Reading Fundamentals #2:
Laying the Foundation for Effective Reading Instruction
Instructor Name: Dr. Karen Lea
Facilitator: Mick R. Jackson MS/ED
Office Hours: 8 a.m. to 5 p.m. PST Monday - Friday
Address: Virtual Education Software
16201 E Indiana Ave, Suite 1450
Spokane, WA 99216
The federal legislation enacted in 2001 mandates the use of scientifically-based research in programs receiving federal funding that deal with remedial readers. The concept of scientifically-validated methods is so prevalent in the legislation that it appears 110 times in these documents. This three-course Reading Fundamentals series will help improve your knowledge of science and the scientific process suggested for development of remedial reading programs. This knowledge will make you a more informed consumer and an even better advocate for students.
The purpose of this second course in this three-course series is to lay the foundation for effective reading instruction. As part of this course, you will learn about the elements of effective instruction. It is important that all teachers have a firm understanding of effective instructional procedures. Teachers benefit, and more importantly, students benefit, both in terms of their behavior and their academic performance, from effective instruction. Further, you will learn about the importance of reading instruction and read some sobering statistics on reading performance in this country and what happens when individuals are not proficient in reading.
This computer-based instruction course is a self-supporting program that provides instruction, structured practice, and evaluation all on your home or school computer. Technical support information can be found in the Help section of your course.
Course Materials (Online)
Title: Reading Fundamentals #2: Laying the Foundation for Effective Reading Instruction
Authors: Nancy Marchand-Martella, Ph.D.
Publisher: Virtual Education Software, inc. 2004, Revised 2010
Instructor Name: Dr. Karen Lea
Facilitator: Mick R. Jackson MS/ED
Academic work submitted by the individual (such as papers, assignments, reports, tests) shall be the student’s own work or appropriately attributed in part or in whole to its correct source. Submission of commercially prepared (or group prepared) materials as if they are one’s own work is unacceptable.
Aiding Honesty in Others
The individual will encourage honesty in others by refraining from providing materials or information to another person with knowledge that these materials or information will be used improperly.
Violations of these academic standards will result in the assignment of a failing grade and subsequent loss of credit for the course.
This course is designed to be an informational course with application to educational settings. The curriculum suggestions and teaching strategies explained here were designed to be used for the teaching and remediation of students in kindergarten through sixth grade and an age range from approximately five years to twelve years of age. Some alterations may be needed if working with specific populations such as gifted, ESL, or special education.
As a result of this course, participants will demonstrate their ability to:
1. Describe the elements of effective instruction.
2. Discuss the importance of reading instruction.
3. Describe the reading theories/models.
4. Differentiate between basal (core/comprehensive), supplemental, and intervention reading programs.
5. Provide information on reading psychology and development.
6. Trace the evolution of reading from Adams (1990) to Snow et al. (NRC, 1998) to the National Reading Panel Report (2000) and Put Reading First (2001).
7. Describe key legislation that affects reading.
8. Discuss what key legislation means to educators.
Reading is the cornerstone of an effective education. Without this skill we are limited in so many important life activities. We cannot access the newspaper, read the directions of a new recipe, enjoy a favorite novel, or read a prescription bottle of medication. The list goes on and on. Reading is tied to all other academic areas. Without reading, mathematics, writing, spelling, and the content areas such as science and social studies are difficult, if not impossible, to participate in or complete at an adequate level. College becomes out of the question and many jobs are simply out of reach because they require some basic level of reading or other skill that hinges on reading. An inability to read renders these individuals almost powerless in our society.
Further, a report of the Commission on Reading (1985) entitled Becoming a Nation of Readers noted the following, almost 20 years ago:
Economics research has established that schooling is an investment that forms human capital—that is, knowledge, skill, and problem-solving ability that have enduring value. While a country receives a good investment in education at all levels from nursery school and kindergarten through college, the research reveals that the returns are highest from the early years of schooling when children are first learning to read. (p. 1)
Unfortunately, a vast number of our students are failing to learn to read in our schools in grades K-3. The problem does not go away over time. In fact, the majority of these students continue a trend of failure in reading. This problem has not gone without notice. Reading initiatives such as the federal legislation of 2001 have tried to tackle this critical academic area “head on” by focusing on scientifically-based reading programs. Further, five essential components of effective reading programs have been identified and are key focal areas of the 2001 federal legislation. These areas are phonemic awareness, phonics, fluency, vocabulary, and text comprehension. Research has shown that students need to master skills in these areas to become proficient readers. The cry now heard is “every child a reader by the end of third grade.” It’s about time.
As a student you will be expected to:
· Complete all four information sections showing a competent understanding of the material presented in each section.
· Complete all four section examinations, showing a competent understanding of the material presented. You must obtain an overall score of 70% or higher, with no individual exam score below 50%, and successfully complete ALL writing assignments to pass this course. *Please note: Minimum exam score requirements may vary by college or university; therefore, you should refer to your course addendum to determine what your minimum exam score requirements are.
· Complete a review of any section on which your examination score was below 50%.
· Retake any examination, after completing an information review, to increase that examination score to a minimum of 50%, making sure to also be achieving an overall exam score of a minimum 70% (maximum of three attempts). *Please note: Minimum exam score requirements may vary by college or university; therefore, you should refer to your course addendum to determine what your minimum exam score requirements are.
· Complete all course journal article and essay writing assignments with the minimum word count shown for each writing assignment.
· Complete a course evaluation form at the end of the course.
When we look at how reading curricula or programs are designed, we must examine six curricular variables. These variables include: (a) specifying objectives, (b) devising strategies, (c) developing teaching procedures, (d) selecting examples, (e) sequencing skills, and (f) providing practice and review.
In addition to examining the organization of instruction and how our reading program is designed, we should view our instructional delivery techniques. That is, how do we actually provide instruction to our students? Remember, we can have good classroom organization and an effective reading program, but if we do not have the skills to deliver the program in an effective manner, we will struggle to teach our students at high levels. Instructional delivery techniques include: (a) small group instruction, (b) unison oral responding, (c) appropriate instructions, (d) signals, (e) pacing, (f) monitoring, (g) diagnosis and correction, (h) teaching to criterion, and (i) motivation.
Chapter 2: An Overview of Reading Instruction
This chapter details staggering statistics that describe the failure we see in our society. These statistics note the progression of failure if we do not teach reading effectively and early in school. Further, phenomena such as reification and the Matthew Effects are described.
The chapter describes various reading models. A continuum of effective instructional practices as they relate to reading is proposed to help draw light on using both approaches—but it is a matter of when each should be done. Additionally, information is provided on basal (core/comprehensive) reading programs as well as on supplemental and intervention programs, given their emphasis in our schools.
The chapter also provides important information on reading psychology and development. It is important for teachers to have this background to be better prepared to provide instruction in the classroom so that every child learns to read at a proficient level.
Chapter 3: The Evolution of Reading
Chapter 3 details the two reports that set the stage for the National Reading Panel (2000) report. These included the Adams (1990) report and the Snow et al. (NRC, 1998) report.
In 1997, Congress asked the National Institute of Child Health and Human Development (NICHD), in concert with the Secretary of Education, to convene a national panel to assess the effectiveness of various approaches to teaching children to read. That report is discussed in this chapter.
Chapter 4: Reading Intervention Strategies
Congress significantly changed the way that schools could determine a child's eligibility for special education under the specific learning disabilities category when reauthorizing IDEA in 2004. The current research has led to an alternative approach to diagnosing reading problems and delivering services. Two broad approaches will be covered in this chapter that address the diagnosis and delivery issues. This chapter will focus on Responsiveness to Intervention (RTI) and a differentiated instruction approach to individualizing instruction.
At the end of each course chapter, you will be expected to complete an examination designed to assess your knowledge. You may take these exams a total of three times. Your last score will save, not the highest score. After your third attempt, each examination will lock and not allow further access. The average from your exam scores will be printed on your certificate. However, this is not your final grade since your required writing assignments have not been reviewed. Exceptionally written or poorly written required writing assignments, or violation of the academic integrity policy in the course syllabus, will affect your grade. As this is a self-paced computerized instruction program, you may review course information as often as necessary. You will not be able to exit any examinations until you have answered all questions. If you try to exit the exam before you complete all questions, your information will be lost. You are expected to complete the entire exam in one sitting.
All assignments are reviewed and may impact your final grade. Exceptionally or poorly written assignments, or violation of the Academic Integrity Policy (see course syllabus for policy), will affect your grade. Fifty percent of your grade is determined by your writing assignments, and your overall exam score determines the other fifty percent. Refer to the Essay Grading Guidelines which were sent as an attachment with your original course link.
You should also refer to the Course Syllabus Addendum which was sent as an attachment with your original course link, to determine if you have any writing assignments in addition to the Critical Thinking Questions (CTQ) and Journal Article Summations (JAS). If you do, the Essay Grading Guidelines will also apply.
1) Critical Thinking Questions
There are four CTQs that you are required to complete. You will need to write a minimum of 500 words (maximum 1,000) per essay. You should explain how the information that you gained from the course will be applied and clearly convey a strong understanding of the course content as it relates to each CTQ. To view the questions, click on REQUIRED ESSAY and choose the CTQ that you are ready to complete; this will bring up a screen where you may enter your essay. Prior to course submission, you may go back at any point to edit your essay, but you must be certain to click SAVE once you are done with your edits.
You must click SAVE before you write another essay or move on to another part of the course.
2) Journal Article Summations
You are required to write, in your own words, a summary on a total of three peer-reviewed or scholarly journal articles (one article per summation), written by an author with a Ph.D. on topics related to this course (blogs, abstracts, news articles or similar are not acceptable). You may choose your topics by entering any of the Key Words (click on the Key Words button) or any other words that pertain to the course, into a search engine of your choice (Bing, Google, Yahoo, etc.). Choose a total of three relevant articles and write a thorough summary of the information presented in each article (you must write a minimum of 200 words with a 400 word maximum per JAS). Be sure to provide the URL or the journal name, volume, date, and any other critical information to allow the instructor to access and review that article. Please note, the citation of your article will not count towards meeting your minimum word count.
To write your summary, click on REQUIRED ESSAYS and choose the JAS that you would like to complete. A writing program will automatically launch where you can write your summary. When you are ready to stop, click SAVE. Prior to course submission you may go back at any point to edit your summaries but you must be certain to click SAVE once you are done with your edits. For more information on the features of this assignment, please consult the HELP menu.
You must click SAVE before you write another summary or move on to another part of the course.
If you have questions or problems related to the operation of this course, please try everything twice. If the problem persists please check our support pages for FAQs and known issues at www.virtualeduc.com and also the Help section of your course.
If you need personal assistance then email firstname.lastname@example.org or call (509) 891-7219. When contacting technical support, please know your course version number (it is located at the bottom left side of the Welcome Screen) and your operating system, and be seated in front of the computer at the time of your call.
Minimum Computer Requirements
Please refer to VESi’s website: www.virtualeduc.com or contact VESi if you have further questions about the compatibility of your operating system.
Refer to the addendum regarding Grading Criteria, Course Completion Information, Items to be Submitted and how to submit your completed information. The addendum will also note any additional course assignments that you may be required to complete that are not listed in this syllabus.
Adams, M. J. (1990). Beginning to read: Thinking and learning about print. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.
Atkinson, P., & Hammersley, M. (1994). Ethnography and participant observation. In N. K. Denzin & Y. S. Lincoln (Eds.), Handbook of qualitative research (pp. 248-261). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Barlow, D. H., & Hersen, M. (1984). Single case experimental designs: Strategies for studying behavior change (2nd ed.). New York: Pergamon.
Bornstein, R. F. (1990). Publication politics, experimenter bias and the replication process in social science research. Journal of Social Behavior and Personality, 5(4), 71-81.
Bogdan, R. C., & Biklen, S. K. (1992) Qualitative research for education: An introduction to theory and methods (2nd ed.). Boston: Allyn and Bacon.
Chambless, D. L., & Ollendick, T. H. (2001). Empirically supported psychological interventions: Controversies and evidence. Annual Review of Psychology, 52, 685-716.
Feldt, L. S., & Brennan, R. L. (1989). Reliability. In R. L. Linn (Ed.), Educational measurement (3rd ed.) (pp. 235-271). Washington, DC: The American Council on Education and the National Council on Measurement in Education.
Fetterman, D. M. (1989). Applied social research methods series: Vol. 17. Ethnography step by step. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
Fleishman, S., Kohlmoos, J. W., & Rotherham, A. J. (2003). From research to practice. Education Week, March 12.
Gall, M. D., Borg, W. R., & Gall, J. P. (1996). Educational research: An introduction (6th ed.). White Plains, NY: Longman.
Gilgun, J. F. (1994). A case for case studies in social work research. Social Work, 39, 371-380.
Gould, S. J. (1981). The mismeasure of man. New York: Norton.
Graziano, A. M., & Raulin, M. L. (1993). Research methods: A process of inquiry (2nd ed.). New York: Harper Collins.
Hempenstall, K. (2004). The importance of effective instruction. In N. Marchand-Martella, T. Slocum, & R. Martella (Eds.), Introduction to direct instruction (pp. 1-27). Boston, MA: Allyn and Bacon.
Hendrick, C. (1990). Replications, strict replications, and conceptual replications: Are they important? Journal of Social Behavior and Personality, 5(4), 41-49.
Howe, K., & Eisenhart, M. (1990). Standards for qualitative (and quantitative) research: A prolegomenon. Educational Researcher, 19(5), 2-9.
Kazdin, A. E. (1977). Artifact, bias, and complexity of assessment: The ABCs of reliability. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 10, 141-150.
Kilpatrick, J. (2003). Leave no teacher behind. Education News.org. http://www.educationnews.org/writers/jimmy/Leave-No-Teacher-Behind.htm
Korat, O. (2010). Reading electronic books as a support for vocabulary, story comprehension and word reading in kindergarten and first grade. Computers & Education, 55(1), 24-31.
Gorsuch, G., & Taguchi, E. (2010). Developing reading fluency and comprehension using Repeated Reading: Evidence from longitudinal student reports. Language Teaching Research, 14(1), 27-59.
Knopf, H. T., & Brown, H. M. (2009). Lap reading with kindergartners: Nurturing literacy skills and so much more. Young Children, 64(5), 80-87.
Lamal, P. A. (1990). On the importance of replication. Journal of Social Behavior and Personality, 5(4), 31-35.
Martella, R. C., Nelson, R., & Marchand-Martella, N. E. (1999). Research methods: Learning to become a critical research consumer. Boston, MA: Allyn and Bacon.
Meier, K. (1997, February 7). The value of replicating social-science research. The Chronicle of Higher Education, p. B7.
Moats, L. C. (1999). Teaching reading is rocket science: What expert teachers of reading should know and be able to do. Washington, DC: American Federation of Teachers.
Moats, L. (2007). Whole language high jinks: How to tell when “scientifically-based reading instruction” isn’t. Baltimore, MD: Thomas B. Fordham Foundation.
National Joint Committee on Learning Disabilities. (2005, June). Responsiveness to intervention and learning disabilities.
National Reading Panel. (2000). Teaching children to read: An evidence-based assessment of the scientific research literature on reading and its implications for reading instruction. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services.
National Research Council. (2002). Scientific research in education. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.
Neuliep, J. W., & Crandall, R. (1993a). Everyone was wrong: There are lots of replications out there. Journal of Social Behavior and Personality, 8(6), 1-8.
Neuliep, J. W., & Crandall, R. (1993b). Reviewer bias against replication research. Journal of Social Behavior and Personality, 8(6), 21-29.
Patton, M. Q. (1990). Qualitative evaluation and research methods. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
Popper, K. R. (1957/1996). Philosophy of science: A personal report. In S. Sarkar (Ed.), Science and philosophy in the twentieth century: Decline and obsolescence of logical empiricism (pp. 237-273). New York: Garland. (Reprinted from British philosophy in the mid-century: A Cambridge symposium, pp. 155-191, by C.A. Mace, Ed., 1957, New York: Macmillan Norwood Russe).
Potter, W. J. (1996). An analysis of thinking and research about qualitative methods. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Park, R. (2000). Voodoo science: The road from foolishness to fraud. New York: Oxford.
Rosenthal, R. (1990). Replication in behavioral research. Journal of Social Behavior and Personality, 5(4), 1-30.
Rosnow, R. L., & Rosenthal, R. (1976). The volunteer subject revisited. Australian Journal of Psychology, 28, 97-108.
Sagan, C. (1996). The demon-haunted world: Science as a candle in the dark. New York: Ballantine Books.
Shaver, J. P. (1983). The verification of independent variables in teaching methods research. Educational Research, 12, 3-9.
Silverman, D. (1993). Interpreting qualitative data: Methods for analysing talk, text, and interaction. London, Sage.
Simmons, D. C., & Kame’enui, E. J. (2003). A consumer’s guide to evaluating a core reading program grades K-3: A critical elements analysis. Eugene, OR: Institute for the Development of Educational Achievement.
Slavin, R. E. (2003, February). A reader’s guide to scientifically based research: Learning how to assess the validity of education research is vital for creating effective, sustained reform. Educational Leadership, 60(5), 12-16.
Snow, C. E., Burns, M. S., & Griffin, P. (Eds.). National Research Council. (1998). Preventing reading difficulties in young children. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.
Spear-Swerling, L., Brucker, P. O., & Alfano, M. P. (2010). Relationships between sixth-graders' reading comprehension and two different measures of print exposure. Reading and Writing: An Interdisciplinary Journal, 23(1), 73-96.
Stanovich, K. E. (1993/1994). Romance and reality. The Reading Teacher, 47, 280-291.
Strauss, A., & Corbin, J. (1990). Basics of qualitative research: Grounded theory procedures and techniques. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
Tawney, J. W., & Gast, D. L. (1984). Single subject research in special education. Columbus, OH: Merrill.
The 1999 Omnibus Appropriations Bill. (1998). The Reading Excellence Act, pp. 956-1007. http://www.nrrf.org/essay_ReadingExcel.html
Torgesen, J. K. (1998, Spring/Summer). Catch them before they fall: Identification and assessment to prevent reading failure in young children. American Educator, 32-39.
U.S. Department of Education. (2002). No Child Left Behind Act, 2001. http://www.ed.gov/nclb/landing.jhtmlhttp://www.ed.gov/nclb/landing.jhtml
Waldron, C. H. (2008). If I Read Better, Will I Score Higher?: The relationship between oral reading fluency instruction and standardized reading achievement test outcomes. Unpublished master’s thesis, Edinboro University of Pennsylvania.
Wills, H., Kamps, D., Abbott, M., Bannister, H., & Kaufman, J. (2010). Classroom observations and effects of reading interventions for students at risk for emotional and behavioral disorders. Behavioral Disorders, 35(2), 103-119.
Wren, S. (2002). Ten myths of reading instruction. Austin, TX: Southwest Educational Development Laboratory.
Course content is updated every three years. Due to this update timeline, some URL links may no longer be active or may have changed. Please type the title of the organization into the command line of any Internet browser search window and you will be able to find whether the URL link is still active or any new link to the corresponding organization's web home page.