial. Rather, if context is important when interpreting the Cooper, H., & Hedges, L.V. (1994). Handbook of research synthesis. New
practical significance of the effect sizes, the field needs to York: Russell Sage.
lay out specific criteria for making judgments about relevant Cunningham, A. E., & Stanovich, K. E. (1990). Assessing print exposure
contexts for effect sizes. Thus, there is a conundrum the and orthographic processing skill in children: A quick measure of read-
field of RD faces. The conundrum we confront (as quoted ing experience. Journal of Educational Psychology, 82, 733–740.
Cutting, L. E., & Denckla, M. B. (2001). The relationship of rapid serial
in Light, Singer, & Willett, 1990) is that “meta-analyses naming and word reading in normally developing readers: An explor-
often reveal a sobering fact: effect sizes are not nearly as atory model. Reading and Writing, 14, 673–705.
large as we might hope” (p. 195). Fletcher, J. M., Francis, D. J., Rourke, B. P., Shaywitz, S. E., & Shaywitz,
B. A. (1992). The validity of discrepancy-based definitions of reading
disabilities. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 25, 555–561.
Summary Foorman, B., R., Francis, D. J., Winikates, D., Mehta, P., Schatschneider,
C., & Fletcher, J. M. (1997). Early interventions for children with
Meta-analyses allow us to address issues in the field of reading disabilities. Scientific Studies of Reading, 3, 255–276.
RD that cannot be easily addressed by single studies. In Francis, D. J., Fletcher, J. M., Stuebing, K. K., Lyon, G. R., Shaywitz, B.
contrast to single studies indicating that the core of RD A., & Shaywitz, S. E. (2005). Psychometric approaches to the identi-
is isolated to the phonological domain, IQ is irrelevant to fication of LD: IQ and achievement scores are not sufficient. Journal
of learning Disabilities, 38(2), 98–108.
both assessment and instruction, and effective instruction Fuchs, D., Fuchs, L., Mathes, P. G., & Lipsey, M. (2000). Reading dif-
leans entirely toward explicit instruction in phonological ferences between low achieving students with and without learning
awareness. A review of the current meta-analyses suggested disabilities. In R. Gersten, E. P. Schiller, & S. Vaughn (Eds.), Con-
that qualifications are necessary when placed into a larger temporary Special Education Research: Synthesis of knowledge base
context of results aggregated across several methodologi- of critical issues (pp. 81–104) Mahwah, NJ: Erbaum.
Fuchs, D. Mock, D., Morgan, P., & Young, C. L. (2003). Responsiveness-
cally sound studies. The aforementioned meta-analyses to-intervention: Definitions, evidence, and implications for the learning
suggest that IQ and cognitive process other than phono- disabilities construct. Learning Disabilities Research & Practice, 18,
logical processing may play an important role in the as- 157–171.
sessment and instruction of children with RD. The reader Hammill, D. D., & Swanson, H. L. (2006). The national reading panel’s
is cautioned when interpreting effect sizes as a function meta-analysis of phonics instruction: Another point of view. The
Elementary School Journal, 107, 17–26.
of magnitude. Rather, the interpretation of effect sizes Hedges, L. V., & Olkin, I. (1985). Statistical methods for meta-analysis.
needs to occur in the context of other meta-analyses with Orlando, FL: Academic Press.
established benchmarks. Hoskyn, M., & Swanson, H. L. (2000). Cognitive processing of low
achievers and children with reading disabilities: A selective meta-
analytic review of the published literature. School Psychology Review,
Notes 29, 102–119.
1. As indicated by the reviewer of this chapter, Victor Willson, the Hunter, J. E., & Schmidt, F. L. (2004). Methods of meta-analysis: Cor-
correlation coefficients have a distribution dependent on the recting error and bias in research findings (2nd ed.) Thousand Oaks,
population value; the weighted mean of a set of correlations is not CA: Sage.
equal to the mean value of the populations. It is in general a biased Individuals with Disabilities Education Improvement Act of 2004 (IDEA),
estimate unless the population value is zero. Factor analyses of the Pub. L. No. 108-446,118 Stat. 2647 (2004). [Amending 20 U.s.c. §§
correlation matrix based on such values are at best indicative of a 1400 et. Seq.).
possible underlying structure, but the stability of the factor under Light, R. J., Singer, J. D., & Willett, J. B. (1990). By design: Planning
various estimation conditions is not known. research on higher education. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University
Press.
Lipsey, M. W., & Wilson, D. B. (2001). Practical meta-analysis. Thousand
References Oaks, CA: Sage.
McCartney, K., & Rosenthal, R. (2000). Effect size, practical importance,
Bishop, D. V., & Adams, C. (1990). A prospective study of the relation- and social policy for children. Child Development, 71, 173–180.
ship between specific language impairment, phonological disorder National Reading Panel. (2000). Teaching children to read: An evidence-
and reading retardation. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, based assessment of the scientific research literature on reading and
31, 1027–1050. its implications for reading instruction. Washington, DC: National
Bollen, K. A. (1989). Structural equations with latent variables. New Institute of Child Health and Human Development.
York: Wiley Interscience. Olson, R., Kliegel, R., Davidson, B., & Foltz, G., (1985). Individual and
 Meta-Analysis of Research on Children with Reading Disabilities 487

developmental differences in reading disability. In G. E. MacKinnon Swanson, H. L., & Hoskyn, M. (1998). Experimental intervention research
& T. Waller (Eds.), Reading research: Advances in theory and practice on students with learning disabilities: A meta-analysis of treatment
(Vol. 4, pp. 1–64). San Diego, CA: Academic Press. outcomes. Review of Educational Research, 68, 277–321.
Rosenthal, R., & DiMatteo, M. R. (2001). Meta-analysis: Recent develop- Swanson, H. L., & Hoskyn, M. (1999). Definition × treatment interactions
ments in quantitative methods for literature reviews. Annual Review for students with learning disabilities. School Psychology Review,
of Psychology, 52, 59–82. 28, 644–658.
Rosenthal, R., & Rubin, D. B. (1982). A simple, general purpose display Swanson, H. L., & Hoskyn, M. (2001). Instructing adolescents with
of the magnitude of experimental effect. Journal of Educational learning disabilities: A component and composite analysis. Learning
Psychology, 74, 166–169. Disabilities Research & Practice, 16, 109–119.
Scarborough, H. S. (1998). Early identification of children at risk for Swanson, H. L., Hoskyn, M., & Lee, C. M. (1999). Interventions for
reading disabilities: Phonological awareness and some other promis- students with learning disabilities: A meta-analysis of treatment
ing predictors. In B Shapiro, P. Accardo, & A. Capute (Eds.), Specific outcomes. New York: Guilford.
reading disability: A view of the spectrum (pp. 75–119). Timonium, Swanson, H. L., & Sachse-Lee, C. (2000). A meta-analysis of single-
MD: York Press. subject-design intervention research for students with LD. Journal of
Schatschneider, C., Carlson, C.D., Francis, D.J., Foorman, B. R., & Learning Disabilities, 33, 114–136.
Fletcher, J. M. (2002). Relationship of rapid automatized naming Swanson, H. L., Trainin, G., Necoechea, D. M., & Hammill, D. D. (2003).
and phonological awareness in early development: Implications for Rapid naming, phonological awareness, and reading: A meta-analysis
the double-deficit hypothesis. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 35, of the correlation evidence. Review of Educational Research, 73,
245–256. 407–440.
Shanahan, T. (2004). Critiques of the National Reading Panel report. In Torgesen, J.K., Wagner, R., Rashotte, C.A., Burgess, S., & Hecht, S.
P. McCardle & V. Chhabra (Eds.), The voice of evidence in reading (1997). Contributions of phonological awareness and rapid naming
research (pp. 235–265). Baltimore, MD: Paul H. Brooks. ability to the growth of word-reading skills in second to fifth-grade
Siegel, L. S., & Ryan, E. B. (1989). The development of working memory children. Scientific Studies of Reading, 1, 161–195.
in normally achieving and subtypes of learning disabled children. Child Valentine, J. C., & Cooper, H. M. (2005).Can we measure the quality of
Development, 60, 973–980. causal research in education. In G. Phye, D. Robinson, & J. Levin
Simmerman, S., & Swanson, H. L. (2001). Treatment outcomes for stu- (Eds.), Empirical methods for evaluating interventions (pp. 85–112).
dents with learning disabilities: How important are internal and external San Diego: Elsevier Academic Press.
validity? Journal of Learning Disabilities, 34, 221–236. Vellutino, F. R., Fletcher, J. M., Snowling, M. J., & Scanlon, D. M. (2004).
Stanovich, K. E., & Siegel, L. S. (1994). Phenotypic performance profile Specific reading disabilities (dyslexia): What have we learned in the
of children with reading disabilities: A regression based test of the past four decades? Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 45,
phonological-core difference model. Journal of Educational Psychol- 2–40.
ogy, 86, 24–53. Vellutino, F. R., Scanlon, D. M., & Lyon, G. R. (2000). Differentiating
Stuebing, K. K., Barth, A., Cirino, P. T., Francis, D. J., & Fletcher, J. M. between difficult-to-remediate and readily remediated poor readers:
(2008) A response to recent reanalysis of the National Reading Panel More evidence against the IQ-achievement discrepancy. Journal of
Report: Effects of systematic phonics instruction are practically sig- Learning Disabilities, 33, 192–199.
nificant. Journal of Educational Psychology, 100, 123–135. Vellutino, F. R., Scanlon, D. M., Sipay, E. R., Small, S. G., Pratt, A.,
Stuebing, K. K., Fletcher, J. M., LeDoux, J. M., Lyon, G. R., Shaywitz, Chen, R., et al. (1996). Cognitive profiles of difficult-to-remediate
S. E., & Shaywitz, B. A. (2002). Validity of IQ-discrepancy classifica- and readily remediated poor readers: Early intervention as a vehicle
tions of reading disabilities: A meta-analysis. American Educational for distinguishing between cognitive and experimental deficits as
Research Journal, 39, 469–518. basic causes of specific reading disability. Journal of Educational
Swanson, H. L. (1999a). Instructional components that predict treat- Psychology, 88, 601–638.
ment outcomes for students with learning disabilities: Support for a Wagner, R. K., Torgesen, J. K., Laugheon, P., Simmons, K., & Rashotte,
combined strategy and direct instruction model. Learning Disabilities C. A. (1993). Development of young readers’ phonological processing
Research & Practice, 14(3), 129–140. abilities. Journal of Educational Psychology, 85, 83–103.
Swanson, H. L. (1999b). Reading research for students with LD: A meta- Wolf, M., & Bowers, P. G. (1999). The double-deficit hypothesis for
analysis in intervention outcomes. Journal of Learning Disabilities, the development dyslexics. Journal of Educational Psychology, 91,
32, 504–532. 415–438.
Swanson, H. L. (2001). Research on interventions for adolescents with Wolf, M., Bowers, P. G., & Biddle, K. (2000). Naming speed processes,
learning disabilities: A meta-analysis of outcomes related to higher- timing and reading: A conceptual review. Journal of Learning Dis-
order processing. The Elementary School Journal, 101, 331–348. abilities, 33, 387–407.
Swanson, H. L., & Alexander, J. (1997). Cognitive processes that predict Yatvin, J. (2002). Minority view. In Report of the National Reading Panel,
reading in learning disabled readers: Revisiting the specificity hypoth- Teaching children to read: An evidenced-based assessment of the sci-
esis Journal of Educational Psychology, 89, 128–158. entific research literature on reading and its implications for reading
Swanson, H. L., & Deshler, D. (2003). Instructing adolescents with learn- instruction (pp. 1–6). Washington, DC: NICHD.
ing disabilities: Converting a meta-analysis to practice. Journal of
Learning Disabilities, 36, 124–135.
 42
Interpretive Research
DONNA E. ALVERMANN
University of Georgia

CHRISTINE A. MALLOZZI
University of Kentucky

The interpretive turn in social research marked a shift Purpose and Background
in epistemology and politics. Social research changed
In this chapter we focus on the topics, practices, issues,
from emphasizing logical positivism, an approach based
and controversies embedded in methodologies associated
on using the scientific method to study human action,
with interpretive research. We locate interpretive research
to interpretivism. Interpretivism denotes an approach to
after Lather and St. Pierre (as cited in Lather, 2006) within
studying social life with the assumption “that the mean-
a paradigm focused on understanding (e.g., naturalistic,
ing of human action is inherent in that action” (Schwandt,
constructivist, phenomenological, ethnographic, symbolic
2001, p. 134). Researchers using an interpretive approach
interactionist methods) in contrast to predicting (e.g., posi-
aim to uncover meaning toward a better understanding of
tivist, post-positivist), emancipating (e.g., critical, neomarx-
the issues involved. This undertaking necessitates certain
ist, feminist/gendered studies, critical race theory, Freirian
methodologies, of which only a few are highlighted here.
action research, critical ethnography), or deconstructing
Naturalistic inquiry is a methodology that underscores
(e.g., post-structural, post-colonial, post-critical, discourse
the importance of firsthand observations to understand
analysis, post-humanist). The advantage in using Lather
human action from the point of view of the actor in an
and St. Pierre’s perspective on paradigmatic differences
uncontrived context (Guba, 1978; Lincoln & Guba, 1985;
(Lather, 2006) is that it calls attention to the unlikelihood
Schwandt, 2001). Constructivism, in general, means that
of any one paradigm providing a complete view of reading
an individual’s mind is active in making and structuring
disabilities.
knowledge (Spivey, 1997). When brought into interpretive
Historically, reading research could be characterized
research, constructivism implies that any “discovery” of
as largely reflecting positivist and post-positivist thinking
meaning of human action involves a conceptual framework
aimed at predicting outcomes. Gray (1922), Huey (1908),
in the minds of the researchers and participants (Guba &
and Thorndike (1914, 1917) laid the foundations for
Lincoln, 1989; Schwandt, 2001). Phenomenological meth-
measuring reading achievement, remediation, and com-
odologies rely on descriptions of conscious experiences to
prehension. Measures of eye-movements and perceptual
develop understanding of the meaning of human action in
processes predicted that reading practices will vary with
everyday life (Schwandt, 2001; Van Manen, 1990). Ethno-
the reader’s purpose, interests, and reading material (Bus-
graphic inquiry takes the concepts of the phenomenon a bit
well, 1920; Judd & Buswell, 1922). Gates (1921, 1927),
further; instead of relying on the participants’ descriptions
who contributed experimental measures of reading speed
of an experience, the ethnographic researcher must com-
and levels of comprehension, paved the way for studying
mit to the phenomenon by being there in the experience
reading disabilities. These measures enabled researchers
within the field of study, in the culture of the participants
to establish correlations among reading disabilities, cogni-
(Geertz, 1973; Green & Bloome, 1983; Schwandt, 2001).
tive disorders, and reading difficulties. Decades later, Clay
Symbolic interactionism involves understanding that hu-
(1966, 1969, 1979) used naturalistic inquiry to understand
mans act toward objects and with individuals according
why students who experienced difficulty reading were not
to the meanings that humans have for particular objects
benefiting from instruction and what could be done about
and people (Blumer, 1969; Schwandt, 2001).
it. Calls for situating disabilities within emancipatory or

488
 Interpretive Research 489

critical (Shannon, 1991) and deconstructive (Tisdale, 2008) Pearson, & Barr, 2000) to locate studies that might have
paradigms are fairly recent and depart from the positivistic escaped our computerized search.
and post-positivistic views of reading disabilities that have
historically shaped the field. Although shifts in research
Interpretive Research in the Literature on Reading
paradigms do not necessarily represent progress or refine-
Disabilities
ment, they do offer different ways of generating knowledge
by connecting social theory (Habermas, 1971; Lather, 1991) An early definition of reading disability—one that received
to research methodologies. considerable attention in the field of general education—
depended on finding a discrepancy between reading ability
and intelligence (Education for All Handicapped Children
Reading Disabilities across Research Paradigms
Act, PL 94-142, 1975). The usefulness of an intelligence-
The concept of a reading disability looks different across based definition has been debated but with little consensus
research paradigms. Researchers working within a positiv- as to outcome (Schell, 1992; Stanovich, 1991, 1992a,
ist/post-positivist paradigm assume that a child’s reading 1992b). Some scholars (e.g., Christensen, 1992) question
disability is real, that it is inherently a part of the child— if definitional work should even be a priority. Dissension
something that can be objectified, measured, and possibly exists about what counts as a reading disability (Fuchs,
fixed. Although researchers who situate their work within Mock, Morgan, & Young, 2003; Shaywitz & Shaywitz,
an interpretive paradigm may also hold to the reality of a 2005; Sternberg & Grigorenko, 2002; Vellutino, Scanlon,
reading disability, their interest is in understanding how & Tanzman, 1998). According to Allington (2002), states’
individuals with reading disabilities and the people with decisions to exempt scores earned by low-achieving readers
whom they interact make sense of their various circum- on high stakes assessments created even more confusion
stances. Within a critical paradigm, researchers focus on the about the definition of reading disability. More recently, the
sociopolitical structures within educational institutions and Individuals with Disabilities Education Improvement Act
society at large (e.g., race, gender, and class) that contribute (IDEA, 2004), de-emphasized the intelligence-discrepancy
to the existence of a reading disability; their goal is to eman- factor and opened the door to Response-to-Intervention
cipate individuals labeled with a reading disability from (RTI) as a way of identifying students with learning dis-
oppressive structures. Researchers using post-structural abilities.
theories contest a simplified notion of reading disability Discrepancies in how reading disabilities are defined
and seek to deconstruct and expose unexamined assump- affect to no small degree the type of research paradigm
tions about the very structures that maintain the existence that researchers deem viable. Definitions compatible with
of a reading disability. In this chapter, which is focused on an interpretive paradigm include those that claim reading
a review of the literature on reading disabilities within an disabilities are largely socially (McGill-Franzen, 1987) and
interpretive paradigm, we do not claim an inherent bench- culturally (Kliewer & Biklen, 2001) constructed. Other defi-
mark of quality for interpretive research. Rather, our goal is nitions of reading disability, not grounded in sociocultural
to use interpretive research as an entry point for considering perspectives but still compatible with an interpretive para-
the possibilities of a research agenda that complicates the digm, look for ways of mediating or changing the context
study of reading disabilities. in which readers with disabilities learn, rather than “fixing”
the readers per se (Klenk & Kibby, 2000; Lipson & Wixson,
1986). Acknowledging that while “neurological dysfunction
The Literature Search Process
plays a role in certain cases of reading disability,” Lipson
First, using the University of Georgia’s Electronic Jour- and Wixson (1986, p. 112) maintained the majority of
nal Locator, we compiled a list of 35 journals associated students with reading disabilities do not fall within that
with reading disability areas (e.g., learning disabilities, category. Thus, they argued, an interactionist perspective
special educational psychology, and language and literacy on reading (dis)ability—one that predicted “variability in
education). Second, we conducted a computerized search performance within individuals across texts, tasks, and set-
of these journals using Galileo, an interface of databases tings” (p. 120)—was better suited to understanding variation
(e.g., Academic Search Complete, ERIC, JSTOR). Third, in children’s textual processing.
we used search engines (Google and Google Scholar) to One thing these nonmedical-model definitions of read-
deepen and broaden our list of articles on reading disabili- ing disability share is their emphasis on setting or context.
ties research within an interpretive paradigm. Descriptors It comes as no surprise, then, that researchers who work
for the computerized searches included reading disability, within an interpretive paradigm rely to a large extent on
reading disorder, reading difficulty, or simply reading cross- definitions that take sociocultural views of reading disabil-
searched with a particular disabilities journal (e.g., Journal ity into account. Using naturalistic, ethnographic, symbolic
of Learning Disabilities). Finally, we hand-searched the interactionist, conversation analysis, narrative inquiry, phe-
second edition of the Handbook of Educational Psychol- nomenological, and mediational methodologies, researchers
ogy (Alexander & Winne, 2006) and the third volume of proceed on the assumption that a reading disability, while
the Handbook of Reading Research (Kamil, Mosenthal, real, is best understood by studying the contexts in which
490 Donna E. Alvermann and Christine A. Mallozzi

it occurs and the sense that people make of it. Social con- grade placement, context was once again the focus. In this
structions of reading disabilities, not individuals’ so-called instance, the students’ attempts to develop and maintain
bodily impairments, are the focus of attention. what they perceived as appropriate identities within their
When research on reading disabilities is distinguished peer group both in and out of school settings took prece-
from the larger literature on learning disabilities, the number dence over what their teachers required of them in terms
of relevant studies conducted within the interpretive para- of learning from content area texts. In Hall’s interpretation
digm is quite small by comparison. Being familiar with a of why the three students (all girls) maintained a culture
recent review of qualitative research in special education of silence, she was careful to point out why appearances
(Brantlinger, Jimenez, Klingner, Pugach, & Richardson, of disinterest or lack of motivation should not be conflated
2005) in which the authors pointed to the long and estab- with cognitive difficulties in processing text. Similar to
lished history of interpretive research in that field, we had Hall’s findings are those reported by Cousin, Aragon, and
assumed we would find a reasonably large number of stud- Rojas (1993). In their year-long study of Carl, an eighth-
ies related to reading disabilities given that close to 80% grade male student identified with learning disabilities, they
of all children referred for placement in special education learned that different social contexts within the classroom
are thought to have a reading disability (Hallahan, Kauff- provided Carl with different ways of performing a literate
man, & Lloyd, 1999). Such was not the case, however. Our identity. In settings where he could link his out-of-school
search results pointed to a much smaller body of research knowledge and interests to in-school academic content, Carl
from which to draw implications than we would like. To exhibited more sophisticated reading and writing behaviors
qualify for review in this chapter, a study’s participants had than in settings where he felt insecure and incompetent.
to be students identified in one of three ways: as having a Findings from two studies (Boling, 2007; Richards &
reading disability; as having learning disabilities associated Morse, 2002) that used a naturalistic approach to data col-
with reading difficulties; or as reading at least two grade lection and interpretation at the post-secondary level provide
levels below actual grade placement as determined by scores a view of inclusive classrooms and students with reading
earned on a standardized reading achievement test or on a disabilities from preservice general education teachers’
mandated statewide assessment of reading proficiency. perspectives. This view of how teacher candidates make
sense of inclusion offers yet another opportunity to look at
Naturalistic Approach A large naturalistic study con- the influence of context in relation to reading disabilities.
ducted in the United Kingdom by Lacey, Layton, Miller, Lydia, the young woman in Boling’s (2007) study, provided
Goldbart, and Lawson (2007) is of particular interest be- many examples in her comments during class discussion and
cause of its focus on the National Literacy Strategy, and written artifacts (e.g., dialogue journal entries, reflections on
more particularly the Literacy Hour, which have counter- visits to a local inclusive classroom, and on her own earlier
parts in the United States in No Child Left Behind Act of experiences with a classmate who had been diagnosed with
2001 (NCLB, 2002) and Reading First, respectively. One an autism spectrum disorder) that she conceived of students
of Lacey et al.’s goals was to learn how teachers taught with reading disabilities as being “in need of fixing” (p. 222)
reading and writing to students with severe learning difficul- so that they could perform on par with their peers. Lydia’s
ties under the required guidelines of the National Literacy uncertainty about how to engage in the “fixing” process
Strategy. The Literacy Hour, a prescriptive and explicit created frustrations for her that she preferred to avoid and
approach to literacy instruction, included 15 minutes of made her resistant to the idea of teaching in an inclusive
whole-class shared reading and writing, 15 minutes of classroom. However, during her semester-long reading
grammar and phonics, 20 minutes of guided reading or methods class and visits to the local classroom where she
writing, and a 10-minute wrap up. The researchers visited observed a teacher working with a child with ADHD, Lydia
35 schools (including primary, secondary and all-age special began to reconsider her original stance toward teaching in
schools) that were charged with educating students with an inclusive classroom.
severe learning difficulties. After observing 122 lessons, Unlike in Boling’s (2007) inclusion study, Alisha, the
interviewing 61 teachers, and examining their paperwork, preservice teacher enrolled in a reading methods class in
the researchers consulted with 10 focus groups comprised the Richards and Morse (2002) study, worked in a field
of teachers and literacy experts. Overall, they found that placement that separated children with reading disabilities
regardless of school setting, teachers used both printed from their general education peers. Like Lydia, however,
texts and other media (pictures, film), though conventional Alisha was anxious initially about her ability to teach young
alphabetic literacy lessons prevailed. They also found that children who had been identified as learning disabled. Yet
the contexts for learning did not vary greatly because teach- based on data collected through observation notes, dialogue
ers at all levels appeared to follow the National Literacy journal entries, email correspondence, and videotaped les-
Strategy rather strictly, believing that even small gains in sons, Richards and Morse were able to show how Alisha’s
conventional reading and writing skills were beneficial for high expectations for her students’ success in literacy
students with severe learning difficulties. activities that incorporated digital media, music, and the
In Hall’s (2007) study of three middle grades students visual and performing arts overcame obstacles that might
who were reading two or more grade levels below actual otherwise have spelled low self-esteem for students with
 Interpretive Research 491

reading disabilities. In the end, contextual conditions that comprehend his assigned textbooks. In stark contrast to his
fostered the children’s sense of communicative competence, lack of success with academic texts, Dan appeared com-
not the disabilities identified in them as individuals, were petent and creative in the literacy lab where he produced
what mattered. Moreover, classroom setting seemed not to a multimedia documentary that featured Ozzy Osbourne,
be a distinguishing factor inasmuch as students separated a heavy metal musician, who, despite his artistic talent,
from their general education peers in a special education struggled privately and publicly with personal tragedy and
setting did well under Alisha’s instruction. success. According to O’Brien (2001), in a school context
where literate competency was not restricted to the narrow
Ethnographic Approach In a 2-year ethnographic study definition associated with print literacy, Dan was able to
of nine inclusive preschool and kindergarten classes where apply his own artistic talents in a way that communicated
students with and without disabilities learned together in to others what he understood but could not express in words
classrooms with varying levels of inclusivity, Kliewer, alone. Using symbolic interactionism as his theoretical
Fitzgerald, Meyer-Mork, Hartman, English-Sand, and lens enabled O’Brien (2001) to show how constructions of
Raschke (2004) found that children’s literacy develop- literate competency can vary from one setting to another
ment depended on contextual factors rather than on labels in the same school.
associated with disabilities. For example, when Steven, a
child labeled with an autism spectrum disorder, learned Conversation Analysis Approach Opportunities for self-
how written words, such as those he and his classmates expression in inclusive classrooms are integral to carrying
assembled on posters in a playful but mock protest of the on conversations about texts of all kinds. In an effort to
teacher’s classroom rules, communicated to others in the learn how such conversations encourage students to take a
school, he also learned what it takes to become a competent more active role in constructing meaning through classroom
citizen of a literate community. The researchers attributed discussion, Berry and Englert (2005) applied conversation
this kind of learning to an environment that encourages analysis techniques to two videotaped book discussions
teachers and non-labeled children to presume human com- in a first- and second-grade inclusion classroom. Claim-
petence and to expect students with significant disabilities ing that children with language and learning disabilities,
to possess what they call literate potential. Pointing out compared to their general education peers, experience more
that segregated classes for young children with severe to difficulties in initiating and maintaining discussion topics
moderate disabilities do not present the same opportunities and taking turns talking, the researchers introduced a four-
for childhood narratives—pretending, role playing, and phase discussion strategy in which the teacher apprenticed
dramatizing—Kliewer et al. (2004) argued for educational her students into a novel participant structure that required
settings that are inclusive and provide youngsters with collaborations around topic selection and the negotiation
disabilities with more than what they call immediate (or of a book’s meaning. Conversation analysis provided Berry
physical) need narratives. Their argument is based in what and Englert (2005) with evidence that children with lan-
they learned from teachers in inclusive classrooms where a guage and learning disabilities could assume some of the
broad range of graphic semiotic systems (not just alphabetic same leadership roles as their general education peers when
texts) were presented, engaged with, and represented by appropriate support through collaborative book discussions
children with significant disabilities. is provided over an extended period of time.

Symbolic Interactionist Approach As this approach Narrative Inquiry Approach One common assumption
gained acceptance in the field of mainstream sociology, about narrative inquiry “is that people are storytellers, who
which was at one time dominated by positivistic, quantita- lead storied lives” (Brantlinger et al., 2005, p. 199). Finding
tive researchers, it simultaneously attracted researchers a way to draw on her own and others’ storied experiences
from other fields, but not without some significant changes as students with learning disabilities who made it through
and fragmentation to its core concepts, according to Fine high school and went on to community college, the au-
(1993). Here we examine how symbolic interactionsim thor (Faber, 2006) focused her dissertation study on three
has been used by one reading researcher (O’Brien, 2001) individuals, two of whom (Quinton and Rana) had been
to understand how Dan, a high school student identified as identified as dyslexic in high school. In noting a growing
having a reading disability, was able to demonstrate literate concern in the United States that students identified with
competence in a lab setting that engaged him in authoring disabilities in high school are unlikely to be successful in
multimedia texts quite distinct from the texts he was re- college, Faber sought to explore Quinton and Rana’s life
quired to read in his regular classroom placement. stories within the context of their developing a sense of self-
Dan’s reading level as assessed by a standardized reading determination, much as she had done as a student. Stating
achievement test administered statewide placed him among that she settled on narrative inquiry as an approach because
the lowest 8% of his 2,200 high school classmates, which it provided an “opportunity for the voices of the participants
according to the state was at approximately the second to be heard and understood” (pp. 70–71), Faber relied on
grade level. Decoding and word recognition difficulties Clandinin and Connelly’s (2000) method for finding pat-
created problems for Dan when he tried unsuccessfully to terns, narrative threads, and themes that were common
492 Donna E. Alvermann and Christine A. Mallozzi

across her participants. Her findings, as told through the the services provided in his former resource room (one-on-
voices of Quinton and Rana (but filtered through her lens one teacher-directed instruction); instead, he had to learn to
as researcher), suggest that these two individuals had not interact with his peers and negotiate book club discussions
felt sufficiently challenged in their pre-college years; nor that required students to use their prior knowledge to predict
had they developed the self-esteem they said they needed certain characters’ actions in the novel. He also had to take
to be self-determining. However, community college was a responsibility for his own learning by asking appropriate
different story. Largely through support services provided questions based on the novel. The researchers’ documenta-
by the community college, both were developing strategies tion and interpretation of Stark’s learning strategies, which
for becoming more self-determined learners. differed remarkably from those he displayed in the resource
room, provides insight into how re/mediation works.
Phenomenological Approach Interestingly, as was the The second study (Kos, 1991) focused on four middle
case for reading disabilities research that used narrative school students (all of whom had been identified as hav-
inquiry, the only reading disabilities study to use a phenom- ing reading disabilities) and their perceptions of why they
enological approach that we could find was an unpublished had not made better progress in reading. Unlike Goatley
dissertation on a community volunteer tutoring program and her colleagues (1995), Kos was interested in students’
called Reading Matters (Haynes, 2004); however, there are retrospective interpretations of various contextual factors
published phenomenological studies of learning disabilities thought to have contributed to their reading difficulties.
not explicitly attributed to reading difficulty (e.g., Worley Primarily through the examination of students’ previous
& Cornett-DeVito, 2007). Although Waite, Bromfield, and reading records and open-ended interviews with each stu-
McShane (2005) have argued for a phenomenological ap- dent during her twice-weekly tutoring sessions of 45–60
proach to studying inclusive classrooms on the basis that minutes each, Kos was able to piece together information for
“evaluation of inclusion [programs] requires an inclusive multiple case studies. When interpreted through cross-case
methodology” (p. 85)—one that honors stakeholders’ voic- analysis using grounded theory, students’ perceptions of
es—reading disabilities researchers seem not to have taken their lack of progress in reading pointed to their ineffective
up that call, at least not yet. A major purpose of Haynes’s use of reading strategies; to their sense of having received
study was to uncover the characteristics of Reading Matters inadequate reading instruction; and to what they described
that accounted for student success. Her participants included as reading-related stress. The researcher’s documentation of
a program coordinator, a principal, eight classroom teachers, the four students’ educational histories, as well as interviews
three volunteers, and five students from a rural elementary with their teachers, corroborated the students’ perceptions
school. Data sources included interviews and field notes of of their difficulties in reading.
observations of 40 tutoring sessions (each lasting 30 minutes
and involving students in reciprocal read-alouds) during the
Looking Beyond the Interpretive Perspective to Other
spring, summer, and fall of 2003. Positive mentoring rela-
Paradigms
tionships and flexibility in scheduling were among several
characteristics that Haynes attributed to students generally Using social theory within an interpretive paradigm to
showing improvement in reading as measured by the Slos- account for how people understand reading disabilities
son Oral Reading Test – Revised (SORT-R). is helpful in that it reveals how different social contexts
construct disability differently. Yet, as Eisner (1993) has
Mediational Approach As noted earlier, focusing on ways aptly reminded us, theory “not only reveals, it conceals”
of mediating or changing the context in which readers with (p. viii). Because the realities produced by socially con-
disabilities learn, rather than on “fixing” the readers per se, structed reading disabilities are no less oppressive than those
reflects current thinking in the field. Mediational approaches openly objectified and studied from a positivist, or medical
call for moving beyond fruitless searches for some method view, of disability, there is a need to research policies that
(or magic bullet, if you will) that promises to “fix” students’ inadvertently put students with reading disabilities at a
so-called deficits in reading. Two studies that were repre- disadvantage. Gregg (2007) heightened awareness of this
sentative of a mediational approach to researching reading need among adolescents and adults identified with reading
disabilities are discussed next. disabilities who are in transition from secondary to post-
First was a study by Goatley, Brock, and Raphael (1995) secondary schooling. As one example, Gregg documented
that involved a diverse group of five fifth-grade students how policies that depend on accurate measurement of
in small-group, student-led literature discussions for the reading comprehension to determine students’ eligibility
purpose of exploring the strategies they used to construct for accommodations are often compromised when the tests
meaning of a popular novel by Katherine Paterson, a themselves are invalid (e.g., when students can answer
well-known author of children’s literature. One of the five questions without reading a test passage).
students, Stark, had been identified as having learning dis- In tracing policies that have historically determined who
abilities and had spent a year and a half in pull-out special can (and cannot) be judged competently literate, Kliewer,
education programs prior to being placed in a fifth-grade Biklen, and Kasa-Hendrickson (2006) used what they
inclusive classroom. In this new setting, Stark did not have termed a critical interpretivist frame (or what Lather, 2006,
 Interpretive Research 493

referred to as simply critical) to examine four themes of impairment as both limit and possibility. Arguing against
“literate disconnection” (p. 167) that are “associated with an interpretivist or social model of reading disabilities that
society’s ongoing denial of literate citizenship for people would have us believe “being disabled (or being a woman)
with perceived intellectual disabilities” (p. 163). The first is simply what the individual makes of it” (p. 665), Titch-
theme of making literate possibility invisible can be illus- kosky maintained “the body is a way of being even if this
trated with two historical examples. During the lifetimes way is ordered, organized and oppressed by its situation”
of Phillis Wheatley (an 18th century poet and slave from (p. 666). Like Titchkosky, Paterson and Hughes (1999)
Africa) and Helen Keller (a child with profound visual and critiqued work within an interpretive paradigm, roundly
auditory disabilities), the predominant beliefs and policies rejecting the notion of an impaired body “as a passive
of the time rendered the literacy of these women invisible, recipient of social forces” (p. 601). They also rejected the
as evidenced by the struggle to publish their works. The idea that disability studies can support disembodied views
second theme involves making disability a static construct of impairment. Looking beyond the interpretive paradigm
and holds that once a person is identified as having a dis- reinforces the body as materially important.
ability, the “categorized individual [is viewed as] simple,
one dimensional, dormant, stalled, and fossilized” (Kliewer
Implications
et al., 2006, p. 175). The third theme, namely censuring
and dismissing literate competence, points to how society This literature review has established that interpretive
denigrates the accomplishments of a categorized individual. reading disabilities research is ensconced within a social
The fourth theme is perhaps the most pernicious of all four model of disabilities—one that relies on social theory to
themes. It is the practice of making a categorized individual understand how people’s perceptions of a reading disability
prove his or her literate competence by using “criteria of change as the educational context changes. It could be said
proof…determined by those who [hold] authority without that interpretive research, like research conducted within
consulting the needs or interests of the person whose capaci- a positivist/post-positivist paradigm (the medical model),
ties [are] suspect” (Kliewer et al., 2006, p. 169). By using is a partial response to understanding reading disabilities.
a critical interpretivist frame, Kliewer and his colleagues Although research conducted within an emancipatory
made known their intent to mobilize a moral stance against framework moves the conversation about reading disabili-
society’s proclivity to disenfranchise the literate lives of ties beyond understanding how setting or context matters,
individuals with profound disabilities. toward envisioning changes in policies that dictate op-
For other scholars in the disabilities field, the emanci- pressive practices and marginalize students with reading
patory/critical theory paradigm, which exposes structural difficulties, it doesn’t go far enough in some scholars’ eyes.
inequities and advocates for liberating categorized individu- For those whose work has a deconstructive bent, the goal is
als from oppressive conditions, does not go far enough. to dismantle sociohistorical, linguistic, and economic struc-
Garland-Thomson (2002), for example, has made a case tures that produce reading disabilities in order to substitute a
for reading disabled bodies by complicating what feminist more complicated picture—one that reconstructs disabilities
theorists refer to as the gaze. Based on the assumption as both possibility and limit. This “neither/nor” but “both/
that men act and women appear (Berger, 1972), the gaze and” approach to researching reading disabilities suggests
theorizes that a (male) viewer looks at a (female) body and at least three implications for future research.
in doing so objectifies the body as a thing of pleasure that One implication is that scholarship in the field of read-
exists to serve his desire in looking (Mulvey, 1975). By ing disabilities is likely to continue to look to research
relegating the body as an object, the body lacks agency and paradigms that go beyond attempts to simply understand
has only the identity that the viewer deems appropriate to a social construct such as disability. Disability is a broad
his wants of any given moment. Garland-Thomson (2002), term that characterizes people who have physical and/
calling for deconstruction of the terms woman and disabled, or cognitive capacities different from an expected norm.
complicated the critical feminist discourse of the gaze. Un- Working in an interpretive paradigm, researchers who view
like a gaze that molds the objectified body to the changing disability as a socially constructed phenomenon and allow
desires of the viewer, Garland-Thompson theorized the the impaired body to retreat to “little more than flesh and
gaze as a stare that continually produces and intensifies a bones” (Paterson & Hughes, 1999, p. 600), stand to negate
disabled person’s identity as disabled. However, once the the physically disabled body that makes it so visible in
term disabled is deconstructed, the stare does not reify society. If a physical disability can fade, or at least become
the disabled body as being one thing—disabled; instead it invisible to researchers, then the dangers of invisibility
reinforces the notion that differences are “normal” and to are even worse for an individual with an already invisible
be expected in the span of human variation. cognitive disability.
In a similar vein, Titchkosky (2005) argued for de- Making a cognitive disability part of the contextual
constructing the notion of disability as a limit without social scenery has serious consequences beyond a lack of
possibility. This deconstructive turn posits that by reading visibility. Social theories operating within an interpretive
certain bodies—those identified as impaired—through the paradigm imply that a person with a disability (or that per-
lens of a disability studies perspective, one can represent son’s social circle comprised of individuals with good inten-
494 Donna E. Alvermann and Christine A. Mallozzi

tions) could in effect ignore the disability under the guise without first inviting people with this kind of disability into
of treating everyone the same. Another consequence is that the conversation can produce a rhetoric that is taken up by
the disability is only what that person (or the person’s social others in the academy and yet have little or no positive,
circle) makes of it. Therefore, if a person with a disability long-term impact on the lives of those with reading disabili-
“fails,” the onus for such a failure resides in that person and ties. Including people with disabilities in meaningful and
the people within her or his immediate context. The result- productive ways in one’s research agenda opens up oppor-
ing burden, that of adjusting teaching and learning contexts tunities for them to participate in their own reconstruction.
to alleviate the effects of the disability, may be extremely There is something to be said for an agenda that keeps the
taxing and unrelenting on individuals involved. disability in the research, not separated from the body that
Including emancipatory and deconstructive paradigms in houses it. To do otherwise is to deny people with reading
reading disabilities research will increase visibility of cogni- disabilities the right to question the underlying assump-
tive difficulties and the disabling conditions of people with tions of the texts that produced them as disabled in the first
disabilities. Giving a cognitive reading disability primacy place, and to advocate on their own behalf. This research
in research does not impose a shackle on people with dis- is difficult work. It may not produce a sizeable literature
abilities, but it does acknowledge that there are experiences on reading disabilities; moreover, the rate at which such
that are not entirely within the control of the person with the studies appear may be unusually slow with little hope for
reading disability. The disability can serve as an entry into more rapid growth. That said, the better marker of research
policy discussions that offer possibilities for change and op- growth may be its complexity and effectiveness in creating
portunities for resistance to sociohistorical, economic, and a multifaceted picture of reading disabilities.
political structures that are currently not serving people with
disabilities. The use of emancipatory and deconstructive
References
paradigms to highlight reading disabilities serves to keep
this construct in play and fluid—an antidote of sorts to the Alexander, P. A., & Winne, P. H. (Eds.). (2006). Handbook of educational
static construct that Kliewer et al. (2006) identified in their psychology (2nd ed.). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
Allington, R. L. (2002). Research on reading/learning disability interven-
research on literate competence. tions. In A. E. Farstrup & S. J. Samuels (Eds.), What research has to
A second implication of the research reviewed here is say abut reading instruction (3rd ed., pp. 261–290). Newark, DE:
that any macro-categorization of reading disabilities re- International Reading Association.
search is complicated by the very nature of such research. Berger, J. (1972). Ways of seeing. London: British Broadcasting Corpora-
Stated another way, researching how disabilities are un- tion & Penguin Books.
Berry, R. A. W., & Englert, C. S. (2005). Designing conversation: Book
derstood (a focus of the interpretive paradigm) cannot be discussions in a primary inclusion classroom. Learning Disability
separated from researching how to change student learning Quarterly, 28(1), 35–58.
opportunities (a focus close to, if not congruent with, the Blumer, H. (1969). Symbolic interactionism. Englewood Cliffs, NJ:
emancipatory and deconstuctive paradigms). Although Prentice Hall.
Boling, E. (2007). “Yeah, but I still don’t want to deal with it”: Changes
generally helpful, Lather and St. Pierre’s categorization
in a teacher candidate’s conceptions of inclusion. Teaching Education,
of paradigms (see Lather, 2006) did not fully account for 18(3), 217–231.
the various kinds of studies reported by researchers work- Brantlinger, E., Jimenez, R., Klingner, J., Pugach, M., & Richardson, V.
ing within both critical interpretivist and disability studies (2005). Qualitative studies in special education. Exceptional Children,
paradigms. Consequently, in addition to reviewing the 71(2), 195–207.
Buswell, G. T. (1920). An experimental study of the eye-voice span in
interpretive research on reading disabilities, we elected to
reading. Supplementary Educational Monographs, No 17.
review representative studies from the emancipatory and Christensen, C. A. (1992). Commentary: Discrepancy definitions of read-
deconstructive literature as well. ing disability: Has the quest led us astray? A response to Stanovich.
A third implication rests on the fact that reading dis- Reading Research Quarterly, 27(3), 276–278.
abilities research has traditionally been situated in positivist Clandinin, D. J., & Connelly, F. M. (2000). Narrative inquiry: Experience
and story in qualitative research. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
and post-positivist paradigms that are focused on predicting
Clay, M. M. (1966). The reading behavior of five year old children: A
and explaining outcomes due to various reading interven- research report. New Zealand Journal of Educational Studies, 2(1),
tions. A smaller body of interpretive research aims to un- 11–31.
derstand and adjust the contexts in which the interventions Clay, M. M. (1969). Reading errors and self-correction behavior. British
take place. Therefore, on some level, we maintain that the Journal of educational Psychology, 39(1), 47–56.
Clay, M. M. (1979). The early detection of reading difficulties. Auckland,
change aspect of educational research is present even when
New Zealand: Heinemann.
emancipatory and deconstructive paradigms are not. This Cousin, P. T., Aragon, E., & Rojas, R. (1993). Creating new conversations
bit of irony aside, a research agenda for improving learning about literacy: Working with special needs students in a middle-school
opportunities for students with reading disabilities can ill classroom. Learning Disability Quarterly, 16(4), 282–298.
afford to overlook the possibilities for change inherent in Education for All Handicapped Children Act of 1975, Pub. L. No. 94-
142.
both emancipatory and desconstructive work.
Eisner, E. W. (1993). Foreword. In D. J. Flinders & G. E. Mills (Eds.),
Such work is never innocent, however, and when under- Theory and concepts in qualitative research (pp. vii–ix). New York:
taken comes with its own set of precautions. For instance, Teachers College Press.
scholarly attempts to deconstruct the term reading disability Faber, A. B. (2006). A narrative inquiry into perceptions of the development
 Interpretive Research 495

of self-determination by community college students with learning dis- in inclusive early childhood settings. Harvard Educational Review,
abilities (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). University of Maryland, 74(4), 373–403.
College Park, MD. Kos, R. (1991). Persistence of reading disabilities: The voices of four
Fine, G. A. (1993). The sad demise, mysterious disappearance, and glori- middle school students. American Educational Research Journal,
ous triumph of symbolic interactionism. Annual Review of Sociology, 28(4), 875–895.
19(1), 61–87. Lacey, P., Layton, L., Miller, C., Goldbart, J., & Lawson, H. (2007). What
Fuchs, D., Mock, D., Morgan, P. L., & Young, C. L. (2003). Responsive- is literacy for students with severe learning difficulties? Exploring
ness-to Intervention: Definitions, Evidence, and Implications for the conventional and inclusive literacy. Journal of Research in Special
Learning Disabilities Construct. Learning Disabilities Research and Educational Needs, 7(3), 149–160.
Practice, 18(3), 157–171. Lather, P. (1991). Getting smart: Feminist research and pedagogy with/
Garland-Thomson, R. (2002). Integrating disability, transforming feminist in the postmodern. New York: Routledge.
theory. National Women’s Studies Association Journal, 14(3), 1–32. Lather, P. (2006). Paradigm proliferation as a good thing to think with:
Gates, A. I. (1921). An experimental and statistical study of reading and Teaching research in education as a wild profusion. International
reading tests. Journal of Educational Psychology, 12(8), 445–464. Journal of Qualitative Studies in Education, 19(1), 35–57.
Gates, A. I. (1927). The improvement of reading: A program of diagnostic Lincoln, Y. S., & Guba, E. (1985). Naturalistic inquiry. Beverly Hills,
and remedial methods. New York: Macmillan. CA: Sage.
Geertz, C. (1973). The interpretation of cultures. New York: Basic Lipson, M. Y., & Wixson, K. K. (1986). Reading disability research: An
Books. interactionist perspective. Review of Educational Research, 56(1),
Goatley, V. J., Brock, C. H., & Raphael, T. E. (1995). Diverse learners 111–136.
participating in regular education “Book Clubs”. Reading Research McGill-Franzen, A. (1987). Failure to learn to read: Formulating a policy
Quarterly, 30(3), 352–380. problem. Reading Research Quarterly, 22(4), 475–490.
Gray, W. S. (1922). Remedial cases in reading: Their diagnosis and treat- Merriam, S. B. (1998). Qualitative research and case study applications
ment. In R. D. Robinson (Ed.), Readings in reading instruction: Its in education. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
history, theory, and development (pp. 206–207). Boston: Pearson. Mulvey, L. (1975). Visual pleasure and narrative cinema. Screen, 16(3),
Green, J., & Bloome, D. (1983). Ethnography and reading: Issues, ap- 6–18.
proaches, criteria, and findings. In J. A. Niles & L. A. Harris (Eds.), No Child Left Behind Act of 2001, Pub. L. No. 107-110, 115 Stat. 1425
Searches for meaning in reading/language processing and instruction. (2002). Retrieved August 5, 2008, from http://www.ed.gov/policy/
32nd Yearbook of the National Reading Conference (pp. 183–208). elsec/leg/esea02/index.html
Rochester, NY: National Reading Conference. O’Brien, D. (2001, June). “At-risk” adolescents: Redefining competence
Gregg, N. (2007). Underserved and unprepared: Postsecondary learn- through the multiliteracies of intermediality, visual arts, and repre-
ing disabilities. Learning Disabilities Research and Practice, 22(4), sentation. Reading Online, 4(11). Retrieved August 8, 2008, from
219–228. http://www.readingonline.org/newliteracies/lit_index.asp?HREF=/
Guba, E. G. (1978). Toward a methodology of naturalistic inquiry in edu- newliteracies/obrien/index.html
cational evaluation. CSE Monograph Series in Evaluation, No. 8. Paterson, K., & Hughes, B. (1999). Disability studies and phenomenol-
Guba, E. G., & Lincoln, Y. S. (1989). Fourth generation evaluation. ogy: The carnal politics of everyday life. Disability & Society, 5(1),
Newbury Park, CA: Sage. 597–610.
Habermas, J. (1971). Theory and practice. Boston: Beacon Press. Richards, J. C., & Morse, T. E. (2002, June). One preservice teacher’s
Hall, L. (2007). Understanding the silence: Struggling readers discuss experiences teaching literacy to regular and special education
decisions about reading expository text. Journal of Educational Re- students. Reading Online, 5(10). Retrieved August 11, 2008, from
search, 100(3), 132–141. http://www.readingonline.org/articles/art_index.asp?HREF=richards/
Hallahan, D., Kauffman, J., & Lloyd, J. (1999). Introduction to learning index.html
disabilities (2nd ed.). Boston: Allyn and Bacon. Schwandt, T. A. (2001). Dictionary of qualitative inquiry (2nd ed.).
Haynes, L. C. (2004). Reading matters: A case study of a community vol- Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
unteer tutoring program (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). Marshall Schell, L. (1992). Comments on Stanovich (1991). Reading Research
University, Huntington, West Virginia. Quarterly, 27(2), 175.
Huey, E. B. (1908). The psychology and pedagogy of reading. New York: Shannon, P. (1991). Politics, policy, and reading research. In R. Barr, M. L.
Macmillan. Kamil, P. M., & P. D. Pearson (Eds.), Handbook of reading research:
Individuals with Disabilities Education Improvement Act of 2004, Pub. Volume II (pp. 147–167). New York: Longman.
L. No. 108-466. Shaywitz, S. E., & Shaywitz, B. A. (2005). Dyslexia (specific reading
Judd, C. H., & Buswell, G. T. (1922). Silent reading: A study of the various disability). Biological Psychiatry, 57(11), 1301–1309.
types. Supplementary Educational Monographs, No 23. Spivey, N. N. (1997). The constructivist metaphor: Reading, writing, and
Kamil, M. L., Mosenthal, P. B., Pearson, P. D., & Barr, R. (Eds.). (2000). the making of meaning. San Diego, CA: Academic Press.
Handbook of reading research (Volume III). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum. Stanovich, K. E. (1991). Discrepancy definitions of reading disability:
Klenk, L., & Kibby, M. W. (2000). Re-mediating reading difficulties: Has intelligence led us astray? Reading Research Quarterly, 26(1),
Appraising the past, reconciling the present, constructing the future. 7–29.
In M. L. Kamil, P. B. Mosenthal, P. David Pearson, & R. Barr (Eds.) Stanovich, K. E. (1992a). Commentary: Response to Christensen. Reading
Handbook of reading research: (Vol. III, pp. 667–690). Mahwah, Research Quarterly, 27(3), 279–280.
NJ: Erlbaum. Stanovich, K. E. (1992b). Stanovich’s reply. Reading Research Quarterly,
Kliewer, C., & Biklen, D. (2001). “School’s not really a place for read- 26(2), 175–176.
ing”: A research synthesis of the literate lives of students with severe Sternberg, R. J., & Grigorenko, E. L. (2002). Difference scores in the
disabilities. Journal of the Association for Persons with Severe Handi- identification of children with learning disabilities: It’s time to use a
caps, 26(1), 1–12. different method. Journal of School Psychology, 40(1), 65–83.
Kliewer, C., Biklen, D., & Kasa-Hendrickson, C. (2006). Who may be Thorndike, E. L. (1914). The measurement of ability in reading. Teachers
literate? Disability and resistance to the cultural denial of competence. College Record, XV(4), 1–71.
American Educational Research Journal, 43(2), 163–192. Thorndike, E. L. (1917). Reading as reasoning: A study of mistakes in para-
Kliewer, C., Fitzgerald, L., Meyer-Mork, J., Hartman, P., English-Sand, graph reading. Journal of Educational Psychology, 8(6), 323–332.
P., & Raschke, D (2004). Citizenship for all in the literate commu- Tisdale, K. (2008). Disability studies matters. In J. Flood, S. B. Heath, &
nity: An ethnography of young children with significant disabilities D. Lapp (Eds.), Handbook of research on teaching literacy through
496 Donna E. Alvermann and Christine A. Mallozzi

the communicative and visual arts (pp. 169–176). London: Prentice early intervention in diagnosing specific reading disability. Journal of
Hall. School Psychology, 36(4), 367–397.
Titchkosky, T. (2005). Disability in the news: A reconsideration of reading. Waite, S. J., Bromfield, C., & McShane, S. (2005). Successful for whom?
Disability & Society, 20(6), 655–668. A methodology to evaluate and inform inclusive activity in schools.
Van Manen, M. (1990). Researching lived experience: Human science European Journal of Special Needs Education, 20(1), 71–88.
for an action sensitive pedagogy. Albany: State University of New Worley, D. W., & Cornett-DeVito, M. (2007). College students with
York. learning disabilities (SWLD) and their responses to teacher power.
Vellutino, F. R., Scanlon, D. M., & Tanzman, M. S. (1998). The case for Communication Studies, 58(1), 17–33.
 Epilogue
RICHARD L. ALLINGTON
University of Tennessee

Anne and I have been certified reading specialists for 30 plus ing First schools, Congress has terminated funding for the
years and reading researchers for almost that long. Our col- Reading First. Congress was, perhaps, also stimulated by
laboration on this Handbook of Reading Disability Research several reports from the Office of the Inspector General at
was the latest of many years as collaborators on a variety of the Department of Education, reports that noted corruption
research, development, and publishing ventures. and entrepreneurship activities were pervasive among those
Our history as reading specialists covers almost the charged with providing federal direction and guidance (Of-
complete time frame that reading specialists have existed, at fice of the Inspector General, 2007).
least as certified education professionals. The passage of the Over the past 30 years and, more recently under the
Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965 (ESEA) Reading First program, a special education perspective
stimulated the development of graduate programs in reading has come to dominate the field of reading disabilities.
disabilities and the development of state reading specialist Anne first noted this shift in a paper published in Reading
certification programs. Legislators intended that Title 1 of Research Quarterly in 1987. It has only accelerated, in our
ESEA create professional qualifications for a relatively view, since that time.
new type of teacher, the Title 1 funded reading teacher. Consider the most recent federal initiative that attempts
Title 1 funds were then, and remain today, targeted towards to narrow the reading achievement gap—Response to Inter-
schools enrolling many children from low-income families. vention (RtI). Currently, we count only 2 professional texts
Title 1 was so targeted because it was clear, even in 1965, on this topic written by reading specialists (Allington, 2009;
that there existed a large reading achievement gap between Howard, 2009), but 20 plus professional texts on the topic
students from low-income families and other students. That written by special educators or school psychologists. And
gap still exists today, though it narrowed between 1971 and for those readers who are unaware, RTI is, by law, a general
1988, according the data from the National Assessment of education initiative designed to reduce or eliminate special
Educational Progress. Since 1992, however, the achieve- education classification for children who struggle with read-
ment gap has remained largely unchanged. By 12th grade ing. But in state after state and district after district RTI is
the achievement of poor students is approximately 4 years being led by special educators and school psychologists,
behind that of more advantaged peers. not by general educators and not by reading specialists. We
We have just seen the elimination of Reading First both worry that RTI may ultimately suffer the same fate as
funding from the No Child Left Behind Act of 2001, the Reading First—budget elimination—for the same reason:
most recent reauthorization of the original ESEA Act. a failure to substantively narrow the reading achievement
Reading First funding was targeted to the highest poverty gap between rich/poor students and, more broadly, between
schools. In order to be eligible for funding, these schools students who found early reading success and those who
were required to implement a core reading program and continue to struggle in reading.
interventions that had been designed from “scientifically But we literally know how to teach virtually all children
based, reliable, replicable research.” Unfortunately, what to read. Currently, however, in many, if not most schools
these schools often put into place bore scant resemblance the children who have difficulty with reading are assigned
to any research base we are familiar with. So, after 8 years a label, the most common today being “learning disabled”
of funding and no evidence (save faster nonsense word (although we have created lots of other labels as well).
decoding) that reading achievement was improving in Read- Problem is that the research evidence available suggests

497
498 Richard L. Allington

there are no children with learning disabilities (Mathes et handbook of English, language and literacy teaching (pp. 496–507).
al., 2005; Phillips & Smith, 1997; Scanlon, Vellutino, Small, New York: Routledge.
Allington, R. L., & Guice, S. (1997). Literature curriculum: Issues of
Fanuele, & Sweeney, 2005; Vellutino et al., 1996). None. definition and control. In D. J. Flood, S. B. Heath, & Lapp, D. (Ed.),
There are children who have experienced a “teaching dis- Handbook of research on teaching literacy through the communicative
ability” though. In other words, when some children need and visual arts, Vol. I. (pp. 727–734). New York: Macmillan.
more intensive and more expert reading instruction, most Allington, R. L., & Johnston, P. A. (1989). Coordination, collaboration,
schools don’t provide either. Instead, they label children and and consistency: The redesign of compensatory and special education
interventions. In R. Slavin, N. Karweit & N. Malden (Eds.), Effective
then don’t worry much about whether they learn to read, if programs for students at risk (pp. 320–354). Boston: Allyn-Bacon.
we examine both the outcomes and the reading instruction Allington, R. L., & McGill-Franzen, A. M. (1993). Reading and the mildly
they do receive. handicapped. In T. Husen & N. Postlethwaite (Eds.), The international
So, what we attempted in this text was a broad view of encyclopedia of education (pp. 421–439). Oxford, UK: Pergamon.
the research on struggling readers. We elicited the thinking Howard, M. (2009). RTI from all sides: What every teacher needs to know.
Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.
of experts in the field to explore why some children have Johnston, P. A., & Allington, R. L. (1990). Remediation. In P. D. Pearson
more difficulty than others in learning to read and what we (Ed.), Handbook of reading research, vol. II (pp. 984–1012). New
need to do to alter their status as struggling readers. Both of York: Longmans.
us have written books on this topic (Allington, 2006; 2009, McGill-Franzen, A. (1987). Failure to learn to read: Formulating a policy
McGill-Franzen, 2006), both of us have written chapters on problem. Reading Research Quarterly, 22, 475–490.
McGill-Franzen, A. (2000). Policy and instruction: What is the relation-
reading disabilities for other handbooks (Allington, 1984, ship? In M. Kamil, P. Mosenthal, P. D. Pearson, & R. Barr (Eds.),
2002, 2010; Allington & Guice, 1997; Allington & John- Handbook of reading research, vol. III (pp. 891–908). Mahwah, NJ:
ston, 1989; Allington & McGill-Franzen, 1993; Johnston & Erlbaum.
Allington, 1990; McGill-Franzen, 2000; McGill-Franzen & McGill-Franzen, A. (2006). Kindergarten literacy. New York: Scholas-
Goatley, 2001; McGill-Franzen & Love-Zeig, 2008). This tic.
McGill-Franzen, A., & Goatley, V. (2001). Title 1 and special education:
book represented our attempt to begin to bring the broad and Support for children who struggle to learn to read. In S. Neuman & D.
deep research on reading and reading disabilities to readers Dickinson (Eds.), Handbook of early literacy research (pp. 471–483).
in a single volume. We realize we didn’t quite achieve that New York: Guilford.
goal because several authors we asked to contribute simply McGill-Franzen, A., & Love-Zeig, J. (2008). Drawing to learn: Visual
couldn’t. So, there are chapters that remain yet unwritten. support for developing reading, writing, and concepts for children at
risk. In J. Flood, S. B. Heath, & D. Lapp (Eds.), Handbook of research
But the chapters included here address the field of reading on teaching literacy through the communicative and visual arts (Vol.
disability research broadly—broadly enough we hope to II, pp. 399–411). New York: Erlbaum.
give any reader a firm grounding in what we know today Mathes, P. G., Denton, C. A., Fletcher, J. M., Anthony, J. L., Francis, D.
and what we need yet to act upon. J., & Schatschneider, C. (2005). The effects of theoretically different
instruction and student characteristics on the skills of struggling read-
ers. Reading Research Quarterly, 40(2), 148–182.
References Phillips, G. E., & Smith, P. E. (1997). A third chance to learn: The devel-
opment and evaluation of specialized interventions for young children
Allington, R. L. (1984). Oral reading. In P. D. Pearson (Ed.), Handbook of experiencing the greatest difficulty in learning to read. Wellington,
reading research, Vol. I (pp. 829–864). New York: Longman. NZ: New Zealand Council for Educational Research.
Allington, R. L. (2002). Research on reading/learning disability inter- Scanlon, D. M., Vellutino, F. R., Small, S., G, Fanuele, D. P., & Sweeney,
ventions. In A. E. Farstrup & S. J. Samuels (Eds.), What research J. M. (2005). Severe reading difficulties — can they be prevented? A
says about reading instruction, 3rd ed. (pp. 261–290). Newark, DE: comparison of prevention and intervention approaches. Exceptional-
International Reading Association. ity, 13(4), 209–227.
Allington, R. L. (2006). What really matters for struggling readers: De- Vellutino, F. R., Scanlon, D. M., Sipay, E. R., Small, S. G., Pratt, A.,
signing research-based program. (2nd ed.). Boston: Allyn & Bacon. Chen, R., et al. (1996). Cognitive profiles of difficult-to-remediate
Allington, R. L. (2009). What really matters in response to intervention: and readily remediated poor readers: Early intervention as a vehicle
Research-based designs. Boston: Allyn & Bacon. for distinguishing between cognitive and experiential deficits as basic
Allington, R. L. (2010). Recent federal education policy in the United causes of specific reading disability. Journal of Educational Psychol-
States. In D. Wyse, R. Andrews, & J. V. Hoffman (Eds.), International ogy, 88(4), 601–638.
 About the Authors

Richard L. Allington is professor of education at the Service Publishing Internship in educational measurement
University of Tennessee. He served as president of both and evaluation. Her work has been published in the Journal
the National Reading Conference and the International of Statistics Education. She is currently writing her doctoral
Reading Association. He has been studying reading dis- dissertation entitled “What Differentiates a Fluent Reader
abilities for the past 35 years with a focus on the quality of from a Non-Fluent Reader and How Should We Assess It:
intervention services provided struggling readers. He was Implications for the Classroom.”
co-recipient, with Anne McGill-Franzen, of the Albert J.
Harris Award from the International Reading Association Donna E. Alvermann is a University of Georgia Ap-
for their contributions to understanding reading/learning pointed Distinguished Research Professor of Language
disabilities and received the William S. Gray Citation of and Literacy Education. Her chapter in the Handbook
Merit from IRA for his contributions to the profession. He of Reading Research: Volume III focuses on narrative
was elected to membership in the Reading Hall of Fame. as an interpretive approach to literacy research, and a
He is the author over 100 papers and chapters and several co-authored chapter (with George Hruby) on fictive
books. He has served, or is serving, on the editorial ad- representation as an alternative method for reporting
visory boards of Reading Research Quarterly, Review of research appears in the Handbook of Research on Teach-
Educational Research, Journal of Educational Psychology, ing the English Language Arts (2nd edition). Alvermann
Journal of Disability Policy Studies, Remedial and Special has served as editor of Reading Research Quarterly and
Education, Journal of Literacy Research, Reading Teacher, president of the National Reading Conference (NRC).
and Elementary School Journal. She was elected to the Reading Hall of Fame, and is the
recipient of NRC’s Oscar Causey Award for Outstanding
Janice F. Almasi is the Carol Lee Robertson Endowed Pro- Contributions to Reading Research, College Reading
fessor of Literacy Education at the University of Kentucky. Association’s Laureate Award, and the Herr Award for
She was the recipient of the International Reading Associa- Contributions to Research in Reading Education. She re-
tion’s Outstanding Dissertation of the Year Award in 1994 ceived the International Reading Association’s William S.
and the National Reading Conference’s Outstanding Student Gray Citation of Merit and the American Reading Forum’s
Research Award in 1993. Her research has examined the Brenda Townsend Service Award.
contexts in which children learn from text, particularly in
terms of strategic processes and peer discussion environ- Steve Amendum is an assistant professor of literacy
ments. She is currently a co-principal investigator on the education at North Carolina State University. He teaches
evaluation of Kentucky’s Striving Readers project. She has courses on literacy research and methods in the elemen-
published several books, and her research has been pub- tary education undergraduate and masters programs. His
lished in journals such as: Reading Research Quarterly, The research focuses on early literacy intervention for strug-
Journal of Literacy Research, Elementary School Journal, gling learners, literacy issues for multilingual learners,
and Educational Psychologist. and classroom-based literacy instruction reform efforts.
As a former K-2 multiage teacher and literacy coach, Dr.
S. J. Alt is a doctoral student in the Educational Psychol- Amendum’s research interests are grounded in classroom
ogy, PsyFoundations, Learning and Cognition program. She experiences and exchanges with students and teachers in
has been awarded the John P. Yackel/American Guidance diverse classroom and school settings.

499
500 About the Authors

Patricia Anders is the Jewell M. Lewis Distinguished Rita Bean is Professor Emerita, School of Education, Uni-
Professor of Reading in the Department of Teaching, versity of Pittsburgh. She has studied extensively the role
Learning and Sociocultural Studies and the Program of of the reading specialist and literacy coach. Her research
Language, Reading and Culture at the University of Ari- interests also include professional development for elemen-
zona. Her scholarship focuses on adolescent literacy and tary teachers of reading, and approaches for working with
literacy teacher education. Noteworthy publications include struggling readers. Dr. Bean is Co-Director of the external
“Teaching Reading Teachers: A Critical Review of the Lit- evaluation team for Reading First in Pennsylvania. She has
erature” (with Risko et al.), “Using Interactive Teaching and published on the topics of reading curriculum, professional
Learning Strategies to Promote Text Comprehension and development, and roles of reading specialists. Her newest
Content Learning for Students with Learning Disabilities” book, The Reading Specialist: Leadership for the Class-
(with C. Bos), and “The Relationship Between Teachers’ room, School, and Community addresses the varied roles
Beliefs and Practices in Reading Comprehension” (with V. and responsibilities of reading specialists/literacy coaches.
Richardson). She is a past International Reading Associa- Dr. Bean was a member of the Board, International Reading
tion board member and will be President of the National Association, and President, College Reading Association.
Reading Conference, 2011.
Sherry Mee Bell is an Associate Professor at the University
Diane Barone is a foundation professor of literacy at the of Tennessee with over 25 years’ experience in education
University of Nevada, Reno. Her research has always and assessment of exceptional students, particularly those
focused on young children’s literacy development and in- with learning disabilities. An experienced special educator
struction in high poverty schools. She has conducted two and psychologist, her scholarship interests include assess-
longitudinal studies of literacy development: one, a 4-year ment and instruction in reading, especially for children
study of children prenatally exposed to crack/cocaine and and adults who struggle; education of gifted students; at-
two, a 7-year study of children, predominantly English tributional style, and teacher education. Dr. Bell is author of
Language Learners, in a high-poverty school. She has had numerous articles in the Journal of Learning Disabilities,
articles published in journals such as Reading Research Assessment for Effective Intervention, Psychology in the
Quarterly, Journal of Literacy Research, Elementary School Schools, and Journal of Adolescent and Adult Literacy. She
Journal, The Reading Teacher, Gifted Childhood Quarterly, served as guest co-editor of the International Dyslexia As-
and Research in the Teaching of English. She has written sociation’s Perspectives on adult literacy and is co-author
several books, among them are: Developing Literacy, Re- of The Handbook of Reading Assessment and Assessment
silient Children, Teaching Early Literacy: Development, of Reading Instructional Knowledge-Adults.
Assessment, and Instruction, Research-Based Practices in
Early Literacy, Improving Student Writing, K-8, Writing Susan M. Benner is professor and department head for
without Boundaries, and Using Your Core Reading Program Theory and Practice in Teacher Education at the University
and Children’s Literature K-3 and 4-6. She served as the of Tennessee. Dr. Benner has published three textbooks,
Editor of Reading Research Quarterly. She has just com- including Issues in Special Education within the Context
pleted terms as a board member of the International Reading of American Society, and Assessment of Young Children
Association and the National Reading Conference. with Special Needs. She is a co-editor for the Journal of
Early Childhood Teacher Education. Dr. Benner’s areas of
James F. Baumann is the Chancellor’s Chair for Excel- interest are teacher education, including special and literacy
lence in Literacy Education at the University of Missouri– education, and urban teaching. She is principal investiga-
Columbia. His research and theoretical papers, which have tor for several grants, including one focused on teacher
focused on elementary and middle-grade classroom reading professional development in literacy. She is co-principal
instruction, have appeared in Reading Research Quarterly, investigator for a NSF Robert Noyce Scholarship Planning
American Educational Research Journal, Educational Grant to develop urban teacher residency programs.
Researcher, Reading Research and Instruction, Reading
Psychology, Journal of Reading Behavior, and Elementary Andrew Biemiller taught at the Institute of Child Study,
School Journal. He has published applied research and University of Toronto for 36 years, retiring June, 2004. He
papers in the Reading Teacher, Journal of Reading, and was responsible for the teacher education program at the
Journal of Adolescent & Adult Literacy, and has co-authored Institute of Child Study for 15 years. His recent research
chapters in the Handbook of Reading Research, Handbook has concerned what word meanings are acquired, the order
of Research on Teaching the English Language Arts, and of meanings acquired, and effective methods of teaching
Handbook of Research on Teaching Literacy Through the word meanings. His current research concerns identifying
Communicative and Visual Arts. His recent research on word meanings that are particularly useful for instruction
vocabulary instruction has been funded by an International at the primary and upper-elementary levels. He published
Reading Association Elva Knight Grant and U.S. Depart- Words Worth Teaching, which summarizes this work. He has
ment of Education Field Initiated Studies and the Institute served as an associate editor of the Journal of Educational
of Education Sciences grants. Psychology and is active as an educational consultant to the
 About the Authors 501

U.S. Institute of Education Science, U.S. National Institute dardized assessments. That research is continuing within
of Child and Human Development, publishers, state depart- her Early Reading First project in the New Orleans Public
ments of education, and researchers. Schools.

Stergios Botzakis is an assistant professor of adolescent Louis Chen is a second language educator and researcher
literacy in the Theory and Practice in Teacher Education who conducts research in the area of content reading and
Department at the University of Tennessee. His research second language teaching and learning. He has served as
interests focus on middle grades reading, content area a researcher on a large funded project that explores ESL
reading, working with struggling adolescent readers, students and multi-literacies. He has an M.A. degree from
and graphic novels. Prior to life in academia, he spent 5 the University of British Columbia and a Ph.D. from the
years teaching middle school reading, English, and study University of Toronto.
skills in Baltimore and the Boston area. He was one of the
founding editors for the online Journal of Language and David Cihak is an Assistant Professor at the University
Literacy Education. He has been published in Reading Re- of Tennessee in the Department of Theory and Practice in
search Quarterly, Teacher Education Quarterly, Journal of Teacher Education. His research areas include effective
Adolescent & Adult Literacy, and has written several book instructional strategies and positive behavioral supports
chapters on middle grades literacy and graphic novels. He for students with multiple and severe disabilities, including
also has published two children’s books: Pretty in Print: autism spectrum disorders. In addition, David serves on
Questioning Magazines and What’s Your Source?: Ques- the editorial review board for Focus on Autism and Other
tioning the News. Developmental Disabilities and the Journal of Special
Education Technology.
Amy D. Broemmel is an Associate Professor in the De-
partment of Theory and Practice in Teacher Education at Eric Dion is a professor of special education at the Uni-
the University of Tennessee where she coordinates the versity du Quebec at Montreal, Montreal, Quebec, Canada,
elementary teacher education program. Supporting the and Director of the Research Group on Evidence-Based
work of teachers is the underlying purpose of her research, Teaching Strategies. His research focuses on the use of
which focuses on the preparation and continued support classwide peer-mediated activities and small-group ins-
of critically thinking teachers, often through a systematic truction to prevent reading disabilities among beginning
examination of what teachers themselves have to say. She is readers from low-income families.
currently engaged in an effort to build and support a 3-year
collaborative venture with an elementary school where the Hannah M. Dostal is a doctoral student at the University
teachers have been given the opportunity to determine the of Tennessee, Knoxville in the area of literacy studies. She
focus of their own professional development. is a licensed reading specialist (preK-12). Hannah is cur-
rently teaching middle school language arts at Tennessee
Melissa Brydon is a doctoral student in Reading Edu- School for the Deaf; she also has experience teaching in
cation at the University of Pittsburgh. She received her multi-grade residential and counseling settings. Hannah’s
master’s of science and bachelor’s of science degrees in research interests include examining the impact of inter-
speech-language pathology from Indiana University of active instruction on the language development of deaf
Pennsylvania. Prior to her doctoral studies, she worked adolescents.
as a pediatric speech-language pathologist in outpatient,
school-based, and home-based early intervention settings. Susan Dougherty is an Assistant Professor of Literacy
For the past 2 years she has served as the assistant director Education at Rutgers University. Her research interests
of the Reading Center at the University of Pittsburgh. Her focus on explanatory talk in parent-child and teacher-
research interests include emergent language and literacy student conversations and on the training of elementary
development and teacher preparation. teachers and reading specialists. Recently, she developed
and investigated the impact of Dads Read, a book club for
Renée M. Casbergue holds the Vira Franklin and James children and their male mentors, which is conducted at an
R. Eagle Professorship in the Department of Education urban public school.
Theory, Policy, and Practice at Louisiana State University.
She has published journal articles, chapters, and books Reginald D’Silva is a Ph.D. student in the Language and
about early literacy development and instruction. She is Literacy Education Department at the University of British
especially interested in early writing development and is Columbia, Canada. His research interests involve the role
coauthor of Writing in Preschool: Learning to Orches- of digital technologies in promoting literacy skills. His dis-
trate Meaning and Marks. Her most recent research has sertation deals with the use of voice recognition software to
focused on the relationships among teachers’ professional scaffold reading performance of English Language Learners
development, their knowledge or early literacy, and gains He is also interested in issues related to literacy education
in children’s literacy and language as measured by stan- in the South Asian context.
502 About the Authors

Nell K. Duke is professor of teacher education and edu- Katherine K. Frankel is a doctoral student in the Lan-
cational psychology, an affiliate of the program in school guage, Literacy, and Culture program in the Graduate
psychology, and co-director of the Literacy Achievement School of Education at the University of California, Berke-
Research Center at Michigan State University. Duke’s work ley. Her current research focuses on literacy instruction for
focuses on early literacy development, particularly among adolescents with reading and writing difficulties. Before
children living in poverty. Her specific areas of expertise beginning her studies at UC Berkeley, Frankel was a high
include development of informational literacies in young school teacher at Landmark School, a school for students
children, comprehension development and instruction in with language-based learning disabilities.
early schooling, and issues of equity in literacy education.
Duke is the recipient of the American Educational Research Douglas Fuchs is the Nicholas Hobbs Professor of Special
Association Early Career Award as well as awards for re- Education and Human Development at Vanderbilt Univer-
search from the National Reading Conference, the National sity, where he also directs the Kennedy Center Reading
Council of Teachers of English, and the International Read- Clinic. Doug has conducted programmatic research on
ing Association. She also has a strong interest in improving response-to-intervention as a method for preventing and
educational research training in the United States. identifying children with learning disabilities and on reading
instructional methods for improving outcomes for students
Jacqueline Edmondson is Associate Dean for Teacher with learning disabilities. Dr. Fuchs has published more than
Education and Undergraduate Programs at Pennsylvania 200 empirical studies in peer-review journals. He sits on
State University and Associate Professor of Education in the editorial boards of 10 journals including the American
the Language, Culture, and Society program. Her research Educational Research Journal, Journal of Educational Psy-
focuses on reading education policy, critical theory, teacher chology, Elementary School Journal, Journal of Learning
education, rural schools and communities, and biography Disabilities, and Exceptional Children.
for adolescent readers.
Lynn S. Fuchs is the Nicholas Hobbs Professor of Spe-
John Elkins is Emeritus Professor at The University of cial Education and Human Development at Vanderbilt
Queensland and Adjunct Professor of Literacy at Griffith University. She has conducted programmatic research on
University In Brisbane, Australia. He served on the Board assessment methods for enhancing instructional planning
of Directors of the International Reading Association, and on instructional methods for improving reading and
was president of the Australian Reading Association and math outcomes for students at risk for and with learn-
edited the Journal of Adolescent and Adult Literacy and ing disabilities. Dr. Fuchs has published more than 250
the International Journal of Disability, Development and empirical studies in peer-review journals and sits on the
Education. His research interests include reading difficulties editorial boards of a variety of journals including the
and inclusive education. Journal of Educational Psychology, Scientific Studies
of Reading, Reading Research Quarterly, Elementary
Jill Fitzgerald is Senior Associate Dean and Professor School Journal, Journal of Learning Disabilities, and
of Literacy Studies at the University of North Carolina at Exceptional Children. She been identified by Thompson
Chapel Hill. She has published over 70 works and been an ISI as one of 350 “most highly cited” researchers in the
invited speaker at national and international research and social sciences and has received a variety of awards to
professional conferences. Her current primary research in- acknowledge her research accomplishments that have
terests center on literacy issues for multilingual learners and enhanced reading and math outcomes for children with
early literacy development in relation to literacy-instruction and without disabilities.
reform efforts. She received the American Educational
Research Association’s Outstanding Review of Research Linda B. Gambrell is Distinguished Professor of Education
Award and (with George Noblit) the International Read- in the Eugene T. Moore School of Education at Clemson
ing Association’s Dina Feitelson Award for Research. She University. She has served as an elected member of the
currently serves on editorial boards for several national and Board of Directors and President of the three leading profes-
international journals, including Journal of Educational sional organizations for reading, the International Reading
Psychology, Reading Research Quarterly, and Research Association, National Reading Conference, and College
in the Teaching of English. Reading Association. Her major research areas are compre-
hension and cognitive processing, literacy motivation, and
Margaret Flores is an assistant professor in the Depart- the role of discussion in teaching and learning. Her research
ment of Special Education Rehabilitation Counseling at has been published in major scholarly journals including
Auburn University. Her research interests include reading Reading Research Quarterly, Educational Psychologist,
and mathematics instruction for students with autism spec- and Journal of Educational Research. She has received
trum disorders and specific learning disabilities. Prior to her professional honors and awards including the College
career in higher education, Dr. Flores worked in a variety of Reading Association A.B. Herr Award, IRA Outstanding
instructional settings as a special education teacher. Teacher Educator in Reading Award, NRC Albert Kingston
 About the Authors 503

Award, CRA Laureate Award, and has been inducted into Michael F. Graves is Professor Emeritus of Literacy
the Reading Hall of Fame. Education at the University of Minnesota and a member
of the Reading Hall of Fame. His research, development,
Irene W. Gaskins founded Benchmark School in Media, and writing focus on vocabulary learning and instruction
Pennsylvania, in 1970. She has worked on such significant and comprehension instruction. His most recent vocabulary
issues as designing decoding programs, increasing stu- books include Essential Readings on Vocabulary Instruction
dents’ awareness and control of cognitive styles and other (in press), Teaching Individual Words: Once Size Does Not
personal factors, and teaching struggling readers strategies Fit All (2009), and The Vocabulary Book (2006); and his
for understanding and learning from texts. The results of work has appeared in a range of journals. He has served
her work have been published in journals such as The as editor of the Journal of Reading Behavior and associ-
Reading Teacher, Reading Research Quarterly, Journal ate editor of Research in the Teaching of English; and as a
of Reading Behavior, Language Arts, Elementary School member of the editorial review boards for Reading Research
Journal, Remedial and Special Education, and Journal of Quarterly, Journal of Reading Behavior, Research in the
Learning Disabilities. Gaskins is also the author of four Teaching of English, and the yearbook of the National
books about teaching reading, seven decoding programs, Reading Conference.
and 56 little books. She was a member of the Rand Reading
Study Group, NAEP Reading Assessment Framework com- Lee Gunderson is a Professor at the University of British
mittee, and serves on the editorial review boards of several Columbia where he teaches undergraduate and graduate
journals. Gaskins was awarded the William S. Gray Cita- courses in second language reading, language acquisition,
tion of Merit for lifetime achievement by the International literacy acquisition, and teacher education. In 2008 he was
Reading Association. granted the British Columbia Deans of Education Media
Contributor of the Year Award and the UBC President’s
Kathleen A. Gormley is an Associate Professor in the Award for Education through the Media. He is a Past Presi-
School of Education at The Sage Colleges. Her research dent of the National Reading Conference.
interests include access and use of digital literacies by
students and teachers. Her publications include areas of Leigh A. Hall is an Assistant Professor of Literacy Stud-
comprehension as well as literacy instruction for students ies at the University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill. Her
with disabilities. She serves on several boards, including an research addresses issues relevant to adolescent literacy,
urban after school arts and literacy program, a charter school struggling readers, middle school education and teacher
board, and a community board devoted to inclusive living education. Her current work considers how students’ iden-
opportunities for adults with significant disabilities. tities as readers influence the decisions they make when
reading text, and if—and how—teachers can use informa-
Steve Graham is the Curry Ingram Professor of Literacy tion about students’ identities to inform their practice and
at Vanderbilt University. He is the current editor of Excep- improve their learners’ comprehension of text.
tional Children, past editor of Contemporary Educational
Psychology, and Consulting Editor for Focus on Excep- Karen Harris is the Curry Ingram Professor of Special
tional Children. He is the author of the Handbook of Writ- Education and Literacy at Vanderbilt University. She is a
ing Research, Handbook of Learning Disabilities, Writing former editor of the Journal of Educational Psychology,
Better, Making the Writing Process Work, Best Practices is co-editor of the American Psychological Association
in Writing Instruction, and Powerful Writing Strategies for Educational Psychology Handbook currently in prepara-
All Students. Steve also authored Writing Next: Effective tion. Her research focuses on theoretical and intervention
Strategies to Improve the Writing of Adolescents in Middle issues in the development of academic and self-regulation
and High School, a meta-analysis of writing intervention strategies among students who are at-risk and those with
research for grades 4 through 12 conducted for the Carnegie severe learning challenges such as learning disabilities
Corporation of New York and published by the Alliance and attention deficit hyperactivity disorder. She developed
for Excellence in Education. He is currently working on the Self-Regulated Strategy Development (SRSD) model
a second meta-analysis for the Carnegie Corporation ten- of strategies instruction, which has been most extensively
tatively titled Writing for Reading (examining the effects researched in the area of writing. Harris is co-author or co-
of writing on reading comprehension). He serves as an editor of several books, including Powerful Writing Strate-
editor (along with Karen Harris and Tim Urdan) on the gies for All Students; Writing Better: Effective Strategies
upcoming three volume series, American Psychological for Teaching Students with Learning Difficulties; and the
Association Educational Psychology Handbook. In addi- Handbook of Research in Learning Disabilities.
tion, he is a senior editor (along with Karen Harris) of the
What Works for Special Needs Learners series published Susan Hart is a doctoral student at the University of
by Guilford Press. Finally, he is a member of the Ado- Kentucky where she has assisted with various research
lescent and Adult Literacy Panel formed by the National endeavors including collecting and analyzing data related
Research Council. to the Kentucky Research Project. She presented a paper
504 About the Authors

at the National Reading Conference entitled “Synthesizing Susan Hupp is professor and chair of the Department of
the Research Related to Struggling Readers: Reflection, Educational Psychology at the University of Minnesota and
Collaboration, and Strategic Intervention as Agents of co-coordinator of the developmental disabilities teacher
Change.” This paper aligns with her research interests, licensure program. Over the years, her research has focused
which include on-line, interactive coaching as a means to on effective teacher training practices, cognitive develop-
better support teachers, specifically as it relates to literacy ment of students with moderate-severe disabilities, and
and strategy instruction. mastery motivation of toddlers and preschoolers with and
without disabilities and of various cultures. Currently, she
Latisha Hayes is currently an assistant professor at the is exploring strategies for conducting teacher training to
Curry School of Education at the University of Virginia. assist general education teachers to embrace inclusion of
In addition, she is the clinical coordinator of the McGuffey students with disabilities within their classrooms, to design
Reading Center. Through this work, she runs diagnostic and universal and appropriately differentiated instruction, and to
tutoring services for children across the grades and adults. use reflective practice as a problem-solving strategy.
Her interests have focused on the support for struggling
readers through university-based programs and partner- Marcia Invernizzi holds the Henderson Professorship in
ships, as well as using an apprenticeship model in univer- Reading Education at the University of Virginia’s Curry
sity practica for undergraduate and graduate students. Her School of Education where she is also the Director of the
research interests include coming to a better understanding McGuffey Reading Center, the oldest continuously working
of the heterogeneity of struggling readers and the interven- reading clinic in the nation. Her research on the subject of
tions to best meet their needs. developmental spelling, reading disabilities, assessment,
and intervention, has been published in Reading Research
Denyse V. Hayward is a Research Associate at the Ca- Quarterly, The Journal of Literacy Research, The Reading
nadian Centre for Research on Literacy at the University Teacher, The Elementary School Journal, The Journal of
of Alberta, Edmonton, AB, Canada. Her current research Speech, Hearing, and Language Services, the Journal for
focuses on the assessment of language and literacy abili- the Education of Students Placed At Risk, Scientific Studies
ties, linking assessment to intervention for children with of Reading, and others. Invernizzi is the primary author of
language learning difficulties, and dynamic assessment. Phonological Awareness Literacy Screening (PALS), the
state-wide literacy assessment for grades K-3 in Virginia,
Elfrieda H. Hiebert is a Research Scientist and Adjunct Pro- as well as PALS-PreK, an emergent literacy assessment
fessor in the Graduate School of Education at the University widely used across the nation.
of California, Berkeley. She has been a classroom teacher
and a university-based educator for over 40 years, includ- Peter Johnston is a professor at the University at Albany-
ing holding professorships at the Universities of Michigan SUNY. He researches the consequences of teaching and
and the University of Colorado-Boulder. She has published assessment practices for the lives of children and teach-
numerous research articles, chapters in edited volumes, and ers, and for the literacies children acquire. He currently
books on how instruction and materials influence reading chairs the IRA and NCTE Joint Task Force on Assessment
acquisition, particularly that of low-income students. Her Standards and is a member of IRA’s RtI Commission. His
most recent books are Reading More, Reading Better and most recent books are, Choice Words: How Our Language
Finding the Right Texts (with M. Sailors). Professor Hiebert’s Affects Children’s Learning, Knowing Literacy: Construc-
model of accessible texts for beginning and struggling read- tive Literacy Assessment both published by Stenhouse. He
ers—TExT—has been used to develop widely used reading is on the editorial boards of Reading Research Quarterly,
programs. Professor Hiebert has received the International Elementary School Journal, and Literacy Teaching and
Reading Association’s William S. Gray Citation of Merit Learning. IRA awarded him the Albert J Harris Award for
and is a member of the Reading Hall of Fame. contributions to research on reading disability and he is a
member of the Reading Hall of Fame.
George Hruby is an assistant professor of adolescent
literacy education at Utah State University’s School of Amanda Kloo is part-time faculty of Special Education
Teacher Education and Leadership. His scholarly emphases in the Department of Instruction and Learning at the
are literacy and learning theory, comprehension processes, University of Pittsburgh. Her research and professional
and educational neuroscience. His work has appeared in interests focus on early literacy practices, effective inter-
Research Reading Quarterly, Educational Researcher, the vention strategies, and data-driven instruction/assessment
Handbook of Research on Reading Comprehension, and practices for students with disabilities and those at-risk for
elsewhere. He is the current and former program chair, and academic failure. She is also principal and co-investigator
past president, of the Brain, Neuroscience, and Education of a variety of federal and state research projects investigat-
Special Interest Group of the American Educational Re- ing reading instruction and assessment with exceptional
search Association. populations.
 About the Authors 505

Melanie R. Kuhn is an associate professor at Boston how students’ home languages can become an integral part
University. She began her teaching career in the Boston of the development of academic language and literacy skills.
Public Schools, has worked as a literacy coordinator for an He believes this research can inform pre-service and current
adult education program, spent 3 years as an instructor at teachers to value, nurture, and preserve the languages of
Centre Academy in London, and was an associate professor nondominant youth.
at Rutgers Graduate School of Education. Her dissertation
focused on fluency development for struggling readers, Peter McDermott is a Professor of Education at The Sage
and she was Co-Principal Investigator on a 5-year Inter- Colleges. He has taught with the International Reading As-
agency Educational Research Initiative grant that explored sociation’s Reading/Writing and Critical Thinking Project
the development of fluent reading in second graders. Her in Kazakhstan and its Diagnostic Teaching Project in Tan-
research interests also include comprehension, vocabulary zania. He recently completed a Fulbright award in Bosnia
development, and struggling readers. She has authored and and Herzegovina where he shared democratic methods
co-authored numerous articles, chapters and two books, of teaching at the University of Sarajevo. He has been a
including The Hows and Whys of Fluency Instruction. long-time member of the Editorial Board of the Reading
Teacher. Two of his research interests are urban educa-
Angie Madden is a graduate student at the University of tion and technology integration. His research background
Kentucky and works as a research assistant on the evalu- is in qualitative methods of inquiry, and he has written
ation of Kentucky’s Striving Readers Project. Her current on parental involvement and teacher education in urban
research focuses on understanding literacy identity develop- environments.
ment, or how students come to see themselves as readers and
writers, in order to find ways to help all students achieve. Lea McGee is the Marie Clay Chair of Reading Recovery
and Early Literacy at The Ohio State University. She is
Jacquelynn A. Malloy is an Assistant Professor in the author and co-author of five books, has published numer-
Graduate School of Education at George Mason University. ous articles in a variety of journals, and is past-president of
Her research interests include reading comprehension, the National Reading Conference. She was co-director of
literacy motivation, and instructional practices that are Project EXEL, an Early Reading First grant awarded to the
authentic, relevant, and increase the likelihood of effective Alabama Department of Children’s Affairs and Principle
cognitive engagement. She has written on the topics of Investigator of Project CORE, another Early Reading First
motivation and classroom practices. Grant awarded to the University of Alabama.

Christine A. Mallozzi is a faculty member in the Curricu- Anne McGill-Franzen is Professor and Director of the
lum and Instruction Department at the University of Ken- Reading Center, University of Tennessee, Knoxville. Her
tucky. She is developing her interests in teacher education, work on literacy development has been supported by OERI
middle grades reading education, feminist theories, policy funded projects including several through the National
issues, and globalization. Christine has co-authored works Research Center for English Learning and Achievement,
on policy and adolescent literacy, reading curricula, policy- THEC Teacher Quality grants, and the International Read-
driven professional development, content-area literacy, and ing Association (IRA) Nila Banton Smith research dissemi-
global reading practices. Recently, Christine was awarded nation award. A former member of the Board of Directors
the 2009 Carol J. Fisher Award for excellence in research of the National Reading Conference, she is the recipient of
from the University of Georgia and the 2007 Outstanding the IRA Albert J. Harris and the IRA Dina Feitelson awards
Student Research Paper from the Georgia Educational for outstanding research contributions in the areas of reading
Research Association. disabilities and early literacy. Her work has appeared in a
variety of journals including Reading Research Quarterly,
Nicole M. Martin is a doctoral student in Curriculum, Journal of Educational Psychology, Educational Policy, as
Instruction, and Teacher Education at Michigan State well as in several previous Handbooks.
University. Her work focuses on reading comprehension,
informational literacies in elementary-aged children, and Ellen McIntyre is Professor and Department Head of
educational equity. She has conducted or been an active Elementary Education at North Carolina State University.
member of several literacy research studies. Her research focuses on elementary literacy development
and instructional practices, particularly for populations
Danny Cortez Martínez is a doctoral student in the Divi- of children who have historically been failed by schools.
sion of Urban Schooling at the University of California, Her studies have included quasi-experimental designs
Los Angeles, Graduate School of Education & Information comparing achievement, descriptive studies of elementary
Studies. His research interests center on exploring how and teacher preparation practices, design-based studies of
nondominant students’ language practices can be used as the feasibility of instructional models, and ethnographic
a resource for learning in classrooms. He hopes to explore studies of literacy in community settings. She has studied
506 About the Authors

struggling readers, children from urban and rural Appala- He is Science Education Policy Section Editor for Science
chian backgrounds, African American children and families, Education.
and English language learners.
Marjorie Faulstich Orellana is an Associate Professor in
Kristen L. McMaster is an associate professor of Special the Graduate School of Education and Information Studies
Education in the Department of Educational Psychology at at UCLA, where she serves as Director of Faculty for the
the University of Minnesota. Her research interests involve Teacher Education program. She is the author of Translat-
creating conditions for successful response to intervention ing Childhoods: Immigrant Youth, Language and Culture,
of students at risk or identified as having disabilities, par- and has published in such journals as Reading Research
ticularly in the areas of reading and written expression. Quarterly, Research in the Teaching of English, Harvard
Educational Review, Anthropology and Education Quar-
Shailaja Menon is currently working as an educational terly, American Anthropologist, and Social Problems. Her
and research consultant in India, and is teaching literacy to current research involves designing and implementing
practicing and prospective teachers at Jones International curriculum that documents bilingual youths’ repertoires
University. Previously, she worked as an assistant professor of linguistic practice, including as translators for their im-
of literacy at the University of Colorado at Boulder. She has migrant families, and leverages these everyday language
worked for several major research centers for literacy and skills toward the development of academic literacies.
special education, including the Center for the Improvement
for Early Reading Achievement (CIERA) at the University Barbara Martin Palmer is an Associate Professor and
of Michigan at Ann Arbor, and the Center on Personnel serves as Dean of the School of Education and Human
Studies in Special Education (COPSSE) at the University of Services at Mount St. Mary’s University. Her research
Florida, Gainesville. She is published in Reading Research has focused on comprehension, motivation to read, and
Quarterly and Reading and Writing Quarterly. Her research professional development of teachers. She currently serves
interests include the design and use of texts to support early as President of the Maryland Association of Colleges for
reading development, and teaching teachers to effectively Teacher Education and the Advisory Council of State
teach literacy to elementary grade children. Representatives of the American Association of Colleges
for Teacher Education. She currently serves on the Quality
Darrell Morris is professor of Education and director of the Undergraduate Elementary and Secondary Teacher Educa-
Reading Clinic at Appalachian State University in Boone, tion in Reading Task Force of the International Reading
North Carolina. His research interests are in the areas of Association.
beginning reading processes, early reading intervention, and
reading diagnosis. Dr. Morris is the author of The Howard Jeanne R. Paratore is an Associate Professor and Coordi-
Street Tutoring Manual, Diagnosis and Correction of Read- nator of the Reading Education and Literacy and Language
ing Problems, and the recipient (with several colleagues) Education Programs at Boston University. She founded
of the International Reading Association’s Dina Feitelson and now serves as advisor to the Intergenerational Literacy
Research Award. Program, a family literacy program that serves immigrant
parents and their children. Dr. Paratore has conducted
Marnie Nair is a postdoctoral scholar and lecturer at the research and written widely on issues related to family lit-
Graduate School of Education at the University of Califor- eracy, classroom grouping practices, and interventions for
nia, Berkeley, where she is the project manager for a middle struggling readers. She is currently principal investigator on
school content area literacy initiative in partnership with a funded study of the effects of a family literacy interven-
San Francisco Unified School District and the Strategic tion on the literacy and language performance of children
Education Research Partnership. Her research focuses on in pre-kindergarten to second grade.
improving the supports offered to struggling adolescent
readers in the content area classroom. P. David Pearson serves as Dean of the Graduate School
of Education at the University of California, Berkeley, and
Stephen P. Norris is a Professor and Canada Research as a faculty member in the Language, Literacy, and Culture
Chair in Scientific Literacy and the Public Understanding program. His current research focuses on issues of reading
of Science in the Department of Educational Policy Studies, instruction and reading assessment policies and practices.
University of Alberta, Canada. In addition to his work in Pearson has served the reading and literacy education pro-
science education policy, he has conducted several longi- fession in a range of roles: as editor of Reading Research
tudinal studies of literacy achievement and has contributed Quarterly and the National Reading Conference Yearbook,
several conceptual pieces to the reading research literature. as president of NRC and member of the IRA board of direc-
He is Director of the Centre for Research in Youth, Sci- tors, and the founding editor of the Handbook of Reading
ence Teaching and Learning, which conducts research on Research. Those contributions have earned him several
reasoning and understanding in science and mathematics. awards: IRA’s William S. Gray Citation of Merit and Albert
 About the Authors 507

Harris Award, NRC’s Oscar Causey Award, NCTE’s Alan journals such as Reading Research Quarterly, Journal of
Purves Award, and membership in the National Academy Literacy Research, The Reading Teacher, Language Arts,
of Education and the Reading Hall of Fame. and Journal of Reading Education.

Linda M. Phillips is Professor and Director of the Canadian William Rupley is a professor in the Department of Teach-
Centre for Research on Literacy at the University of Alberta, ing, Learning and Culture, and affiliate faculty member in
Canada. She has published extensively in the social and Educational Psychology, University Regent’s Fellow, and
medical sciences and has won many awards and honors for Distinguished Research Fellow, Texas A & M University.
contributions to the field of reading/literacy. Linda serves on Rupley is the Editor-in-Chief of Reading Psychology:
the editorial board of the Reading Research Quarterly and An International Journal. Much of his research has used
has expertise in the study of early reading acquisition and randomized designs to explore the effects of teachers’
family literacy, theoretical and empirical studies of reading, instructional strategies on students’ reading achievement
and scientific literacy. She has just completed a handbook and structural equation modeling and canonical analyses
on early language and literacy development from 0 to 60 to explore cognitive and conceptual components of reading
months, and has a test of early language and literacy for acquisition in elementary students. His current research
children ages 3–8 years currently under development. projects include Co-PI Enhancing the Quality of Exposi-
tory Text Instruction and Comprehension Through Content
Therese D. Pigott is associate professor of Research Meth- and Case Situated Professional Development, funded by
odology in the School of Education at Loyola University the U.S. Institute of Education Sciences. He has published
Chicago. She previously served as associate program officer more than 200 articles and columns in applied journals
at the Spencer Foundation. Her research interests include and research journals and is a coauthor of Principles and
statistical methods for meta-analysis and statistical analyses Practices of Teaching Reading.
with missing data. In addition to research in applied statisti-
cal methods, she has used the Early Childhood Longitudinal Laura M. Saenz is an associate professor of special edu-
Survey to investigate issues related to Head Start children’s cation at The University of Texas-Pan American. She has
transition to kindergarten. She currently serves on the edi- participated in Peer-Assisted Learning Strategies research
torial board of the Elementary School Journal, and is the since 1998 and currently serves as Co-PI of an IES funded
Methods Editor for the Campbell Collaboration. project examining the scalability of PALS. Her areas of
expertise include literacy for students with mild disabilities,
Jennifer Reynolds is an Assistant Professor in the De- English language learners with disabilities, and progress
partment of Anthropology and Linguistics Program at the monitoring within the context of RTI.
University of South Carolina. She is a linguistic and cultural
anthropologist, with topical specializations in language Misty Sailors is an Associate Professor of Literacy Educa-
socialization, transnational migration, and the anthropology tion in the Department of Interdisciplinary Learning and
of childhood. She has published in a number of journals Teaching at the University of Texas at San Antonio (UTSA).
including Reading Research Quarterly, Research on Lan- Her research agenda focuses on texts found in elementary
guage and Social Interaction, Journal of Linguistic Anthro- classrooms and the instruction that surrounds these texts;
pology, and American Anthropologist. Much of her research teacher education with a focus on coaching as a model of
addresses the question of how children and youth’s quotid- professional development; and language policies related to
ian and emergent discourse practices reflect, challenge, and reading instruction in international settings.
at times reconstitute societal discourses on childhood and The primary investigator of a Teacher Quality Profes-
development, race and ethnicity, and immigration. sional Development Reading grant (US DOE), Sailors
research interests focus on comprehension instruction, the
Victoria Risko is a professor in the language, literacy, professional development of teachers, and the importance
and culture program at Peabody College of Education of of print-rich environments for literacy development. She has
Vanderbilt University. Risko is vice president of the Inter- published in journals such as Reading Research Quarterly
national Reading Association and will become president in and the Journal of Literacy Research and has more than
2011. She was formerly President of the Board of Directors 30 articles and chapters and two books in publication. Dr.
of the College Reading Association and The International Sailors has worked in South Africa with classroom teachers
Book Bank. She is a co-editor of the National Reading for 6 years and is the Program Director of the Textbooks and
Conference Yearbook and she is co-editor of the Research Learning Materials Program at the UTSA (also known as
to Classroom column of The Reading Teacher. Her research Malawi Reads!). She was a member of the National Com-
focuses on teacher education and professional development, mission on Reading Teacher Preparation.
reading comprehension instruction, multimedia and case-
based instruction, and diverse learners. She has published S. Jay Samuels was a classroom teacher for 10 years before
numerous chapters in research monographs and articles in joining the educational psychology faculty at the University
508 About the Authors

of Minnesota. At Minnesota, his major teaching responsibil- is particularly interested in the relationships between chil-
ity has been to present to teachers in training the essentials dren’s individual characteristics and teachers’ instructional
of educational psychology, and over the many years that he methods. She has concentrated primarily on vocabulary
has been at the university it is estimated that 9,500 students development and instruction, having conducted studies
have taken his course. A former editor of Reading Research evaluating methods of early vocabulary instruction during
Quarterly, he was a member of the National Reading Panel storybook reading, comparing the vocabulary development
and has received research awards from International Read- of young English-Only and English Language Learning
ing Association and the National Reading Conference, as children, and investigating the effect of multimedia en-
well as a distinguished teaching award from the University hanced vocabulary intervention on children’s vocabulary
of Minnesota. His current research interests are the develop- development. Currently, she is investigating the develop-
ment and measurement of reading fluency. ment and instruction of breadth and depth of vocabulary
and reading comprehension among a population of English
Donna M. Scanlon is a professor in the Teacher Education monolingual and Spanish-English bilingual children in up-
Department at Michigan State University. She has spent per elementary school through a grant from the Institute of
most of her career studying children who are at risk of and/ Education Sciences.
or who experience difficulty in learning to read. Her stud-
ies have focused on the relationships between instructional Louise Spear-Swerling is Professor of Special Education
characteristics and success in learning to read and on devel- and Coordinator of the Graduate Program in Learning
oping and evaluating approaches to preventing early reading Disabilities at Southern Connecticut State University. Her
difficulties. Aspects of her research have investigated the research interests include reading difficulties across the K-
relationship between IQ-Achievement discrepancies and to 12-grade span and teacher education in reading, and she
response to instructional interventions. Most recently her has published numerous peer-reviewed journal articles and
work has focused on the development of teacher knowledge book chapters on these topics. She is co-author (with Robert
and teaching skill among both pre-service and in-service Sternberg) of two books, Off Track: When Poor Readers
teachers. Her research has been supported by grants from Become “Learning Disabled” and Teaching for Thinking,
the National Institute of Child Health and Human Develop- as well as co-editor (again with Robert Sternberg) of a third
ment and the Institute of Education Sciences at the United book, Perspectives on Learning Disabilities.
States Department of Education.
Steven L. Strauss is a practicing neurologist and assistant
Adina Shamir is a Senior lecturer at the School of Educa- director of the clinical neurophysiology laboratory at Frank-
tion, Bar-Ilan University, Israel, and she serves as Head of lin Square Hospital in Baltimore, Maryland. With a Ph.D.
the Special Education Track. Her scientific research and in Linguistics as well, Dr. Strauss has a special interest in
publications lie in the area of cognitive and metacognitive language disorders in individuals with neurologic problems.
development, involving research in: Cognitive Modifiability He has lectured in Europe, Latin America, and South Af-
and Learning Skills of students with Special Needs (includ- rica on implications of emerging concepts in neuroscience
ing students from low SES populations), Peer-Mediated for models of psychology, language, and reading, and has
Learning, Emergent Literacy and Computer-Assisted Learn- collaborated closely with Professor Kenneth Goodman in
ing. The research has incorporated development of an incorporating neuroscience into a socio-psycholinguistic
innovative Peer Mediation program for enhancing young model of the reading process. Dr. Strauss is the author of
children’s Cognitive Modifiability and Self-Regulated The Linguistics, Neurology, and Politics of Phonics: Silent
Learning, Educational E-books as supports for children’s ‘E’ Speaks Out, a Fulbright scholar in linguistics and neu-
language and literacy development as well as Computer- roscience, and recipient of the John Dewey Award from the
Supported Dynamic Assessment. She has served as Vice Vermont Society for the Study of Education.
President of the International Association for Cognitive
Education and Psychology and serves as the coordinator of H. Lee Swanson holds an endowed chair and the rank of
the Special Interest Group on Children with Special Needs Distinguished Professor in Educational Psychology/Special
of the European Association for Learning and Instruction. Education at the University of California at Riverside. He
was previously a professor in the Department of Educational
Patrick Shannon is a professor and Head of Elementary Psychology/School Psychology at the University of British
Education and Language, Culture, and Society programs Columbia. His primary research interests are in the area of
at Pennsylvania State University. His most recent book memory, mathematics, reading and dynamic assessment
is Reading Against Democracy: The Broken Promises of as they apply to children with learning disabilities. He
Reading Instruction. has over 200 publications in such journals as Intelligence,
Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, Memory &
Rebecca Silverman’s teaching and research are focused on Cognition, Developmental Psychology, Journal of Educa-
early prevention and intervention for children who may be tional Psychology, and Review of Educational Research.
at risk for experiencing reading difficulties. Dr. Silverman He served as editor of the Learning Disability Quarterly
 About the Authors 509

from 1988 to 1998. He currently serves on the review ences as a classroom teacher, a reading specialist, a school
board of 15 journals. He is currently Editor-in-Chief of the psychologist, and a supervisor of elementary interns. Dr.
Journal of Learning Disabilities. Two of his text books are: Wharton-McDonald’s research focuses on the characteris-
Handbook of Learning Disabilities, co-edited with Karen tics of exemplary literacy teachers, their classrooms, and
Harris and Steve Graham, and A Comprehensive Analysis their students. Her current interests are in the perspectives
of Interventions For Students with Learning Disabilities: A of students as they navigate classroom expectations, instruc-
Meta-analysis of the Literature, coauthored with Maureen tion, and materials. She has been involved in studies through
Hoskyn and Carole Lee. the National Reading Research Center and the Center for
English Learning and Achievement. Dr. Wharton-McDonald
Sheila W. Valencia is Professor of Language, Literacy, has published a number of book chapters as well as articles
and Culture at the University of Washington where she in The Reading Teacher, Elementary School Journal, and
teaches and conducts research in the areas of literacy as- Scientific Studies of Reading.
sessment, policy, and teacher development. Her most recent
research has investigated the reading profiles of students T. Lee Williams most recently served as an assistant
who demonstrate difficulty on tests of comprehension and professor of Reading Education in the department of Cur-
oral reading fluency, and efforts to develop more effec- riculum and Teaching at Auburn University. Her research
tive instructional interventions and diagnostic classroom and conceptual papers, which focus on early childhood
assessments. She has also explored the unique reading and elementary literacy instruction, have been published in
profiles of intermediate-level English language learners The Reading Teacher, Literacy Research and Instruction,
and their instructional needs. Dr. Valencia’s work has ap- and Social Studies and the Young Learner. Currently, her
peared in numerous journals and books including Reading interests include the use of visual literacy in the elemen-
Research Quarterly, Elementary School Journal, Journal tary grades and the characteristics of effective elementary
of Literacy Research, and The Reading Teacher. She has literacy teachers.
served on the editorial boards of Educational Researcher,
Reading Research Quarterly, The Reading Teacher, and Victor L. Willson is Professor and Head of the Depart-
Educational Assessment. ment of Educational Psychology and Professor of Teach-
ing, Learning and Culture in the College of Education
Mark J. Van Ryzin is at the Oregon Social Learning Cen- and Human Development at Texas A & M University.
ter. His primary research interests are social, motivational, His research focuses on longitudinal modeling of human
and developmental processes in adolescence, particularly behavior and learning and on children’s cognitive and
in the educational context. He is especially interested in psychoeducational development. He has published over
non-traditional school environments and their potential to 150 articles, books, reviews, and encyclopedia entries
address the diverse range of student needs and interests that in over 40 different journals and venues. He is currently
are found among today’s youth. His work is influenced by on the editorial boards of Reading Psychology, Reading
ideas from the motivational literature, mentoring research, Research Quarterly, and Journal of Psychoeducational
and attachment theory. His work has been published in Assessment, and reviews for over 10 different journals in
a variety of journals, including the Journal of Youth and psychology and education.
Adolescence, the Journal of School Psychology, Child
Development, the Journal of Community Psychology, and Kimberly A. Wolbers is an Assistant Professor of Deaf
Psychoneuroendocrinology. Education in the Department of Theory and Practice in
Teacher Education at the University of Tennessee. Her
Ludo Verhoeven is a Professor in Psychology and Educa- research focuses on language and literacy interventions for
tion at the Radboud University, Nijmegen, The Netherlands. the deaf and hard of hearing. More specifically, she takes
He completed his master’s in both Developmental Psychol- an interest in instructional approaches that will lead to
ogy and Special Education at the Radboud University and greater linguistic and conceptual development of severely
obtained a Ph.D. in Linguistics from Tilburg University, language-delayed children. She has designed Strategic and
The Netherlands. He did postdoctoral work in the School Interactive Writing Instruction (SIWI), one such approach
of Education at the University of California, Berkeley, that provides teachers with ways of being responsive to
and in the Department of Linguistics at the University of students’ unique language characteristics during interac-
California, Santa Barbara, and San Diego. He coordinates tive and guided writing instruction. Studies of SIWI have
a research group on Learning and Plasticity with a focus on evidenced significant gains with genre-specific writing
neurocognitive and behavioral aspects of the acquisition of traits, contextual language, conventions, editing/revising
language and literacy in typical and atypical learners. skills and reading for students at various levels (i.e., those
reading near grade level or a couple years to several years
Ruth Wharton-McDonald is Associate Professor of Edu- behind). Recent papers are published in Journal of Deaf
cation at the University of New Hampshire. Her interest Studies and Deaf Education and International Journal of
in children’s literacy development stems from her experi- Applied Linguistics.
510 About the Authors

Kenneth Wong holds the Walter and Leonore Annen- Naomi Zigmond is a Distinguished Professor of Special
berg Chair in Education Policy and chairs the Education Education in the Department of Instruction and Learning,
Department at Brown University. His areas of research School of Education, at the University of Pittsburgh. She
include urban education reform, school governance, and has been an active special education researcher and teacher
public policy. He is the recipient of the Deil Wright Best for nearly 40 years; her focus is on the organization of
Paper Award on intergovernmental relations given by the special education services for students with disabilities
American Political Science Association. He has published in elementary and secondary schools and the impact of
over 100 articles and several books, including The Educa- program organization on student achievement. She has
tion Mayor: Improving America’s Schools and Successful published extensively on models of appropriate service
School and Educational Accountability. His research has delivery for students with disabilities, with particular atten-
received support from the National Science Foundation, the tion to inclusion. For the last decade, Dr. Zigmond has led
Institute for Education Sciences, the U.S. Department of a team of researchers and practitioners in the development,
Education, and several foundations. He previously taught distribution, scoring, reporting, and validation of the Penn-
at the University of Chicago and at Vanderbilt University, sylvania Alternate System of Assessment, the Pennsylvania
where he was awarded a $10 million grant by the Institute statewide alternate assessment for students with significant
of Education Sciences to establish a new national research disabilities. She also co-directed the External Evaluation of
center on school choice. the Pennsylvania Reading First initiative.
 Index

Page numbers in italics refer to figures or time period, 143–144 hard-wired to process oral language, 83–85
tables. timing of intervention efforts, 143–144 hard-wiring, 83–85
Assisted readings, fluency, 311 localizationist approach, 80
A Association for Childhood Education proficient, nonimpaired reader’s activated
AB “teaching” design, 420–421, 421 International, 70 sites, 82, 82
Accuracy, fluency, 307–308 Asymptotic-distribution-free, 437 structure, 80–83, 81, 82, 83
Adolescents Attachment, infants, 123 tertiary regions, 80
autonomy, 246 Attribution theory, motivation, 243–244 Business, discourse, 6–8, 10
Adults affective reactions, 244 DIBELS (Dynamic Indicators of Basic
informational texts, 345 causal ascriptions, 243–244, 244 Early Literacy Skills), 3
literacy, 345 Authority, state governments, economic global economy, 6
Affixes, word recognition, 203 sanctions, 8 history, 6–8
Agency, 130–131 Automaticity
aliteracy, 131 deaf students, 402–403 C
defined, 130 fluency, 173, 174–176, 307–308 Case-study designs, single-subject research
Alcohol use, 121–122, 123 definition, 174 designs, combining, 431–432
family (See also Prenatal drug and alcohol examples of automaticity, 174–175 Categorical data, non-normality, 438
exposure) language delayed students, 402–403 Causal network theory, 331
Aliteracy, 412–413 Autonomous model of reading, 129 Center for Education Policy, Reading First,
agency, 131 Autonomy 473–474
defined, 131 adolescence, 246 Challenge level, 269
Alternating treatments design, 425–426, 426 motivation, 246 Changing conditions design, 426–428, 427
American Guidance Services Reading Changing criterion design, 422–423, 423
Fluency Indicator, fluency, 179–180 B Child development
American Psychological Association, 4 Basal reading programs, 7 control theory, 245
American Sign Language, 396–398, 400–402 Baseline measures, 419–420 decoding, 301
Amphetamines, 123 Basic skills, 50–51 developmental model of printed word
Analysis of variance, 435 Basic skills research, emergent literacy, learning, 282–286, 283
Aptitude-by-treatment interaction, 30 190–191 expectancy-value theory, 243
Assessment, see also Tests; Specific type Before-reading interventions, 354–355 reading
diagnosis, differentiated, 162 Belongingness, motivation, 246–247 developmental patterns, 196–205
fluency, 173 Bilingual students, reading instruction word recognition, 196–205
informational text comprehension, 357 critique, 386–388 reading development, across K–12 grade
reading, 156–159, 157 forms of reading instruction, 374–380, span, 151–152
Reading First, 472–473 375–379, 388–389 reading disability
Response to Intervention model, 139–146, future theory development, 386–388 common patterns, 152
228–229 instructional issues, 384, 389–390 shifts in individual child’s patterns, 154
beginning, 143 reading subprocess, 381–382, 389 word identification, 301
classroom instruction, 141–142 review methods, 373–374 word reading, 301
interventions beyond classroom, review results, 374–386, 375–379 China, reading disability, 18–19
142–143 simultaneous instruction in multiple Chinese language, 18–19
prevention vs. classification accuracy, reading subprocesses, 382–384, 389 orthography, 18–19
140–141 Bottleneck hypothesis, 39 Classification, 140–141
progress monitoring, 144–146 Brain Classroom instruction, 141–142, 270
role of instruction, 141–143 function, 80–83, 81, 82, 83 reading disability, 265–270
tiers, 143–144 global process, 80 challenge level, 269

511
512 Index

Classroom instruction (continued) high point analysis, 331 Critical interpretivist frame, interpretive
classroom context, 270 interventions aimed at directly research, 492–493
explicitness, 266 improving comprehension, 333 Critical thinking
flexibility, 269–270 interventions indirectly improving reading instruction, alternative avenues,
group size, 267–268 comprehension by enhancing fluency, 134
instructional needs of disabled vs. non- 335–336 situating shared cognitive processes in
disabled readers, 265–266 interventions manipulating text or social classroom environments, 255–256
instructional time, 267 environment, 335 tools, 256–257
instruction matched to individual skills, interventions teaching flexible use of workspaces, 256–257
understandings, and needs, 268–269, variety of strategies, 334–335 Cross-sectional surveys, 457–459
270 interventions teaching single strategies limitations, 459
intensity, 266–268 for comprehension, 333–334 methodological issues, 458–459
motivational learning environments, 269 knowledge-driven processing, 332 Culturally responsive instruction, 52–53
scaffolding, 266, 269 mental model theories, 332 Cultural Modeling, 273–277
what expert teachers provide, 268–270 one-to-one tutoring programs, 338–339 family, home-school practices relationship,
Classwide Peer Tutoring, peer-mediated peer-assisted interventions, 336–337 273–277
instruction, 366–367 programmatic interventions, 338–339 vs. remedial reading approaches, 273–277
Cloze task, 145 repeated reading interventions, 336 Curriculum, 73–74
Cocaine, 120, 121, 122, 124 research review, 333–337 Curriculum-based measurement, fluency, 178
Cognitive-behavioral approaches, peer- story grammar, 330–331
mediated instruction, 365–367 studies investigating both strong and D
Cognitive patterns, reading disability, 28, 28 weak forms of bottleneck hypothesis, Danish language, orthographic depth, 17
Cognitive processes, research meta-analysis, 337 Data analysis, longitudinal, 436–437
478–481, 480 studies investigating strong form of Databases, 456–462, See also Specific type
Collaboration–consultation, 73 bottleneck hypothesis, 336–337 Early Childhood Longitudinal Survey,
Collaborative teacher education models, studies investigating weak form of Birth cohort, 459–460
72–74 bottleneck hypothesis, 337 Early Childhood Longitudinal Survey,
Collins COBUILD Student Dictionary, 319 teacher-assisted interventions, 336–337 Kindergarten, 459–460
Committee on the Economy of Time in text-driven processing, 332 Education Longitudinal Survey of 2002,
Education, 6–7 word identification interventions, 336 460–461
Common Underlying Proficiency theory, 16 National Assessment for Educational large database analyses, 456–462
Communicative skills, development, 37 Progress, 329–330 longitudinal large scale databases,
Community variables, 48 National Assessment Governing Board, 459–461
Comprehension, 30–31, 151–152, 219–229, 329–330 National Assessment of Adult Literacy,
see also Specific type phonological deficit, 222–223 456, 458
approaches to improving, 222–225 policy issues, 226–229 National Assessment of Educational
deaf students, 392–393 RAND Reading Study Group, 329–330 Progress, 456, 457–458
defining, 329–330 reading disability National Institute of Child Health and
fluency, 335–336 early identification, 155 Human Development Study of Early
informational texts, 345–358 modeling relationship between, Child Care and Youth Development,
assessment, 357 219–222 460
before-reading interventions, 354–355 research, 226 nationally representative cross-sectional
causes of substantial difficulties, Response to Intervention model, 226–227 surveys, 457–459
346–347 What Works Clearinghouse, 329 limitations, 459
comprehension strategy instruction, word recognition, relationship, 196 methodological issues, 458–459
348–353, 349–350 Comprehension strategy deficit hypothesis, nationally representative databases, type of
future research directions, 356–358 reading disability, 220–221 evidence, 456–457
graphic organizers, 353–354 Computational estimation, 434 Deaf students, 392–403
interventions to enhance among Computers, 434 American Sign Language, 396–398,
elementary students, 347–358 writing development, 239 400–402
maintenance, 357–358 Conceptual graph structures, 331 automaticity, 402–403
multiple strategy instruction, 351–353 Connectionist models, 63 balanced literacy instruction, 398–400
single strategy instruction, 348–351 Content generation, writing development, 235 comprehension, 392–393
status of field, 355–356 Content Literacy Continuum, 224, 225 dialogic and interactive approaches,
text structure instruction, 354 Context, 46 394–396
transfer, 357–358 Control theory English-based signing, 397–398, 400
visual aids, 353–354 child development, 245 family, 393–394
language delayed students, 392–393 motivation, 244–245 guided and shared reading, 400
narrative representation, 329–341 loci of control, 244–245 instructional interventions, 394–396,
causal network theory, 331 Conversation analysis approach, interpretive 398–403
characteristics of interventions, 333 research, 491 lack of literacy progress, 392–403
characteristics of struggling readers, 330 Cooperative Integrated Reading and language experience approach, 394
characteristics of text, 330–333 Composition, peer-mediated life occurrences devoid of language
comprehensive programmatic instruction, 365–366 mediation, 393–396
interventions, 338 Core reading programs, 7 metalinguistic approaches, 400–402
conceptual graph structures, 331 Co-teaching, 73 prior literacy research, 393
cultural and linguistic variations, 332 Crack/cocaine, 120, 121 Read It Again and Again, 400
expanding instructional time, 339 children prenatally exposed, research visual and spatial expressive language,
fluency interventions, 336 limitations, 120–121 396–403
 Index 513

Decoding special education, 164 bottom-up localization, 81–83

analogizing, 290 DIBELS (Dynamic Indicators of Basic Early brain function, 80–83, 81, 82, 83
child development, 301 Literacy Skills), 10–11, 145 brain hard-wiring, 83–85
combined approaches, 298–300, 302 discourse, 3–4 brain structure, 80–83, 81, 82, 83
current status of knowledge about decoding participants internalize, 4 genetic markers for dyslexia, 86
interventions, 291–300 enablements, 4 Mesulam’s conceptual framework,
(de)coding competence, 36 enrollment, 3 80–81
defined, 289 fluency, 178–179 models of process, 79–80
developmental models, 291 fluency tests, 3 neuroimaging technology, 83, 84–86
early intervention, 301 limitations, 4 phonological processing, 81–83
Ehri’s phase model, 291 No Child Left Behind, 3–4 phonological processing neurobiological
explicit instruction, 302 process, 3 principles, 83–86
frequent monitoring of progress, 301 products and services, 3 phonological theory, 81–83
fully analyzing sound-letter matches in Differentiated instruction, 362–363 posterior region, 83
keywords, 299–300 components, 363 psychological models, 80
instructional time priorities, 302 professional development, 363 top-down neuroscience, 86–88
interventions to develop decoding teachers, 363 top-down reading, 86–88
proficiencies early, 294–298 Digital literacies, facilitating reading and phonological awareness, 39
interventions to develop proficiencies, writing, 134 reading disability, terms compared, 15
289–303 d-index, 477 word recognition, 196
language precursors, 38–39 Discourse, 3
maintenance of decoding growth, 302 business, 6–8, 10 E
modeling, 302 DIBELS (Dynamic Indicators of Basic Early childhood education, 70–71
multidimensional instruction, 298–300 Early Literacy Skills), 3–4 emergent literacy, preschool classroom
multilevel intervention, 293–294 participants internalize, 4 interventions, 189–190
National Reading Panel, 292 competence, 36 Early childhood interventions, prenatal drug
one-to-one tutoring, 294–295 experimental science, 3 and alcohol exposure, 125
interactive strategies, 294–295 global economy, 6 Early Childhood Longitudinal Survey, Birth
overlapping-wave model, 291 government, 3–4, 8–9 cohort, 459–460
phonological awareness, 38–39 history, 8 Early Childhood Longitudinal Survey,
predicting, 290 role of ideology, 9 Kindergarten, 459–460
professional development, 296–297, 301 since second Clinton administration, 10 Early intervention, persistent reading
reading comprehension, 40 values, 8, 9 disabilities, 112–113
Reading Recovery, 294, 297 history, 6–8 Economic Opportunity Act, 9
Responsive Reading, 295–296 reading, 129–130 Education
scaffolding, 302 science, 4–6 cognitive theories, 253–256
small-group early-intervention programs, construction, 4–6 component models, 253–254
295–297 evidence-based or scientifically based federal government
sounding out and blending, 290 policy and practice, 6 funding, 8–9
student characteristics, 300, 301–302 maintenance, 4–6 history, 8
student profiles, 298 normal range, 6 national security, 8
synthetic phonics and onset-and-rime teachers and publishers as impeding, 5–6 states rights, 8
combined, 299 uses, 4–6 Educational materials publishing industry,
synthetic phonics interventions, 292–293 Discussion, 253–261 7–8
systematic and structured approach, 302 cognitive theories, 253–256 Education Longitudinal Survey of 2002,
words read by sight, 290 elementary grades, 257–260 460–461
Derivational relations, word recognition, 203 high schools, 260–261 Education of All Handicapped Children Act,
Developmental model of printed word middle schools, 260–261 8–9
learning, 282–286, 283 reading disability, 256–257 Education policy, defined, 464
Diagnosis, 162–169 situating shared cognitive processes in Education Science Reform Act, 10
assessment, differentiated, 162 classroom environments, 255–256 Effectance motivation, 244
federal government, 164–165, 167–168 social learning, 254–255 Elementary and Secondary Education Act of
literature trends, 165–166 tools, 256–257 1965, 8–9, 497
No Child Left Behind, 167, 168 workspaces, 256–257 teachers, 497
overview of diagnostic traditions, 162–165 Domain learning, writing development, Title I, 497
federal legislation, 167–168 233–234 Elementary school, 70–71, 373–390
growth and influence of special Double-deficit hypothesis, 18 discussion, 257–260
education, 164 learning disabilities, 58–59 early grades
increased involvement of federal word recognition, 58–59 informational text comprehension,
government, 164–165 Dropping out, 132–133 356–357
influence of psychology as profession, Drug use, See also Prenatal drug and alcohol early language and literacy development,
164 exposure; Specific type 37–38
objectification of students’ reading which drug most damaging, 121–122 graphic organizers, 353–354
performance, 163 Dyslexia, See also Reading disability informational text comprehension, 347–358
researchers influencing, 166–167 defined, 15 intervention, prenatal drug and alcohol
in schools, 165–168 India, 19 exposure, 125–126
psychology, 164 neuroscience, 79–89 peer mediation, 367–370
Response to Intervention model, 168 anatomic discrepancies, 86 primary grades, vocabulary development
sociocultural research, 168–169 anterior region, 83 oral sources, 214
514 Index

