Reading Fundamentals #3:
The Elements of Effective Reading Instruction & Assessment
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
This course will focus on learning to read, reading to learn, and an introduction to reading assessment. As part of these two key areas of reading instruction, the five elements of effective reading instruction will be highlighted, including definitions, implications for instruction, and future directions. These five elements include instruction in phonemic awareness, phonics, fluency, vocabulary, and text comprehension. Further, we discuss information on teacher preparation in learning about comprehension strategy instruction and reading instruction, as well as how to integrate computer technology into the classroom. Additionally, the course will provide information on important assessment terms and definitions and will explore how reading assessment fits within federal mandated programs, including the Common Core State Standards in English Language Arts. This analysis includes specific recommendations for understanding student reading needs using screening, diagnostic, and progress-monitoring assessments. Finally, the course describes how teachers can conduct and use pivotal curriculum-based measurement procedures in their classrooms.
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 #3: The Elements of Effective Reading Instruction & Assessment
Authors: Greg Benner, Ph.D., Nancy Marchand-Martella, Ph.D., and Ronald Martella, Ph.D.
Publisher: Virtual Education Software, inc. 2004, Revised 2010, Revised 2014, Revised 2017
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 reading programs for kindergarten through third grade. The course is designed for both regular and exceptional education teachers and support staff who teach reading and reading remediation to public and private school students. This is the final course in a three-course series. While it is not mandatory to complete all three courses, VESi recommends completing the entire series before developing and implementing a phonetically-based reading program in your school or classroom.
As a result of this course, participants will demonstrate their ability to:
1. Describe learning to read and reading to learn.
2. Discuss important aspects of phonemic awareness instruction.
3. Identify important aspects of phonics instruction.
4. Describe important aspects of fluency instruction.
5. Note important aspects of vocabulary instruction.
6. Discuss important aspects of text comprehension.
7. Describe various aspects of teacher preparation and education in comprehension strategy instruction and reading instruction.
8. Note how computer technology can be used in reading instruction.
9. Provide details on the Consumer’s Guide to Evaluating a Core Reading Program by Simmons and Kame’enui (2003) and the Planning and Evaluation Tool for Effective Schoolwide Reading Programs by Kame’enui and Simmons (2000).
10. Provide details on the Rubric for evaluating reading/language arts instructional materials for kindergarten to grade 5 by Foorman, Smith, and Kosanovich (2017).
11. Describe accomplishments that can be expected for students in grades K-3.
12. Discuss important aspects of adolescent literacy instruction and assessment (grades 4-12).
13. Discuss important aspects of word study and motivation.
14. Describe reading remediation guidelines and interventions for students in grades K-12.
15. Describe how to incorporate tutoring as an effective reading intervention.
16. Define important assessment terms.
17. Discuss technical quality, test interpretation, and assessment purposes.
18. Note how assessment fits within federally mandated programs, including Common Core State Standards in English Language Arts.
19. Apply response to intervention (RTI) systems/multitier system of support (MTSS) approaches to understand student reading needs, including screening, diagnosing where to focus instruction, and monitoring student reading progress.
20. Discuss important ways to link assessment with instruction.
21. Detail the use of data-based decision making in classroom settings, with particular focus on various types of curriculum-based measurement procedures.
The Reading Fundamentals program focuses on implementing proven methods of early reading instruction in classrooms. The No Child Left Behind Act of 2001 added two new reading programs to the Elementary and Secondary Education Act: Reading First and Early Reading First--both under the Bush Administration. Under the Obama Administration, funds were accessed under the Striving Readers Comprehensive Literacy program. Funding was focused on advancing literacy skills for children from birth to grade 12. An emphasis was placed on research-based classroom instruction and assessment and targeted interventions for those reading below grade level. Race to the Top was another initiative offering funding. Four educational reform areas are included: quality standards and assessments, data system to improve instruction, great teachers and principals, and turnaround of lowest-achieving schools.
This course will focus on learning to read and reading to learn. As part of these two key areas of reading instruction, prereading skills for preschoolers will be briefly described. Additionally, the five elements of effective reading instruction will be highlighted, including definitions, implications for instruction, and future directions. These five elements include instruction in: phonemic awareness, phonics, fluency, vocabulary, and text comprehension (grades K-3); and word study, fluency, vocabulary, comprehension, and motivation (grades 4-12).
Further, we discuss information on teacher preparation in learning about comprehension strategy instruction and reading instruction and how to integrate computer technology into the classroom. Additionally, this course will describe the Consumer’s Guide to Evaluating a Core Reading Program by Simmons and Kame’enui (2006), a well-respected document for evaluating programs based on the National Reading Panel Report (NICHD, 2000). Also, the Planning and Evaluation Tool for Effective Schoolwide Reading Programs by Kame’enui and Simmons (2003) and the Rubric for evaluating reading/language arts instructional materials for kindergarten to grade 5 by Foorman, Smith, and Kosanovich (2017) will be addressed. Finally, this course will highlight the Common Core State Standards in English Language Arts and offer recommendations on increasing text complexity and the use of close reading in our schools, reading accomplishments by grade level, reading interventions for students in Grades K-12, and the use of tutoring programs.
We conclude with information on important assessment terms and definitions. Further, we provide information on how reading assessment fits within the Reading First Program. We include detailed information on the Analysis of Reading Assessment Instruments for K-3 (Institute for the Development of Educational Achievement, 2002) completed by key leaders in the assessment field. This analysis includes specific recommendations on 29 reading assessments. We describe how response to intervention (RTI) and multitier system of support (MTSS) are used to understand student reading needs, including screening, diagnosing where to focus instruction, and monitoring student reading progress over time. We demonstrate how teachers can link assessment with instruction and data-based decision making in classroom settings, with particular focus on pivotal curriculum-based measurement procedures.
As a student you will be expected to:
· Complete all six information sections showing a competent understanding of the material presented in each section.
· Complete all six 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.
Chapter 2: Reading to Learn & Other Important Areas of Reading Instruction
In this chapter, we focus on reading to learn or comprehension of text materials from kindergarten to third grade. Two elements of effective reading instruction must be included to improve reading comprehension in the classroom. These are vocabulary instruction and text comprehension instruction.
Chapter 4: Reading Remediation
In this chapter, we will describe interventions for students in Grades K-12. We offer important guidelines on remedial reading programs. We focus on the importance of tutorial programs in schools. Tutorial programs are considered one of the best ways of providing reading instruction to struggling readers.
Chapter 5: Best Practices for Reading Assessment
This chapter describes relevant assessment terms and purposes. It is critical to understand the types of tests available to teachers and what information can be gathered from them. It also provides important information on how assessment fits within Reading First. Additionally, this chapter details the findings of the Reading First Assessment Committee. It also provides important information on how assessment currently fits within the Striving Readers Comprehensive Literacy program. Additionally, this chapter details the best practices from the Reading First Assessment Committee, Florida Center for Reading Research, and National Center for Intensive Intervention (NCII). Response to intervention (RTI) practices for understanding the literacy needs of students through screening, diagnostic, and progress monitoring assessments are detailed.
Chapter 6: Linking Assessment With Instruction
This chapter lays out how to link reading assessment with instruction, meaning how to use assessment information to meet individual student literacy needs every day. It describes the ever-important link between assessment and instruction and how to problem solve when student literacy needs are not being met. An outcomes-driven model is discussed. Additionally, the chapter explores data tracking and data-based decision making, with particular focus on CBM and its derivatives (i.e., measures not based directly on a particular curriculum, but integrating CBM elements such as frequent progress monitoring). It discusses the DIBELS as well as teacher-developed CBM practices that can serve as criterion-referenced tests when student data are compared to performance criteria. We highlight best practices for understanding the reading comprehension and motivation of striving readers (grades 4-12).
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.
Your writing assignments must meet the minimum word count and are not to include the question or your final citations as part of your word count. In other words, the question and citations are not to be used as a means to meet the minimum word count.
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.
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 JAS), written by an author with a Ph.D., Ed.D. or similar, on the topic outlined within each JAS section in the “Required Essays” portion of the course (blogs, abstracts, news articles or similar are not acceptable). Your article choice must relate specifically to the discussion topic listed in each individual JAS. You will choose a total of three relevant articles (one article per JAS) 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 facilitator to access and review each article.
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 email@example.com 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.
Armbruster, B. B., Lehr, F., & Osborn, J. (2006a). A child becomes a reader: Proven ideas from research for parents: Birth to preschool (3rd ed.). Jessup, MD: National Institute for Literacy.
Armbruster, B. B., Lehr, F., & Osborn, J. (2006b). A child becomes a reader: Proven ideas from research for parents: Kindergarten to grade 3 (3rd ed.). Jessup, MD: National Institute for Literacy.
Armbruster, B. B., Lehr, F., & Osborn, J. (2006c). Put reading first: The research building blocks for teaching children to read: Kindergarten through grade 3 (3rd ed.). Jessup, MD: National Institute for Literacy.
ASCD. (2015). Elementary and secondary education act: Comparison of the No Child Left Behind Act to the Every Student Succeeds Act. Alexandria, VA: Author. Retrieved from http://www.ascd.org/ASCD/pdf/siteASCD/policy/ESEA_NCLB_ComparisonChart_2015.pdf
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.
Baker, S., Geva, E., Kieffer, M. J., Lesaux, N., Linan-Thompson, S., Morris, J., et al. (2014). Teaching academic content and literacy to English learners in elementary and middle school (NCEE No. 2014–4012). Washington, DC: National Center for Education Evaluation and Regional Assistance (NCEE), Institute of Education Sciences, U.S. Department of Education. http://eric.ed.gov/?id=ED544783
Barlow, D. H., Nock, M. K., & Hersen, M. (2009). Single case experimental designs: Strategies for studying behavior change (3rd ed.). New York, NY: Pergamon.
Batsche, G., Elliot, J., Graden, J. L., Grimes, J., Kovaleski, J. F., Prasse, D., Reschly, D. J., Schrag, J., & Tilly, W. D., III (2005). Response to intervention: Policy considerations and implementation. Alexandria, VA: National Association of State Directors of Special Education.
Beck, I. L., & McKeown, M. G. (2002). Comprehension: The sin qua non of reading. In S. Patton & M. Holmes (Eds.), The keys to literacy (2nd ed., online version) (pp. 43-51). Washington, DC: Council for Basic Education.
Biancarosa, C., & Snow, C. E. (2006). Reading next—A vision for action and research in middle and high school literacy: A report to Carnegie Corporation of New York (2nd ed.).Washington, DC: Alliance for Excellent Education.
Boardman, A. G., Roberts, G., Vaughn, S., Wexler, J., Murray, C. S., & Kosanovich, M. (2008). Effective instruction for adolescent struggling readers: A practice brief. Portsmouth, NH: RMC Research Corporation, Center on Instruction.
Bogdan, R. C., & Biklen, S. K. (1992). Qualitative research for education: An introduction to theory and methods (2nd ed.). Boston, MA: Allyn and Bacon.
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.
Carnine, D., Silbert, J., Kame’enui, E., Slocum, T. A., & Travers, P. (2017). Direct instruction reading (6th ed.). Boston, MA: Pearson.
Carnine, D., Silbert, J., Kame’enui, E., Slocum, T. A., & Travers, P. (2017). Direct instruction reading (6th ed.). Boston, MA: Pearson
Chambless, D. L., & Ollendick, T. H. (2001). Empirically supported psychological interventions: Controversies and evidence. Annual Review of Psychology, 52, 685-716. doi:10.1146/annurev.psych.52.1.685
Common Core State Standards Initiative website. (2015). http://www.corestandards.org/ELA-Literacy/CCRA/R/.
Corbin, J., & Strauss, A. (2008). Basics of qualitative research: Techniques and procedures for developing grounded theory (3rd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Cunningham, A. E., & Stanovich, E. K. (2001). What reading does for the mind. Journal of Direct Instruction, 1(2), 137-149. Reprinted with permission from The American Federation of Teachers. (1998). American Educator, 22, (1), 8-15.
Deno, S. L., Fuchs, L. S., Marston, D. B., & Shin, J. (2001). Using curriculum-based measurement to establish growth standards for students with learning disabilities. School Psychology Review, 30(4), 507-524.
Early Childhood Research Institute on Measuring Growth and Development. (1998). Research and development of individual growth and development indicators for children between birth and age eight (Technical Report No. 4). Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.
Every Student Succeeds Act, S.1177, 114th Cong. (2015). Retrieved from http://edworkforce.house.gov/uploadedfiles/every_student_succeeds_act_-_conference_report.pdf
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, March). From research to practice. Education Week. Retrieved from http://www.edweek.org/ew/ewstory.cfm?slug=26fleischman.h22
Foorman, B., Coyne, M., Denton, C. A., Dimino, J., Hayes, L., Lewis, W., et al. (2016). Foundational skills to support reading for understanding in kindergarten through 3rd grade (NCEE No. 2016–4008). Washington, DC: National Center for Education Evaluation and Regional Assistance (NCEE), Institute of Education Sciences, U.S. Department of Education. http://eric.ed.gov/?id=ED566956
Foorman, B. R., Smith, K. G., & Kosanovich, M. L. (2017). Rubric for evaluating reading/ language arts instructional materials for kindergarten to grade 5 (REL 2017–219). Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education, Institute of Education Sciences, National Center for Education Evaluation and Regional Assistance, Regional Educational Laboratory Southeast. Retrieved from http://ies.ed.gov/ncee/edlabs.
Foorman, B. R., Fletcher, J. M., & Francis, D. J. (2002). Preventing reading failure by ensuring effective reading instruction. In S. Patton & M. Holmes (Eds.), The keys to literacy (2nd ed., online version) (pp. 36-42). Washington, DC: Council for Basic Education.
Fuchs, L. S. (1995). Curriculum-based measurement and eligibility decision making: An emphasis on treatment validity and growth. Paper presented at the Workshop on Alternatives to IQ Testing. Washington, DC: National Academy of Sciences.
Fuchs, D., & Fuchs, L. S. (2007). Responsiveness to intervention [Special issue]. Teaching Exceptional Children, 39(5). Available at http://www.centeroninstruction.org/files/TEC-vol.39no.52007.pdf
Fuchs, L. S., & Fuchs, D. (2007). A model for implementing responsiveness to intervention. Teaching Exceptional Children, 39(5), 14-20.
Gall, M. D., Gall, J. P., & Borg, W. R. (2015). Applying educational research (7th ed.). Boston, MA: Pearson.
Gast, D. L., & Ledford, J. R. (2014). Single case research methodology: Applications in special education and behavioral sciences. New York, NY: Routledge.
Gersten, R., Compton, D., Connor, C. M., Dimino, J., Santoro, L., Linan-Thompson, S., & Tilly, W. D. (2008). Assisting students struggling with reading: Response to Intervention and multi-tier intervention for reading in the primary grades. A practice guide. Washington, DC: National Center for Education Evaluation and Regional Assistance, Institute of Education Sciences, U.S. Department of Education. Retrieved from http://ies.ed.gov/ncee/wwc/publications/practiceguides/
Gilgun, J. F. (1994). A case for case studies in social work research. Social Work, 39, 371-380. doi:10.1177/1525822X010130
Good, R. H., Simmons, D. C., & Kame'enui, E. J. (2001). The importance of decision-making utility of a continuum of fluency-based indicators of foundational reading skills for third-grade high stakes outcomes. Scientific Studies of Reading, 5(3), 257-288.
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. doi:10.1177/13621688093464
Gould, S. J. (1981). The mismeasure of man. New York, NY: Norton.
Graham, S., Bollinger, A., Booth Olson, C., D’Aoust, C., MacArthur, C., McCutchen, D., et al. (2012). Teaching elementary school students to be effective writers: A practice guide (NCEE No. 2012–4058). Washington, DC: National Center for Education Evaluation and Regional Assistance (NCEE), Institute of Education Sciences, U.S. Department of Education. http://eric.ed.gov/?id=ED533112
Graziano, A. M., & Raulin, M. L. (2012). Research methods: A process of inquiry (8th ed.). Boston, MA: Pearson.
Groff, P. (2001). Decodable words versus predictable text. National Right to Read Foundation. Available from http://www.nrrf.org/decodable_vs_predictable.htm
Hall, S. L., & Moats, L. C. (1999). Straight talk about reading: How parents can make a difference during the early years. Lincolnwood, IL: Contemporary Books.
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. doi:10.3102/0013189X019004
Howell, K. W., & Nolet, V. (2000). Curriculum-based evaluation: Teaching and decision making (3rd ed.). Belmont, CA: Wadsworth/Thomson Learning.
Jenkins, J. R., Hudson, R. F., & Lee, S. H. (2007). Using CBM-reading assessments to monitor reading progress. Perspectives on Language and Literacy, 33(2), 11-16.
Jenkins, J. R., & O'Connor, R. (2002). Early identification and intervention for young children with reading/learning disabilities. In R. Bradley, L. Danielson, & D. Hallahan (Eds.), Identification of learning disabilities (pp. 99-149). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Kame’enui, E. J., & Simmons, D. (2003). Planning and evaluation tool for effective schoolwide reading programs-Revised (PET-R). Eugene, OR: Institute for the Development of Educational Achievement (IDEA).
Kame’enui, J. (2007). A new paradigm: Responsiveness to intervention. Teaching Exceptional Children, 39(5), 6-7.
Kamil, M. L., Borman, G. D., Dole, J., Kral, C. C., Salinger, T., & Torgesen, J. (2008). Improving adolescent literacy: Effective classroom and intervention practices: A practice guide (NCEE No. 2008–4027). Washington, DC: National Center for Education Evaluation and Regional Assistance (NCEE), Institute of Education Sciences, U.S. Department of Education. http://eric.ed.gov/?id=ED502398
Kaminski, R. A., & Good, R. H., III. (1996). Toward a technology for assessing basic early literacy skills. School Psychology Review, 25, 215–227.
Kamps, D., Locke, P., Delquadri, J., & Hall, R. V. (1989). Increasing academic skills of students with autism using fifth grade peers as tutors. Education & Treatment of Children, 12, 38-51.
Kazdin, A. E. (1977). Artifact, bias, and complexity of assessment: The ABCs of reliability. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 10, 141-150. doi:10.1901/jaba.1977.10-141
Kilpatrick, J. (2003). Leave no teacher behind. Education News.org. Retrieved from http://www.ednews.org/articles/leave-no-teacher-behind-.html
Knopf, H. T., & Brown, H. M. (2009). Lap reading with kindergartners: Nurturing literacy skills and so much more. Young Children, 64(5), 80-87. Retrieved from http://eric.ed.gov/?id=EJ868216
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. doi:10.1016/j.compedu.2009.11.014
Korte, G. (2015, December 15). The every student succeeds act vs. No child left behind: What’s changed? USA Today. Retrieved from http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2015/12/10/every-student-succeeds-act-vs-no-child-left-behind-whats-changed/77088780/
Lamal, P. A. (1990). On the importance of replication. Journal of Social Behavior and Personality, 5(4), 31-35.
Marchand-Martella, N. E., Blakely, M., & Schaefer, E. (2004). Aspects of schoolwide implementations. In N. E. Marchand-Martella, T. A. Slocum, & R. C. Martella (Eds.), Introduction to Direct Instruction (Chapter 10). Boston, MA: Allyn & Bacon.
Marchand-Martella, N. E., Ruby, S., & Martella, R. C. (2007, May). A three-tier strategic model of intensifying reading instruction. TEACHING Exceptional Children Plus, 3, Article 2, retrieved from http://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/EJ967459.pdf
Martella, R. C., Marchand-Martella, N. E., Miller, T., Young, R., & Macfarlane, C. (1995, Winter). Teaching instructional aides and peer tutors to decrease problem behaviors in the classroom. Teaching Exceptional Children, 53-56.
Martella, R. C., Nelson, J. R., Morgan, R. L. & Marchand-Martella, N. E. (2013). Understanding and interpreting educational research. New York, NY: Guilford.
Martino, L. R. (1994). Peer tutoring classes for young adolescents: A cost-effective strategy. Middle School Journal, 25, 55-58.
McIntosh, K., & Goodman, S. (2016). Integrated multi-tiered systems of support: Blending RTI and PBIS. New York, NY: Guilford.
McLoughlin, J. A., & Lewis, M. B. (2008). Assessing students with special needs (7th ed.). Prentice Hall: Columbus, OH.
Meier, K. (1997, February 7). The value of replicating social-science research. 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. C. (2002). Teachers: A key to helping America read. In S. Patton & M. Holmes (Eds.), The keys to literacy (2nd ed., online version) (pp. 27-35). Washington, DC: Council for Basic Education.
National Center on Intensive Intervention. (2016). Tools chart user’s guide. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education, Office of Special Education Programs, National Center on Intensive Intervention.
National Institute of Child Health and Human Development (NICHD). (2000). Report of the National Reading Panel. Teaching children to read: An evidence-based assessment of the scientific research literature on reading and its implications for reading instruction (NIH Publication, No. 00-4769). Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office.
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.
National Research Council. (1999). Starting out right: A guide to promoting children’s reading success. 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.
Orton Dyslexia Society. (1997). Informed instruction for reading success: Foundations for teacher preparation. Baltimore, MD: Author.
Park, R. (2000). Voodoo science: The road from foolishness to fraud. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
Patton, M. Q. (2015). Qualitative research and evaluation methods: Integrating theory and practice (4th ed.). Los Angeles, CA: Sage.
PBIS: Positive Behavioral Interventions & Supports, OSEP Technical Assistance Center. (2017) Multi-tiered system of support (MTSS) & PBIS. Retrieved from https://www.pbis.org/school/mtss
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, NY: Garland. (Reprinted from British philosophy in the mid-century: A Cambridge symposium, pp. 155-191, by C.A. Mace, Ed., 1957, New York, NY: Macmillan Norwood Russe)
Potter, W. J. (1996). An analysis of thinking and research about qualitative methods. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
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. doi:10.1080/00049537608255268
Russell, M. K., & Airasian, P. W. (2012). Classroom assessment: Concepts and applications (7th ed.). New York, NY: McGraw-Hill.
Sagan, C. (1996). The demon-haunted world: Science as a candle in the dark. New York, NY: Ballantine Books.
Salvia, J., Ysseldyke, J. E., & Bolt, S. (2013). Assessment: In special and inclusive education (12th ed.). Belmont, CA: Wadsworth.
Shanahan, T., Callison, K., Carriere, C., Duke, N. K., Pearson, P. D., Schatschneider, C., et al. (2010). Improving reading comprehension in kindergarten through 3rd grade: A practice guide (NCEE No. 2010–4038). Washington, DC: National Center for Education Evaluation and Regional Assistance (NCEE), Institute of Education Sciences, U.S. Department of Education. http://eric.ed.gov/?id=ED512029
Shaver, J. P. (1983). The verification of independent variables in teaching methods research. Educational Research, 12, 3-9. doi:10.3102/0013189X012008003
Shinn, M. R. (Ed.) (1989). Curriculum-based measurement: Assessing special children. New York: Guilford.
Short, C., Marchand-Martella, N. E., Martella, R. C., Ebey, T., & Stookey, S. (1999). The benefits of being high school Corrective Reading peer instructors. Effective School Practices, 18(2), 23-29.
Silverman, D. (2006). Interpreting qualitative data: Methods for analyzing talk, text, and interaction (3rd ed.). London, UK: 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.
Simmons, D. C., & Kame’enui, E. J. (2006, August). 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, College of Education, University of Oregon.
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, 12-16. Retrieved from http://www.ascd.org/publications/educational-leadership/feb03/vol60/num05/A-Reader's-Guide-to-Scientifically-Based-Research.aspx
Snow, C. E., Burns, M. S., & Griffin, P. (Eds.). (1998). Preventing reading difficulties in young children. National Research Council. 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. doi:10.1007/s11145-008-9152-8
Stanovich, K. E. (1993/1994). Romance and reality. The Reading Teacher, 47, 280-291. Retrieved from http://www.keithstanovich.com/Site/Research_on_Reading_files/RdTch93.pdf
Stecker, P. M., & Lemke, E. S. (2005). Advanced applications of CBM in Reading: Instructional decision-making strategies manual. National Center on Student Progress Monitoring. Retrieved from http://www.studentprogress.org/library/Training/CBMmath/AdvancedReading/AdvRdgManual-FORMATTEDSept29.pdf
Stein, M., Johnson, B., & Gutlohn, L. (1999). Analyzing beginning reading programs: The relationships between decoding instruction and text. Remedial and Special Education, 20(5), 275-287.
R. W., Jr. (1998). The 1999 omnibus appropriations bill. In The reading excellence act: A breakthrough
for reading teacher training (pp. 956-1007). Retrieved from http://www.nrrf.org/learning/the
U.S. Department of
Education. (2002). No Child Left Behind
Act, 2001. Retrieved from http://www.ed.gov
U.S. Department of Education. (2002). Reading First program state application. Washington, DC: Author.
U.S. Department of Education. (2008). Reading First impact study final report. Washington, DC: Author.
U.S. Department of Education [What Works Clearinghouse]. (2009). Earobics. Washington, D.C.: Author.
Utley, C., Mortweet, S., & Greenwood, C. (1997). Peer-mediated instruction and interventions. Focus on Exceptional Children, 29, 1-23.
Vaughn, S., & Roberts, G. (2007). Secondary interventions in reading: Providing additional instruction for students at risk. Teaching Exceptional Children, 39(5), 40-46.
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.
Weiss, S. L. (2013). Learning-related behaviors: Small group reading instruction in the general education classroom. Intervention in School and Clinic, 48, 294–302.
Wildman Longwill, A., & Kleinert, H. L. (1998, May/April). The unexpected benefits of high school peer tutoring. Teaching Exceptional Children, 60-65.
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. doi:10.1177/1063426613476092
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.