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
Learning to read is the most important skill students learn in school because it serves as the foundation for all other coursework. Given the importance of this foundational skill, evidence-based practices in literacy development should be employed. This three-course Reading Fundamentals series will help improve your knowledge of evidence-based practices. 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, Revised 2014, Revised 2017, Revised 2020
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.
Level of Application
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 12th grade. Some alterations may be needed for those working with specific populations such as gifted, English Language Learners (ELLs), or special education.
Expected Learning Outcomes
As a result of this course, participants will demonstrate their ability to:
11. Discuss what key legislation means to educators.
12. Describe what is meant by Response to Intervention (RTI) and Multi-Tiered System of Supports (MTSS).
13. Provide information on how to differentiate instruction for ELLs.
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, more than 30 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 in learning to read and/or reading to learn in our schools. 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 have tried to tackle this critical academic area “head on” by focusing on evidence-based practices. Further, five essential components of effective reading programs have been identified for grades K-3 and a separate set of components have been targeted for grades 4-12. K-3 components include phonemic awareness, phonics, fluency, vocabulary, and text comprehension; components for grades 4-12 include word study, fluency, vocabulary, comprehension, and motivation. Empirical studies have shown that students need to acquire skills in these areas to become proficient readers.
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.
Chapter 1: Importance of Effective Instruction
This course will shed some light on effective instruction by breaking it down into parts. Three critical elements of effective instruction lead to student success in the classroom: the organization of instruction, curriculum design; and instructional delivery (Carnine, Silbert, Kame’enui, Slocum, & Travers (2017).
When we look at how reading curricula or programs are designed, we must examine six curricular variables: (a) specifying objectives, (b) devising instructional strategies, (c) developing teaching procedures, (d) selecting examples, (e) sequencing skills, and (f) providing practice and review (Carnine et al., 2017).
In addition to examining the organization of instruction and how our reading program is designed, we should assess 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) teacher signaling, (d) pacing, (e) monitoring, (f) correcting errors and teaching to mastery, (g) diagnosing, (h) motivation, (i) accelerating student learning, and (j) whole-class instruction (Carnine et al., 2017). Before, during, and after reading management tips will also be covered as outlined by Marchand-Martella, Martella, and Lambert (2015).
Finally, a description of how effective behavior management approaches can be integrated within instruction will be provided and include behavior management related to organizing instruction, effective instruction, self-management, and social development.
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 core/comprehensive reading programs as well as on strategic/supplemental and intensive/intervention programs, given their emphasis in our schools.
A further description of this continuum will be provided with a focus on the forms of constructivism including the endogenous, exogenous, and dialectical forms.
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 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, along with a publication titled Put Reading First (2006). Further, recent evidence-based practice guides developed for the Institute of Education Sciences by What Works Clearinghouse and the International Literacy Association are highlighted.
Chapter 4: Reading Intervention Strategies
Congress significantly changed the way in which schools could determine a child’s eligibility for special education under the specific learning disabilities category when it reauthorized 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 Response to Intervention (RTI) and Multi-Tier System of Supports (MTSS) and on a differentiated instruction approach to individualizing instruction. Additionally, methods of differentiating instruction for ELLs is explained in detail.
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.
Adams, M. J. (1998). The three-cueing system. In J. Osborne & F. Lehr (Eds.), Literacy for all: Issues in teaching and learning (pp. 73–99). New York, NY: Guilford.
Alliance for Excellent Education. (2012). Every student counts: The case for graduation rate accountability. Washington, DC: Author.
American Psychological Association. (2014). Reading instruction changes the brain. Washington, DC: Author. Retrieved from https://www.apa.org/action/resources/research-in-action/reading
Archer, A. L., & Hughes, C. A. (2011). Explicit instruction: Effective and efficient teaching. New York, NY: Guilford.
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.
August, D. (2019, April). Educating English language learners: A review of the latest research. Education Digest, 12–20. Retrieved from https://www.aft.org/ae/fall2018/august
Baker, S., Lesaux, N., Jayanthi, M., Dimino, J., Proctor, C. P., Morris, J., . . . Newman-Gonchar, R. (2014). Teaching academic content and literacy to English learners in elementary and middle school (NCEE 2014–4012). Washington, DC: National Center for Education Evaluation and Regional Assistance (NCEE), Institute of Education Sciences, U.S. Department of Education. Retrieved from https://ies.ed.gov/ncee/wwc/Docs/practiceguide/english_learners_pg_040114.pdf
Bialik, K., Scheller, A., & Walker, K. (2018). 6 facts about English language learners in U.S. public schools. Washington, DC: Pew Research Center. Retrieved from https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2018/10/25/6-facts-about-english-language-learners-in-u-s-public-schools/
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.
Brozo, W. G. (2009). Response to intervention or responsive instruction? Challenges and possibilities of response to intervention for adolescent literacy. Journal of Adolescent Literacy, 53, 277–281. doi:10.1598/JAAL.53.4.1
Byrnes, J. P., & Wasik, B. A. (2009). Solving problems in the teaching of literacy. Language and literacy development: What educators need to know. New York, NY: Guilford Press.
Carnine, D. W. (1976). Effects of two teacher-presentation rates on off-task behavior, answering correctly, and participation. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 9, 199–206. doi:10.1901/jaba.1976.9–199
Carnine, D. W. (1994). Introduction to the mini-series: Diverse learners and prevailing, emerging, and research-based educational approaches and their tools. School Psychology Review, 23, 341–350.
Carnine, D. W., Silbert, J., Kame'enui, E. J., Slocum, T. A., & Travers, P. A. (2017). Direct instruction reading (6th ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Merrill/Prentice Hall.
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
Catts, H. W. (1993). The relationship between speech-language impairments and reading disabilities. Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing, 36, 948–958. doi.org/10.1044/jshr.3605.948
Chall, J. S. (1967). Learning to read: The great debate. New York, NY: McGraw-Hill.
Children’s Reading Foundation. (2020). Third grade reading success matters. Kennewick, WA: Author. Retrieved from https://www.readingfoundation.org/third-grade-reading-matters
Commission on Reading. (1985). Becoming a nation of readers. Champaign, IL: University of Illinois.
Common Core State Standards Initiative. (2012). Common Core State Standards for English language arts & literacy in history/social studies, science, and technical subjects and Appendix A. Retrieved from http://www.corestandards.org/
Cook, B. G., & Cook, S. C. (2013). Unraveling evidence-based practices in special education. Journal of Special Education, 47, 71–82. doi:10.1177/0022466911420877
Cooper, J. O., Heron, T. E., & Heward, W. L. (2020). Applied behavior analysis (3rd ed.). Hoboken, NJ: Pearson.
Coyne, M. D., Kame’enui, E. J., & Carnine, D. W. (2011). Effective teaching strategies that accommodate diverse learners (4th ed.). Boston, MA: Pearson.
Coyne, M. D., Oldham, A., Dougherty, S. M., Leonard, K., Koriakin, T., Gage, N. A., . . . Gillis, M. (2018). Evaluating the effects of supplemental reading intervention within an MTSS or RTI reading reform initiative using a regression discontinuity design. Exceptional Children, 84, 350–367. doi:10.1177/0014402918772791
Duff, D., Tomblin, J. B., & Catts, H. (2015). The influence of reading on vocabulary growth: A case for a Matthew effect. Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research, 58, 853–864. doi:10.1044/2015_jslhr-l-13–0310
Engelmann, S. (2007). Student-program alignment and teaching to mastery. Journal of Direct Instruction, 7, 45–66. Retrieved from https://www.nifdi.org/docman/suggested-reading/white-papers-by-zig/900-student-program-alignment-and-teaching-to-mastery-by-siegfried-engelmann/file#:~:text=Whenstudentsaretaughtto,itintheirstudents.
Finn, C. E., & Davis, M. A. (2007). Foreword. In L. Moats (Ed.), Whole-language high jinks: How to tell when “scientifically-based reading instruction” isn’t (pp. 6–10). Baltimore, MD: Thomas B. Fordham Foundation.
Foorman, B. R., Lee, L., & Smith, K. (2020). Implementing evidence-based reading practices in K–3 classrooms. Education and Treatment of Children, 43, 49–55. doi:10.1007/s43494–020–00005–3
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 South East. Retrieved from https://guide.swiftschools.org/sites/default/files/documents/REL_2017219.pdf
Freeman, J., Sugai, G., Simonsen, B., & Everett, S. (2017). MTSS coaching: Bridging knowing to doing. Theory into Practice, 56, 29–37. doi:10.1080/00405841.2016.1241946
Fuchs, L. S., & Fuchs, D. (2007). A model for implementing responsiveness to intervention. Teaching Exceptional Children, 39(5), 14–20. doi:10.1177/004005990703900503
Gentry, J. R. (2017, March 30). Landmark study finds better path to reading success. Psychology Today. Retrieved from https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/raising-readers-writers-and-spellers/201703/landmark-study-finds-better-path-reading-success
Gersten, R., Compton, D., Connor, C.M., Dimino, J., Santoro, L., Linan-Thompson, S., and 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. (NCEE 2009–4045). Washington, DC: National Center for Education Evaluation and Regional Assistance, Institute of Education Sciences, U.S. Department of Education. Retrieved from
Gettinger, M., & Seibert, J. K. (2002). Contributions of study skills to academic competence. School Psychology Review, 31(3), 350–365.
Goodman, K.S. (1986). What’s whole in whole language? Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.
Greenberg, E., Dunleavy, E., & Kutner, M. (2007). Literacy behind bars: Results from the 2003 national assessment of adult literacy prison survey (NCES 2007–473). U.S. Department of Education. Washington, DC: National Center for Education Statistics.
Haager, D., Klingner, J., & Vaughn, S. (Eds.). (2007). Evidence-based reading practices for response to intervention. Baltimore, MD: Paul H. Brookes.
Hall, S. L. (2018). 10 success factors for literacy intervention: Getting results with MTSS in elementary schools. Alexandria, VA: ASCD.
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.
Hemphill, F. C., & Vanneman, A. (2011). Achievement gaps: How Hispanic and white students in public schools perform in mathematics and reading on the National Assessment of Educational Progress (NCES 2011–459). Washington, DC: National Center for Education Statistics, Institute of Education Sciences, U.S. Department of Education.
Heward, W. L. (2013). Exceptional children: An introduction to special education (10th ed.). Boston, MA: Pearson.
Heward, (2017). Exceptional children: An introduction to special education (11th ed.). Boston, MA: Pearson.
Hofmeister, A., & Lubke, M. (1990). Research into practice: Implementing effective teaching strategies. Boston, MA: Allyn & Bacon.
Hoover, J. J., Soltero-Gonzalez, L., Wang, C., & Herron, S. (2020). Sustaining a multitiered system of supports for English learners in rural community elementary schools. Rural Special Education Quarterly, 39(1), 4–16. doi:10.1177/8756870519847466
International Literacy Association. (2019). Engagement and adolescent literacy [Position statement and research brief]. