Reading Fundamentals #1:
An Introduction to Scientifically-based Research
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
Technical Support: firstname.lastname@example.org
Reading Fundamentals supports the concept of using scientifically-based reading research to develop an effective approach to reading assessment, instruction, evaluation, and remediation.
An Introduction to Scientifically-based Research, the first in the three-course Reading Fundamentals series on effective reading instruction, was designed to give background on scientifically-based instruction as it applies to federal legislation. The course discusses the research that supports scientifically-based research as it applies to effective instruction, assessment, and evaluation. The course explores myths and misconceptions concerning reading instruction and remediation. It also presents an evaluation checklist designed to assess the effectiveness of your current reading program. The goal of the course is to present you with research, trustworthy evidence, and background information that support the need for a reading program that is based on scientific research and proven methods.
Course Materials (Online)
Title: Reading Fundamentals #1: An Introduction to Scientifically-based Research
Authors: Ronald Martella, Ph.D.
Publisher: Virtual Education Software, inc. 2004, Revised 2010, Revised 2014, Revised 2017, Revised 2020
Instructor: 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 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 twelfth grade. Some alterations may be needed if working with specific populations such as gifted, ESL, or special education.
1. Describe what is meant by critical thinking.
2. Explain what science is and illustrate the six scientific principles.
3. Explain the myths and misconceptions of science, and describe the ways in which we gain information.
4. Describe the impact science has had on medicine, clinical psychology, and education.
5. Illustrate the constraint levels in educational research.
6. Explain the difference in assumptions regarding the sources of variability, the type of logic approach, and the ability
to generalize results between experimental group research and single-case research.
7. Describe the concepts of reliability and validity and trustworthiness or believability of measures.
8. Explain what is meant by variability, including the sources of variability.
9. Describe the terms internal and external validity, and explain the threats to each.
10. Illustrate the different research designs/methods (i.e., experimental, single-case, causal-comparative, correlational, and qualitative).
11. Describe the importance of replications and illustrate the types of replications.
12. Describe what is meant by the term research synthesis.
The Every Student Succeeds Act (ESSA) outlines a clear approach for improving literacy success by supporting states in the development of effective literacy instruction and a continuum of support and interventions for those students who are at risk for reading failure. Thus, educators must have a working knowledge of evidence-based instructional strategies and approaches. (Note: A summary of this legislation regarding the use of evidence-based instructional materials appears in Course 2.)
According to Evans, Waring, and Christodoulou (2017), teachers should use research to guide their practice. Unfortunately, according to Evans et al., teachers’ research knowledge is lacking. Teachers are not adequately trained in research methodology in their pre-service programs. An interesting phenomenon is present in teacher preparation programs. Undergraduate students are rarely required to take research methods or statistics courses. Contrast this with the situation of undergraduates in psychology. Psychology undergraduates are typically required to take research and statistics courses. The interesting aspect of this difference is that students in teacher preparation programs are highly likely to be accountable for the academic progress of students in their classrooms once they become teachers. In comparison, psychology students will likely be much less accountable for the progress of individuals in their charge (e.g., direct care services such as group homes and residential facilities). In other words, if we compare the responsibilities of education college students with those of psychology college students, the students who would be most in need of training in the scientific process (e.g., data-based decision-making) would be those preparing to be teachers.
As a student you will be expected to:
· Complete all five information sections showing a competent understanding of the material presented in each section.
· Complete all five 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: Constraint Levels, Validity & Variability in Research
chapter will discuss the various types of research and the constraint levels in
educational research. The difference in assumptions made regarding sources of
variability, the type of logic approach, and the ability to generalize results
between experimental group research and single-case research will be explained.
There will be information on the issues of reliability and validity and
trustworthiness or believability in research
Chapter 4: Experimental Designs
This chapter will discuss quasi-experimental designs, pre-experimental designs, true experimental designs, and single case designs. It will discuss causal-comparatives and correlational research as well as qualitative research. The chapter will also discuss objectives and methodology.
Chapter 5: Putting It All Together
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., Fillmore, L. W., Goldenberg, C., Oakhill, J., Paige, D., Rasinski, T., & Shanahan, T. (2020). Comparing reading research to program design. Student Achievement Partners. Retrieved from achievethecore.org
Archer, A. L., & Hughes, C. A. (2011). Explicit instruction: Effective and efficient teaching. New York, NY: The Guilford Press.
Armbruster, B. B., Lehr, F., & Osborn, J. (2006). Put reading first: The research building blocks for teaching children to read (3rd ed.). Jessup, MD: Center for the Improvement of Early Reading Achievement.
Barlow, D. H., Nock, M. K., & Hersen, M. (2009). Single case experimental designs: Strategies for studying behavior change (3rd ed.). Boston, MA: Pearson.
Bell, K., & Dolainski, S. (2012). What is evidence-based reading instruction and how do you know it when you see it? Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education. Retrieved from http://lincs.ed.gov/publications/pdf/EDVAE09C0042EBRILAUSD.pdf
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. (2006). Qualitative research for education: An introduction to theory and methods (5th ed.). Boston, MA: Allyn and Bacon.
Bordens, K., & Barrington Abbott, B. (2018). Research design and methods: A process approach (10th ed.). Columbus, OH: McGraw-Hill.
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.
Castles, A., Rastle, K., & Nation, K. (2018). Ending the reading wars: Reading acquisition from novice to expert. Psychological Science in the Public Interest, 19, 5–51. doi:10.1177/1529100618772271
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
Cook, B. G., & Cook, S. C. (2013). Unraveling evidence-based practices in special education. Journal of Special Education, 47, 71-82. doi:10.1177/0022466911420
Coyne, M. D., Kame’enui, E. J., & Carnine, D. W. (2011). Effective teaching strategies that accommodate diverse learners (4th ed.). Boston, MA: Pearson.
Creswell, J. W., & Creswell, J. D. (2018). Research design: Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods approaches (5th ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Creswell, J. W., & Poth, C. N. (2018). Qualitative inquiry & research design: Choosing among five approaches (4th ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Denzin, N., & Lincoln, Y. S. (2017). The SAGE handbook of qualitative research (5th ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Evans, C., Waring, M., & Christodoulou, A. (2017). Building teachers’ research literacy: Integrating practice and research. Research Papers in Education, 32(4), 403–423. doi:10.1080/02671522.2017.1322357
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. 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
Gall, M. D., Gall, J. P., & Borg, W. R. (2010). Applying educational research (6th ed.). Boston, MA: Pearson.
Gall, M. D., Gall, J. P., & Borg, W. R. (2015). Applying educational research (7th ed.). Boston, MA: Pearson.
Gast, D. L., & Ledford, J. R. (2018). Single case research methodology: Applications in special education and behavioral sciences (3rd ed.). New York, NY: Routledge.
Gould, S. J. (1981). The mismeasure of man. New York, NY: Norton.
Graham, S., & Hebert, M. A. (2010). Writing to read: Evidence for how writing can improve reading. A Carnegie Corporation Time to Act Report. Washington, DC: Alliance for Excellent Education.
Graziano, A. M., & Raulin, M. L. (2020). Research methods: A process of inquiry (9th ed.). Boston, MA: Pearson.
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:10.3102/0013189X019004002
International Literacy Association. (2018). Explaining phonics instruction: An educator’s guide. Newark, DE: Author.
International Literacy Association. (2019). Right to knowledgeable and qualified literacy educators [Research brief]. Newark, DE: Author.
International Literacy Association. (2019). Meeting the challenges of early literacy phonics instruction. Newark, DE: Author.
International Reading Association. (2002). What is evidence-based reading instruction? A position statement of the International Reading Association. Retrieved from http://www.reading.org/Libraries/position-statements-and-resolutions/ps1055_evidence_based.pdf
Jordan, R., Garwood, J., & Trathen, W. (2019). Assessing general education and special education majors’ self-efficacy for teaching reading. Learning Disabilities Research & Practice, 34(4), 185–193. doi:10.1111/ldrp.12207
Kazdin, A. E. (2010). Single-case research designs: Methods for clinical and applied settings (2nd ed.). New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
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 #2008-4027). Washington, DC: National Center for Education Evaluation and Regional Assistance, Institute of Education Sciences, U.S. Department of Education. Retrieved from https://ies.ed.gov/ncee/wwc/PracticeGuide/8
Lamal, P. A. (1990). On the importance of replication. Journal of Social Behavior and Personality, 5(4), 31–35.
Lane, J. D., & Gast, D. L. (2014). Visual analysis in single case experimental design studies: Brief review and guidelines. Neuropsychological Rehabilitation, 24, 445–463. doi:10.1080/09602011.2013.815636
Ledford, J. R., & Gast, D. L. (2014). Measuring procedural fidelity in behavioural research. Neuropsychological Rehabilitation, 24, 332–348. doi:10.1080/09602011.2013.861352
Leavy, P. (2017). Research design: Quantitative, qualitative, mixed methods, arts-based, and community-based participatory research approaches. New York, NY: Guilford.
Martella, R. C., Nelson, J. R., Morgan, R. L., & Marchand-Martella, N. E. (2013). Understanding and interpreting educational research. New York, NY: Guilford.
McCardle, P., Chhabra, V., & Kapinus, B. (2008). Reading research in action: A teacher’s guide for student success. Baltimore, MD: Paul H. Brookes.
Meier, K. (1997, February 7). The value of replicating social-science research. Chronicle of Higher Education, p. B7.
Moats, L. (2007). Whole-language high jinks: How to tell when “scientifically-based reading instruction” isn’t. Thomas B. Fordham Institute. Retrieved from http://edexcellencemedia.net/publications/2007/200701_wholelanguagehijinks/Moats2007.pdf
National Center for the Study of Adult Learning and Literacy. (2005). Accessing and using research for evidence-based practice. Retrieved from http://www.ncsall.net/fileadmin/resources/Accessing_R-based_practice.pdf
National Governors Association for Best Practices. (2005). Reading to achieve: A governor’s guide to adolescent literacy. Retrieved from: http://www.nga.org/Files/pdf/0510GOVGUIDELITERACY.PDF
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: Reports of the subgroups (NIH Publication No. 00-4754). Retrieved from http://www.nichd.nih.gov/publications/pubs/nrp/pages/smallbook.aspx
National Institute for Literacy (NIFL). (2007). What content-area teachers should know about adolescent literacy. Retrieved from http://lincs.ed.gov/publications/pdf/adolescent_literacy07.pdf
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. (2015). Qualitative evaluation and research methods (4th ed.). Thousand Oaks, 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, 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).
Park, R. (2000). Voodoo science: The road from foolishness to fraud. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
Rosenthal, R. (1990). Replication in behavioral research. Journal of Social Behavior and Personality, 5(4), 1–30. doi:10.1016/S0927-5371(97)00012-2
Rosnow, R. L., & Rosenthal, R. (1976). The volunteer subject revisited. Australian Journal of Psychology, 28, 97–108. doi:10.1080/00049537608255268
Rossi, P. H., Lipsey, M. W., & Henry, G. T. (2019). Evaluation: A systematic approach (8th ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Scammacca, N., Roberts, G., Vaughn, S., Edmonds, M., Wexler, J., Reutebuch, C. K., & Torgesen, J. K. (2007). Interventions for adolescent struggling readers: A meta-analysis with implications for practice. Portsmouth, NH: RMC Research Corporation, Center on Instruction.
Sheperis, C. J., Young, J. S., & Daniels, M. H. (2016). Counseling research: Quantitative, qualitative, and mixed methods (2nd ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson.
Silverman, D. (2015). Interpreting qualitative data (5th ed.). London, Los Angeles, CA: Sage.
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
Slavin, R. E. (2018). Educational psychology: Theory and practice (12th ed.). New York, NY: Pearson.
U.S. Department of Education. (2003). Identifying and implementing educational practices supported by rigorous evidence: A user friendly guide. Washington, DC: Institute of Education Sciences/National Center for Education Evaluation and Regional Assistance.
U.S. Department of Education. (2013). Common guidelines for education research and development. Washington, DC: Institute of Education Sciences/National Science Foundation.
U.S. Department of Education. (2015). Every student succeeds act (ESSA). Washington, DC: Office of Elementary and Secondary Education.
Wing Institute. (2020). Evidence-based education. Retrieved from https://www.winginstitute.org
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.