Elementary school (continued) interventions, prenatal drug and alcohol Wide Fluency-Oriented Oral Reading, 312
primary vocabulary method, 214–215 exposure, 125 word recognition, 58
teaching word meanings in context, 214 language delayed students, 393–394 Fluency-Oriented Oral Reading, 312
why so many meanings must be taught, literacy interventions, emergent literacy, Focused intervention, persistent reading
214 188–189 disabilities, 112–113
reading instruction, English-language variables, 48–49 Formative assessments, 162
learners, 373–390, 374–379 Federal government Four-Blocks Literacy Model, 116
upper grades, vocabulary development diagnosis, 164–165, 167–168
direct instruction, 215 education G
increased student responsibility, 216 funding, 8–9 General education settings, observational
increasing student recognition of needed history, 8 research, 446–453
word meanings, 216 research General linear model, 435
prefixed, suffixed, or compound word best methods, 9 Genetic markers for dyslexia, 86
meanings, 215–216 funding, 9 German, orthographic depth, 17
visual aids, 353–354 state-of-the-field reports, 9 Gibbs sampler, 437
Embedded Story Structure (ESS) routine, 225 Federal legislation Goals
Emergent literacy, 185 policy, 464 motivation, 247–248
basic skills research, 190–191 research, 464 environmental factors, 248
family literacy interventions, 188–189 Fetal Alcohol Spectrum Disorder, 123 individual differences, 247–248
intervention research, 188–190 Flanders Interactive Category System, types, 247
play, 188 446–447 Government, see also Specific type
preschool education, preschool classroom Flexibility, 269–270 discourse, 3–4, 8–9
interventions, 189–190 Fluency, 57–65, 173–180, 307–313 history, 8
research, 186–188 accuracy, 307–308 role of ideology, 9
family, 186–187 American Guidance Services Reading since second Clinton administration, 10
home literacy practices, 186–187 Fluency Indicator, 179–180 values, 8, 9
young children’s emergent assessment, 173 Graffiti, second language reading, 14, 14
conceptualization of print, 186 assisted readings, 311 Grammatical competence, 36
Emergent writing, 186–187 automaticity theory, 173, 174–176, Grapheme to phoneme conversion route, 175
English-based signing, 397–398, 400 307–308 Graphic organizers, elementary school,
English language definition, 174 353–354
orthographic depth, 17 examples of automaticity, 174–175 Graphs, 428–429
reading disability, 17 classroom approaches, 311–313 Gray, William S., 26
second language reading disability, 21 components, 307–308 Group data, designing and analysis,
English-language learners comprehension, 335–336 434–438
peer mediation, 368–370 correct words/minute by grade level, 308, Group norm-referenced testing, 163
Reading First, closing achievement gap, 309 Group size, 267–268
468–470, 469, 470 critical characteristic, 57–59
reading instruction curriculum-based measurement, 178 H
critique, 386–388 defined, 57, 176–177, 307 Heroin, 124–125
forms of reading instruction, 374–380, DIBELS (Dynamic Indicators of Basic Hierarchical linear modeling, 435
375–379, 388–389 Early Literacy Skills), 178–179 High point analysis, 331
future theory development, 386–388 Fluency-Oriented Oral Reading, 312 High schools, 71
instructional issues, 384, 389–390 history, 173–174 discussion, 260–261
reading subprocess, 381–382, 389 instructional strategies, 310–313 Hinglish, 14
review methods, 373–374 interventions, 336 Home literacy practices, 186–187
review results, 374–386, 375–379 learning disabilities, relationship, 57 Honoring children’s differences, 289
simultaneous instruction in multiple measurement, 177–180
reading subprocesses, 382–384, 389 principles of instruction, 309–310 I
vocabulary development, 323–324 progress monitors, 178–179 Identity
Ethnographic approach, interpretive research, prosody, 308 inferiority, 130
491 Reading Fluency Indicator, 179–180 literacy, 129–130
Expanding instructional time, 339 remediating, 58 Ideological model of reading, 129
Expectancy-value theory texts Ideology, 9
child development, 243 connectionist models, 63 Immigration, second language reading, 13–14
motivation, 242–243 creating generalizable gains, 63–65 Improvement rate difference, 430, 431
Experimental control, 420 model text, 64–65 India, 19–20
Experimental designs, classroom-level orthographic features of text, 63–64 dyslexia, 19
interventions, 434–442, 439, 440 orthographic processing skills, 63 learning disabilities, 19
Experimentalism, 10 phonological processing abilities, 63 reading disability, 19
Experimental psychology, 4, 5 repeated reading and readers with tutoring, 19
Experimental science, discourse, 3 learning disabilities, 61–62 Individuals with Disabilities Education
Explicitness, 266 repeated reading approach, 61–63 Improvement Act, 9, 139, 149, 481,
repeated reading revisited, 61–63 489
F self-teaching hypothesis, 63 challenges, 155–156
Family, 186–187 text difficulty repeated reading, 62–63 impact, 154–155
alcohol use (See Prenatal drug and alcohol texts as fluency interventions, 61–65 opportunities, 155–156
exposure) total amount of text read, 63 Infants
deaf students, 393–394 unassisted repeated readings, 310–311 attachment, 123
 Index 515

prenatal drug and alcohol exposure, Knowledge-driven processing, 332 Literacy, See also Reading
plasticity in development, 123 adults, 345
Inferiority, identity, 130 L basic skills research, 190–191
Informational texts Labeling, 497–498 defined, 129
adults, 345 Language, literacy, continuities between, identity, 129–130
comprehension, 345–358 36–37 interplay between institutions and
assessment, 357 Language delayed students, 392–403 individuals, 129
before-reading interventions, 354–355 American Sign Language, 396–398, language, continuities between, 36–37
causes of substantial difficulties, 400–402 phonological awareness, 190
346–347 automaticity, 402–403 research
comprehension strategy instruction, balanced literacy instruction, 398–400 deaf students, 393
348–353, 349–350 comprehension, 392–393 language delayed students, 393
future research directions, 356–358 dialogic and interactive approaches, research, shifting perspectives, 185–191
graphic organizers, 353–354 394–396 types of competences, 36
interventions to enhance among English-based signing, 397–398, 400 Literacy development
elementary students, 347–358 family, 393–394 emergent literacy, 185
maintenance, 357–358 guided and shared reading, 400 individual differences, 41
multiple strategy instruction, 351–353 instructional interventions, 394–396, readiness views, 185
single strategy instruction, 348–351 398–403 Literacy M.A.P. Meaningful applied phonics:
status of field, 355–356 lack of literacy progress, 392–403 Explicit phonics through direct
text structure instruction, 354 language experience approach, 394 instruction, 115–117
transfer, 357–358 life occurrences devoid of language Local control, state governments, 8
visual aids, 353–354 mediation, 393–396 Longitudinal data analysis, 436–437
importance, 345 metalinguistic approaches, 400–402 Longitudinal large scale databases, 459–461
Instructional development, 73–74 prior literacy research, 393 limitations, 461
Instructional intervention, research meta- Read It Again and Again, 400 methodological issues, 461
analysis, determining effective visual and spatial expressive language, Longman Student Dictionary of American
intervention, 482–484 396–403 English, 319
Intelligence, research meta-analysis, 481–482 Language development, 41 Long-term memory, schema theory, 254
Intensity, 266–268 contextual home factors, 41
Interactive-compensatory model, reading cultural frameworks, 41 M
disability, 220 early language and literacy development, Maintenance, 357–358
Interactive model, reading disability, 221 37–38 Marijuana, 124
Interdependence principle, 16 family, 41 Mastery goals, 247
International phonetic alphabet, 18 contextual home factors, 41 Measurement, reading disability, 457, 458,
International Reading Association, publishers, cultural frameworks, 41 459–460, 461
7 individual differences, 41 Mediation, 46–47
Interpretive research, 488–494 linguistic awareness, 37–38 Mediational approach, interpretive research,
background, 488–489 reading disabilities, 36–42 492
characterized, 488 minorities, 36–37 Mental model theories, 332
conversation analysis approach, 491 Language interactions, number, 131 Mental retardation, 123
critical interpretivist frame, 492–493 Language of instruction, second language Meta-analysis of research, See Research
ethnographic approach, 491 reading, 14 meta-analysis
implications, 493–494 Language play, 98 Methadone, 124–125
literature review, 489–492 Language socialization, 131 Methamphetamines, 121, 123
literature search process, 489 Latent class analysis, 438 Middle school, 71
mediational approach, 492 Latent class growth models, 441–442, 442 discussion, 260–261
narrative inquiry approach, 491–492 Learner’s zone of proximal development, 47 Minorities, 48–49
naturalistic approach, 490–491 Learning Mixed methods observational research, 446
other paradigms’ perspective, 492–493 cognitive theories, 253–256 Mixed reading difficulties, 154
phenomenological approach, 492 component models, 253–254 Motivation, 242–249, 415–416
purpose, 488–489 Learning as assisted performance, 47 attribution theory, 243–244
symbolic interactionist approach, 491 Learning disabilities, 149, 150 affective reactions, 244
Intervention definitions, 14–15 causal ascriptions, 243–244, 244
measures, 420 double-deficit hypothesis, 58–59 autonomy, 246
nonbeneficial programs, 115–117 fluency, relationship, 57 belongingness, 246–247
research, emergent literacy, 188–190 India, 19 control theory, 244–245
IQ, research meta-analysis, 481–482 word recognition, 58–59 loci of control, 244–245
treatment outcomes, 482 Lexical quality hypothesis, 39–40 expectancy-value theory, 242–243
Italian, orthographic depth, 17 Life occurrences devoid of language goals, 247–248
Item response theory, 436 mediation, language delayed students, environmental factors, 248
393–396 individual differences, 247–248
J Lindamood Phoneme Sequencing Program importance, 242
James, William, 4 for Reading, Spelling, and Speech individual beliefs, 242–245
(LiPS), 222 perceptions, 245–247
K Linear structural relations, 435 perceptions of learning environment, 246
Kindergarten, 373–390 Listening comprehension, reading self-perceptions, 245–246
reading instruction, English-language comprehension, 40 writing difficulties, 236, 238–239
learners, 373–390, 374–379 Listening skills, development, 37 Motivational learning environments, 269
516 Index

Multilevel path models, 440, 440 National Council for Teachers of English, 71 Oral Reading Fluency Scale, National
Multiple baseline design, 423–425, 424 National Council for the Education of Young Assessment of Educational Progress,
Multiple imputation, 434 Children, 70 309
Multitiered instruction, 72–73 National Defense Education Act, 8 Orthographic depth
Multiyear growth model studies, 440–441, National Institute of Child Health and Human Danish, 17
441 Development, 456 English, 17
with growth at second level, 441, 442 Study of Early Child Care and Youth German, 17
Development, 460 Italian, 17
N Nationally-representative cross-sectional Spanish, 17
Naming speed, 18 surveys, 457–459 Turkish, 17
Narrative inquiry approach, interpretive limitations, 459 Orthographic features of text, 63–64
research, 491–492 methodological issues, 458–459 Orthography, Chinese, 18–19
Narrative representation, comprehension, National Reading Conference, split within
329–341 membership, 10 P
causal network theory, 331 National Reading Panel Path diagram, 438–440, 439, 440
characteristics of interventions, 333 decoding, 292 multilevel path models, 440, 440
characteristics of struggling readers, 330 word identification, 292 Pearson product-moment correlation
characteristics of text, 330–333 word reading, 292 coefficient, 477
comprehensive programmatic National security, education, 8 Peer-assisted interventions, 336–337
interventions, 338 National Society for the Study of Education, Peer-Assisted Learning Strategies, peer-
conceptual graph structures, 331 6–7 mediated instruction, 364–370
cultural and linguistic variations, 332 A Nation at Risk, 6 English- and French-speaking students
expanding instructional time, 339 Neuroimaging technology, 83, 84–86 of varying levels of performance,
fluency interventions, 336 Neuroscience, dyslexia, 79–89 369–370
high point analysis, 331 anatomic discrepancies, 86 English-proficient students at various levels
interventions aimed at directly improving anterior region, 83 of achievement, 368
comprehension, 333 bottom-up localization, 81–83 grade 1, 369–370
interventions indirectly improving brain function, 80–83, 81, 82, 83 grades 2-6, overall program effects,
comprehension by enhancing fluency, brain hard-wiring, 83–85 367–369
335–336 brain structure, 80–83, 81, 82, 83 intervention, 367–368
interventions manipulating text or social genetic markers for dyslexia, 86 students with limited English proficiency at
environment, 335 Mesulam’s conceptual framework, 80–81 various levels of achievement, 368
interventions teaching flexible use of models of process, 79–80 Peer-mediated instruction
variety of strategies, 334–335 neuroimaging technology, 83, 84–86 characterized, 363–364
interventions teaching single strategies for phonological processing, 81–83 Classwide Peer Tutoring, 366–367
comprehension, 333–334 phonological processing neurobiological cognitive-behavioral approaches, 365–367
knowledge-driven processing, 332 principles, 83–86 Cooperative Integrated Reading and
mental model theories, 332 phonological theory, 81–83 Composition, 365–366
one-to-one tutoring programs, 338–339 posterior region, 83 Peer-Assisted Learning Strategies, 364–370
peer-assisted interventions, 336–337 psychological models, 80 English- and French-speaking students
programmatic interventions, 338–339 top-down neuroscience, 86–88 of varying levels of performance,
repeated reading interventions, 336 top-down reading, 86–88 369–370
research review, 333–337 New Literacy Studies, 130 English-proficient students at various
story grammar, 330–331 No Child Left Behind, 294 levels of achievement, 368
studies investigating both strong and weak diagnosis, 167, 168 grade 1, 369–370
forms of bottleneck hypothesis, 337 DIBELS (Dynamic Indicators of Basic grades 2-6, overall program effects,
studies investigating strong form of Early Literacy Skills), 3–4 367–369
bottleneck hypothesis, 336–337 publishers, 8 intervention, 367–368
studies investigating weak form of Reading First Initiative, 3 students with limited English proficiency
bottleneck hypothesis, 337 Nonnormal data, 437–438 at various levels of achievement, 368
teacher-assisted interventions, 336–337 Norm-reference assessments, tests, 163 reciprocal teaching, 365
text-driven processing, 332 Nursery rhymes, 98 sociocultural approach, 364–365
word identification interventions, 336 Peer mediation, 362–370
Narrative texts O Percentage of all nonoverlapping data, 430,
defined, 330 Observational research 430–431
structure, 330 general education settings, 446–453 Percentage of nonoverlapping data, 429–431,
National Assessment for Educational Progress, literature trends and patterns, 448–450, 430
comprehension, 329–330 449, 450 Percentage of overlap of data, 429, 430
National Assessment Governing Board, as a methodology, 444–446 Perceptions, motivation, 245–247
comprehension, 329–330 methods within, 445 perceptions of learning environment, 246
National Assessment of Adult Literacy, 456, mixed methods observational research, 446 Performance goals, 247
458 qualitative observational research, 445–446 Persistent reading disabilities
National Assessment of Educational Progress quantitative observational research, 445 early intervention, 112–113
Oral Reading Fluency Scale, 309 systems used for observation, 451–453 focused intervention, 112–113
National Assessment of Educational Progress topic trends, 450–451 intervention programs, nonbeneficial,
2007, 25 One-to-one tutoring programs, 338–339 115–117
National Center for Education Statistics, 456 Opiates, 124–125 positive expectations offsetting negative
National Council for Accreditation of Teacher Oral language, reading, relationship, 152 influences, 111–112
Education, 70 Oral passage reading, 30–31 reading disability, 110–117
 Index 517

contrasted, 110 decoding, 296–297, 301 Reading comprehension

reading to children, right conditions, differentiated instruction, 363 linguistic predictors, 39–41
113–114 patterns of reading difficulties, 156 listening comprehension, 40
relative reading achievement mutable, Reading First, coaching teachers to change specific difficulties, 153
110–111 instructional practices and increase vocabulary development, 208–209
terminology, 110 student achievement, 470–472, 471, word decoding, 40
tests 472 Reading curriculum, 50–51
biased, 114–115 Response to Intervention model, 142 Reading development, child development,
unbiased, 114–115 word identification, 296–297, 301 across K–12 grade span, 151–152
Persistent writing difficulties, 236, 238–239 word reading, 296–297, 301 Reading difficulties, sociocultural elements,
Phase model, Ehri’s, 291 Progress monitors, fluency, 178–179 45–54
Phenomenological approach, interpretive Project Head Start, 9 assisted performance, 47
research, 492 Prosody, fluency, 308 community variables, 48
Philosophy, science Psychological models, 80 context, 46
distinguished, 4–5 Psychology, 4 culturally responsive instruction, 52–53
struggle among discourses, 4–5 diagnosis, 164 deficit perspective interrupted, 45–46
Phonemic awareness, 279–287 scientific method, 5 family variables, 48–49
interactive argument, 279, 281–282, 282 Publishers instructional implications for sociocultural
instructional implications, 284, 284–286, International Reading Association, 7 approach to reading, 51–54
285 No Child Left Behind, 8 intensive interventions, 53–54
prerequisite argument, 279–281, 280 Pull-out programs, 73–74 learner’s zone of proximal development, 47
instructional implications, 283, 283–284 mediation, 46–47
Phonics instruction, 190–191 Q minorities, 48–49
Phonological awareness, 115 Qualitative observational research, 445–446 problem of basic skills, 50–51
dyslexia, 39 Quantitative observational research, 445 reading curriculum, 50–51
literacy, 190 Quasi-experimental designs, 434–442 research-based culturally responsive
research meta-analysis, 479–481, 480 reading instruction, 52–53
word decoding, 38–39 R school variables, 49–50
Phonological-core variable-difference model, RAND Reading Study Group, sociocultural theory dimensions, 45–47
reading disability, 220 comprehension, 329–330 sociolinguistic variables, 47–51
Phonological deficit Rapid naming, research meta-analysis, tools, 46–47
comprehension, 222–223 479–481, 480 Reading disability, See also Dyslexia;
Phonological deficit theory, 18 Reading, See also Literacy Persistent reading disabilities
Phonological processing, 81–83, 151 assessment, 156–159, 157 balanced, individualized instruction,
dyslexia, 81–83 as capital, 6 224–225
neurobiological principles, 83–86 child development child development
Play, emergent literacy, 188 developmental patterns, 196–205 common patterns, 152
Policy word recognition, 196–205 shifts in individual child’s patterns, 154
defined, 464 to children, 113–114 China, 18–19
federal legislation, 464 defined, 129–130 classification problems, 150–151
policy to implementation, 474 discourse, 129–130 classroom instruction, 265–270
Reading First, 465–466 family, 131 challenge level, 269
research to policy, 474 before formal reading instruction, 38 classroom context, 270
Policy issues grapheme to phoneme conversion route, explicitness, 266
comprehension, 226–229 175 flexibility, 269–270
reading disability, 226–229 home experiences of struggling readers, group size, 267–268
Political ideology, 9 131 instructional needs of disabled vs. non-
Politics, reading disability, 3–11 in- and out-of-school, 130 disabled readers, 265–266
Polydrug exposure, 121, 124 multiple pathways, 175 instructional time, 267
Prenatal drug and alcohol exposure, 120–126 oral language, relationship, 152 instruction matched to individual skills,
children prenatally exposed, research research understandings, and needs, 268–269,
limitations, 120–121 autonomous model, 129 270
early childhood interventions, 125 ideological model, 129 intensity, 266–268
elementary school interventions, 125–126 scientific method, 5 motivational learning environments, 269
family interventions, 125 situating shared cognitive processes in scaffolding, 266, 269
incidence, 122 classroom environments, 255–256 what expert teachers provide, 268–270
infants, plasticity in development, 123 social learning, 254–255 cognitive patterns, 28, 28
poor women more easily identified, socially situated, 129 commodification, 10–11
122–123 standardization, 6 comprehension
research synthesis, 123–125 states rights, state standards and early identification, 155
socioeconomic status, 122–123 examinations, 8 modeling relationship between, 219–222
special education, 125–126 student labeling, 497–498 comprehension strategy deficit hypothesis,
which drug most damaging, 121–122 tools, 256–257 220–221
who uses drugs prenatally, 122–123 traditional purpose, 5 conceptualized, 149–150
Prevention, 140–141 universal belief in value of, 13 defined, 68–69, 93, 129, 149–150, 489
Primary vocabulary, 214–215 visual lexicon through semantic route, intrinsic learning problems, 149–150
Problem-Solving Protocol, Response to 175 specificity, 149–150
Intervention model, 227–228 workspaces, 256–257 struggles over definitions, 10
Professional development Reading Apprenticeship, 223–224, 225 unexpected low achievement, 149–150
518 Index

Reading disability (continued) parents and teachers as learning partners, sociocognitive perspective on learning,
differences in how literacy is practiced 102–104 93–94
matter, 96–98 parents as learning partners with their special education, relationship, 497
discussion, 256–257 children, 99–102 storybook reading, 97–98
dyslexia, terms compared, 15 parents listening to children read, 101 talk lexically and syntactically complex, 98
elimination of IQ-achievement discrepancy parents trained to instruct at home, talk quantity, 98
criteria, 155 101–102 teacher education, 68–75
engaging in print at more complex levels, persistent reading disabilities, 110–117 Association for Childhood Education
96–97 contrasted, 110 International, 70
English language, 17, 20 phonological-core variable-difference beliefs underlying common instructional
family model, 220 approaches, 68–69
all families practice literacy, 95–96 policy issues, 226–229 collaboration–consultation, 73
definition of reading disability, 93 political contexts, 3–11 collaborative teacher education models,
differences in how literacy is practiced reader profiles of students with, 25–33 72–74
matter, 96–98 aptitude-by-treatment interaction, 30 content, 69–72
engaging in print at more complex background, 26–27 controversies and critique, 74
levels, 96–97 classification of competencies and test co-teaching, 73
home differences, 93–105 performance, 32, 32 courses, 69–72
instructional practices mediating home comprehension, 30–31 curriculum, 73–74
differences, 99 detailed models, 27–29 early childhood, 70–71
interpreting evidence of home differential instruction, 29–31 elementary education, 70–71
differences and reading difficulty, differential responses, 29–31 instructional development, 73–74
98–104 early- vs. late-identified students, 29 International Reading Association, 69,
language play, 98 foundational studies, 27 70
motivating children toward print- late emerging, 29 middle education, 71
engagement, 98 late-identified students, 29 multitiered instruction, 72–73
nursery rhymes, 98 oral passage reading, 30–31 National Council for Accreditation of
parents and children learning to read profile characterized, 25 Teacher Education, 70
together, 102 profiles underlying test performance, National Council for Teachers of
parents and teachers as learning partners, 31–33, 32 English, 71
102–104 reading comprehension difficulties, 29 National Council for the Education of
parents as learning partners with their reading processes, 27–29 Young Children, 70
children, 99–102 research review, 27–29 pull-out programs, 73–74
parents listening to children read, 101 student-instruction interactions, 29–31 reading specialists, 71
parents trained to instruct at home, word identification, 30 Response to Intervention model, 72–73
101–102 reading differences vs. reading disabilities, secondary education, 71
storybook reading, 97–98 208–209 special education, 71–72, 72–73
talk lexically and syntactically complex, research standards, 69–72
98 recent research, 221–222 vocabulary development, 324
talk quantity, 98 research, 226 Reading First
focusing reading comprehension strategies, across research paradigms, 488–489 Center for Education Policy, 473–474
223–224 research meta-analysis, literature review, English language learners, closing
history, 497–498 478–486 achievement gap, 468–470, 469, 470
home differences, 93–105 second language, 13–22 evaluation, 472–473
incidence, 20 anomalies between languages, 20–21 funding lost, 497
India, 19 Chinese, 18–19 history, 465–466
informational texts, 345 Common Underlying Proficiency theory, Pennsylvania case study, 466–472
instructional practices mediating home 16 outcomes, 466–467
differences, 99 developmental feature vs. disability process, 467–472
interactive-compensatory model, 220 feature, 14–15 policy to implementation, 474
interactive model, 221 disability/dyslexia dichotomy, 21 professional development, 470–472, 471,
interpreting evidence of home differences discrepancy definition problems, 15 472
and reading difficulty, 98–104 double-deficit, 18 Reading First Impact Study, 473–474
intervention research, 225 English, 17, 21 research, 465–466
interventions matched to children’s needs, as feature of English language only, research to policy, 474
156 20 universal screening to prevent reading
language development, 36–42 first- vs. second-language, 16 failure, 467–468, 468
minorities, 36–37 granularity model, 17 Reading First Impact Study, 473–474
language play, 98 India, 19–20 Reading fluency, See Fluency
markets for publishers, 7 interdependence principle, 16 Reading Fluency Indicator, 179–180
measurement, 457, 458, 459–460, 461 international phonetic alphabet, 18 Reading instruction, 373–390
meta-analysis of research (See Research naming speed, 18 bilingual students
meta-analysis) orthographic depth, 17–18 critique, 386–388
mixed reading difficulties, 154 phonological deficit theory, 18 forms of reading instruction, 374–380,
motivating children toward print- reading disability defined, 14–15 375–379, 388–389
engagement, 98 Reading Recovery, 15 future theory development, 386–388
nursery rhymes, 98 Response to Intervention, 15–16 instructional issues, 384, 389–390
parents and children learning to read specific learning disabilities, 15 reading subprocess, 381–382, 389
together, 102 threshold, 16 review methods, 373–374
 Index 519

review results, 374–386, 375–379 meta-analysis of research (See Research role of instruction, 141–143
simultaneous instruction in multiple meta-analysis) special education, 497
reading subprocesses, 382–384, 389 missing data, 434–435 Standard Treatment Protocol, 227–228
critical thinking, alternative avenues, 134 National Assessment of Adult Literacy, Responsive Reading, 295–296
economic rationale, 6 456, 458 Retrieve-and-write process, writing
history, 6 National Assessment of Educational development, 235
elementary school, 373–390, 374–379 Progress, 456, 457–458 r-index, 477
English-language learner National Institute of Child Health and Robustness, 437
critique, 386–388 Human Development Study of Early
forms of reading instruction, 374–380, Child Care and Youth Development, S
375–379, 388–389 460 Scaffolding, 266
future theory development, 386–388 nationally representative cross-sectional Schema theory, long-term memory, 254
instructional issues, 384, 389–390 surveys, 457–459 Science
reading subprocess, 381–382, 389 limitations, 459 discourse, 4–6
review methods, 373–374 methodological issues, 458–459 evidence-based or scientifically based
review results, 374–386, 375–379 nationally representative databases, type of policy and practice, 6
simultaneous instruction in multiple evidence, 456–457 normal range, 6
reading subprocesses, 382–384, 389 policy to implementation, 474 construction, 4–6
interventions matched to children’s needs, reading disability, across research maintenance, 4–6
156 paradigms, 488–489 teachers and publishers as impeding,
kindergarten, English-language learners, Reading First, 465–466 5–6
373–390, 374–379 research to policy, 474 uses, 4–6
markets for publishers, 7 review, 333–337 philosophy
Response to Intervention model Research meta-analysis, 477–486 distinguished, 4–5
interventions beyond classroom, advantages, 477 struggle among discourses, 4–5
142–143 cognitive processes, 478–481, 480 religion
role of instruction, 141–143 common effect size, 478 distinguished, 4–5
scientific rationality, 5 determining effective intervention, struggle among discourses, 4–5
state standards and examinations, 8 482–484 Science of the mind, 4
student competencies, building on, 133 effect sizes, practical significance, 484–486 Scientific management, 6
student interests, building on, 133 fixed-effects model of error, 478 Scientific method
technological advances, 5 intelligence, 481–482 psychology, 5
value of good instruction, 25 IQ, 481–482 reading, 5
values, 6 treatment outcomes, 482 social advantages, 5
Reading Recovery, 297 metrics to describe effect size, 477 Screening, Reading First, universal screening
Reading specialists, 71 phonological awareness, 479–481, 480 to prevent reading failure, 467–468,
Reading tests random-effects model of error, 478 468
history, 5 rapid naming, 479–481, 480 Secondary education, 71
new markets, 7 reading disability, literature review, discussion, 260–261
preparation materials, 8 478–486 Second language, reading disability, 13–22
Reciprocal teaching, peer-mediated word reading, 479–481, 480 anomalies between languages, 20–21
instruction, 365 Response to Intervention model, 72–73, Chinese, 18–19
Religion, science 139–146, 150, 489 Common Underlying Proficiency theory, 16
distinguished, 4–5 assessment, 139–146, 228–229 developmental feature vs. disability feature,
struggle among discourses, 4–5 beginning, 143 14–15
Remedial vocabulary instruction, 216–217 classroom instruction, 141–142 disability/dyslexia dichotomy, 21
Remediating, fluency, 58 interventions beyond classroom, discrepancy definition problems, 15
Repeated reading interventions, 61–63, 336 142–143 double-deficit, 18
Research, 456–462, see also Teacher research prevention vs. classification accuracy, English language, 17, 20, 21
on reading difficulties; Specific type 140–141 first- vs. second-language, 16
distribution of data, 437–438 progress monitoring, 144–146 granularity model, 17
Early Childhood Longitudinal Survey, role of instruction, 141–143 India, 19–20
Birth cohort, 459–460 tiers, 143–144 interdependence principle, 16
Early Childhood Longitudinal Survey, time period, 143–144 international phonetic alphabet, 18
Kindergarten, 459–460 timing of intervention efforts, 143–144 naming speed, 18
Education Longitudinal Survey of 2002, challenges, 155–156 orthographic depth, 17–18
460–461 comprehension, 226–227 phonological deficit theory, 18
emergent literacy, 186–188 diagnosis, 168 reading disability defined, 14–15
family, 186–187 elimination of IQ-achievement discrepancy Reading Recovery, 15
home literacy practices, 186–187 criteria, 155 Response to Intervention, 15–16
young children’s emergent instructional principles underlying, 227 specific learning disabilities, 15
conceptualization of print, 186 opportunities, 155–156 threshold, 16
federal government overview, 139–146 Second language reading, 13–14
best methods, 9 Problem-Solving Protocol, 227–228 developmental feature vs. disability feature,
funding, 9 professional development, 142 14
federal legislation, 464 protocol, 227 graffiti, 14, 14
large database analyses, 456–462 reading instruction immigration, 13–14
limitations, 434 interventions beyond classroom, language of instruction, 14
longitudinal large scale databases, 459–461 142–143 reasons for, 13–14
520 Index

Seeing Stars program, 223 teachers, 497 middle education, 71

Self-efficacy, writing difficulties, 236 Specificity, characterized, 150 multitiered instruction, 72–73
Self-perceptions, motivation, 245–246 Speech skills, development, 37 National Council for Accreditation of
Self-teaching hypothesis, 63 Standardization, reading, 6 Teacher Education, 70
Sentence construction skills, writing Standard Treatment Protocol, Response to National Council for Teachers of English,
difficulties, 236, 238–239 Intervention model, 227–228 71
Single-subject research designs, 419–432 State governments National Council for the Education of
AB “teaching” design, 420–421, 421 authority, economic sanctions, 8 Young Children, 70
alternating treatments design, 425–426, local control, 8 pull-out programs, 73–74
426 states rights reading specialists, 71
baseline measures, 419–420 education, 8 Response to Intervention model, 72–73
case-study designs, combining, 431–432 reading ability, 8 secondary education, 71
changing conditions design, 426–428, 427 reading instruction, 8 special education, 71–72, 72–73
changing criterion design, 422–423, 423 state standards and examinations, 8 standards, 69–72
evaluating, 428 Statistical analysis, 428–429, 430 Teacher research on reading difficulties,
experimental control, 420 non-parametric procedures, 429, 429 409–416
functional relation, 419 parametric procedures, 429, 429 aliteracy, 412–413
intervention measures, 420 Storybook reading, 97 Allen, Michalove, and Shockley (1993),
multiple baseline design, 423–425, 424 Story grammar, 330–331 410–412
variables, 419 Strategic behavior, writing development, 235 Baumann and Ivey (1997), 413–415
withdrawal/reversal (ABAB) design, 421, Strategic competence, 36 cognitive growth through delicate balances,
421–422 Strategic Literacy Initiative, 223, 225 416
Social contextual model, writing Stratgic Instruction Model, 224–225 Cone (1994), 412–413
development, 234–235 Structural equation modeling, 435–436 definition of teacher research, 409
Social learning Struggling readers historically, 409
discussion, 254–255 classroom experiences, 131–133 illustrative studies, 410–415
reading, 254–255 dropping out, 132–133 motivation, 415–416
Society for the Scientific Study of Reading, faking it, 132 reading difficulties defined, 410, 410
10 hiding out in classroom, 132 sociocultural dimensions of engaging
Sociocognitive process, learning to read and defining, 129 children, 415
write, 93–94 developmental models inform teaching, study selection framework, 410, 410
Sociocultural elements, 273–277 203–205 Teachers, see also Professional development
learning to read and write, 93–94 diagnostic assessment, 155–156 collaborative teacher education models,
peer-mediated instruction, 364–365 home experiences, 131 72–74
reading difficulties, 45–54 instruction that connects with, 133–134 differentiated instruction, 363
assisted performance, 47 problems in classifying, 150–151 Elementary and Secondary Education Act
community variables, 48 word recognition, 203–205 of 1965, 497
context, 46 Student competencies, reading instruction, narrative representation, comprehension,
culturally responsive instruction, 52–53 133 336–337
deficit perspective interrupted, 45–46 Student diversity, 362–370 National Council for Accreditation of
family variables, 48–49 Student interests, reading instruction, 133 Teacher Education, 70
instructional implications, 51–54 Summative assessments, 162 National Council for Teachers of English,
intensive interventions, 53–54 Syllables, word recognition, 203 71
learner’s zone of proximal development, Symbolic interactionist approach, interpretive parents and teachers as learning partners,
47 research, 491 102–104
mediation, 46–47 Synthetic phonics interventions special education, 497
minorities, 48–49 decoding, 292–293 Teachers’ guidebooks, 7
problem of basic skills, 50–51 word identification, 292–293 Teaching approach, 289
reading curriculum, 50–51 word reading, 292–293 Teaching disability, 498
research-based culturally responsive Tests, see also Assessment
reading instruction, 52–53 T group norm-referenced testing, 163
school variables, 49–50 Talk lexically and syntactically complex, 98 norm-reference assessments, 163
sociocultural theory dimensions, 45–47 Teacher education, reading disabilities, 68–75 persistent reading disabilities
sociolinguistic variables, 47–51 Association for Childhood Education biased, 114–115
tools, 46–47 International, 70 unbiased, 114–115
Sociocultural research, diagnosis, 168–169 beliefs underlying common instructional test publishing market, 7
Socioeconomic status approaches, 68–69 Textbook publishers, 7
prenatal drug and alcohol exposure, collaboration–consultation, 73 Textbooks, 7
122–123 collaborative teacher education models, Text-driven processing, 332
vocabulary development, 131 72–74 Texts
Sociolinguistic competence, 36 content, 69–72 features, 60
Sociolinguistic variables, 47–51 controversies and critique, 74 reading proficiencies of learning
Spanish, orthographic depth, 17 co-teaching, 73 disabilities students, 60–61
Special education, 71–72, 72–73 courses, 69–72 fluency
diagnosis, 164 curriculum, 73–74 connectionist models, 63
prenatal drug and alcohol exposure, early childhood education, 70–71 creating generalizable gains, 63–65
125–126 elementary education, 70–71 model text, 64–65
reading disability, relationship, 497 instructional development, 73–74 orthographic features of text, 63–64
Response to Intervention model, 497 International Reading Association, 69, 70 orthographic processing skills, 63
 Index 521

phonological processing abilities, 63 overview, 208–209 maintenance of decoding growth, 302

repeated reading and readers with primary grades modeling, 302
learning disabilities, 61–62 oral sources, 214 multidimensional instruction, 298–300
repeated reading approach, 61–63 primary vocabulary method, 214–215 multilevel intervention, 293–294
repeated reading revisited, 61–63 teaching word meanings in context, 214 National Reading Panel, 292
self-teaching hypothesis, 63 why so many meanings must be taught, one-to-one tutoring, 294–295
text difficulty repeated reading, 62–63 214 interactive strategies, 294–295
texts as fluency interventions, 61–65 providing rich and varied language overlapping-wave model, 291
total amount of text read, 63 experiences, 319–320 predicting, 290
tasks of current, 59–61 reading comprehension, 208–209 professional development, 296–297, 301
Threshold, 16 reading differences vs. reading disabilities, Reading Recovery, 294, 297
Tobacco, 121–122, 125 208–209 Responsive Reading, 295–296
Tools, 46–47 reading disability, 324 scaffolding, 302
Transfer, 357–358 selecting vocabulary to teach, 318 small-group early-intervention programs,
Turkish, orthographic depth, 17 sequence of root word meanings acquired, 295–297
Tutoring, 8 209–210, 210 sounding out and blending, 290
India, 19 sequence process, 210, 211 student characteristics, 300, 301–302
teaching individual words, 320–321 student profiles, 298
U teaching word-learning strategies, 321–322 synthetic phonics and onset-and-rime
Unassisted repeated readings, fluency, thin instruction, 320 combined, 299
310–311 upper elementary grades synthetic phonics interventions, 292–293
U.S. Department of Education, Inspector direct instruction, 215 systematic and structured approach, 302
General’s report of September 22, increased student responsibility, 216 words read by sight, 290
2006, 10 increasing student recognition of needed Word-learning strategies, 321–322
word meanings, 216 Word lists, vocabulary development, 318
V prefixed, suffixed, or compound word Word processing, writing development, 239
Values, 8, 9 meanings, 215–216 Word reading
reading instruction, 6 vocabulary instruction, 317–324 analogizing, 290
Variables, 419 vocabulary instruction for English learners, child development, 301
Verbal efficiency model, 39 323–324 combined approaches, 298–300, 302
Visual aids, elementary school, 353–354 vocabulary instruction needed, 213 current status of knowledge about decoding
Visual analysis, 428–429 vocabulary types, 315 interventions, 291–300
Visual lexicon through semantic route, 175 word, characterized, 315–316 developmental models, 291
Vocabulary acquisition, 211–213, 212 word knowledge levels, 316 early intervention, 301
acquisition of derived word meanings, word lists, 318 Ehri’s phase model, 291
212–213 word parts, 321–322 Ehri’s theory, 290
family, 212 writing student-friendly definitions, 318–319 explicit instruction, 302
home influences, 212 Vocabulary-related instruction, 213 frequent monitoring of progress, 301
inferred word meanings vs. meanings from Vygotsky, Lev, 47 fully analyzing sound-letter matches in
direct explanations, 211–212 keywords, 299–300
person influences, 212 W Goswami’s grain-size theory, 290–291
school influences, 212 What Works Clearinghouse, 474 instructional time priorities, 302
Vocabulary development, 208–217, 315–325 comprehension, 329 interventions to develop decoding
activating prior knowledge, 320 Wide Fluency-Oriented Oral Reading, proficiencies early, 294–298
combining word-learning strategies, 322 fluency, 312 maintenance of decoding growth, 302
comparing and contrasting words, 320 Wide Reading, 312 modeling, 302
context clues, 321 Withdrawal/reversal (ABAB) design, 421, multidimensional instruction, 298–300
definitional and contextual information, 320 421–422 multilevel intervention, 293–294
dictionary skills, 322 Word decoding National Reading Panel, 292
direct vocabulary instruction, 213 language precursors, 38–39 one-to-one tutoring, 294–295
English learners, 323–324 phonological awareness, 38–39 interactive strategies, 294–295
fostering word consciousness, 322–323 reading comprehension, 40 overlapping-wave model, 291
foundational considerations, 315–317 Word identification, 30 predicting, 290
frequency distribution of English words, analogizing, 290 professional development, 296–297, 301
317 child development, 301 Reading Recovery, 294, 297
general vs. remedial vocabulary instruction, combined approaches, 298–300, 302 research meta-analysis, 479–481, 480
216–217 current status of knowledge about decoding Responsive Reading, 295–296
history, 315 interventions, 291–300 scaffolding, 302
how many words students learn, 316–317 developmental models, 291 small-group early-intervention programs,
identifying words worth teaching, 213–214 early intervention, 301 295–297
implications for educational practice, Ehri’s phase model, 291 sounding out and blending, 290
213–216 explicit instruction, 302 student characteristics, 300, 301–302
individual differences, 209–211 frequent monitoring of progress, 301 student profiles, 298
intensive and robust instruction, 320–321 fully analyzing sound-letter matches in synthetic phonics and onset-and-rime
linguistically less advantaged children, 317 keywords, 299–300 combined, 299
number of words in contemporary instructional time priorities, 302 synthetic phonics interventions,
American English, 316 interventions, 336 292–293
numbers of word meanings acquired, 209 interventions to develop decoding systematic and structured approach, 302
only definitional information, 320 proficiencies early, 294–298 words read by sight, 290
522 Index

Word recognition, 151–152 characterized, 315–316 factors, 233–235

affixes, 203 combining word-learning strategies, 322 requiring that all students write, 238
automatic, 203 dictionary skills, 322 retrieve-and-write process, 235
comprehension, relationship, 196 fostering word consciousness, 322–323 social contextual model, 234–235
connectionist models, 198 frequency distribution of English words, strategic behavior, 235
consolidated, 202–203 317 supportive environment, 238
derivational relations, 203 how many words students learn, 316–317 word processing, 239
developmental models, 198 number of words in contemporary writing skills, 235–236
double-deficit hypothesis, 58–59 American English, 316 Writing difficulties
dual route theory, 197 teaching word-learning strategies, 321–322 adaptations for struggling writers, 239
dyslexia, 196 word parts, 321–322 characteristics of struggling writers,
Ehri’s model, 199–200 writing student-friendly definitions, 235–236
phases, 201–203 318–319 content generation, 235
fluency, 58 Writing, 232–240 emphasis on form, 236
Henderson’s model, 200–201 importance, 232–233 evidence-based writing instruction,
stages, 201–203 prevalence of writing difficulties, 233 237–239
learning disabilities, 58–59 writing student-friendly definitions, meta-synthesis of qualitative studies, 237
letter name, 201–203 318–319 motivation, 236, 238–239
models, 196–203 Writing development persistence, 236, 238–239
partial to full alphabetic, 201–203 adaptations for struggling writers, 239 retrieve-and-write process, 235
prealphabetic, 201 computers, 239 self-efficacy, 236
preliterate, 201 content generation, 235 sentence construction skills, 236, 238–239
specific difficulties, 152–153 developing writing strategies, skills, strategic behavior, 235
struggling readers, developmental models knowledge, and motivation, 238–239 writing instruction quality, 236–237
inform teaching, 203–205 domain learning, 233–234 writing skills, 235–236
syllables, 203 evidence-based writing instruction,
within word pattern, 202–203 237–239 Y
Words meta-synthesis of qualitative studies, 237 Young children, emergent literacy, 186–188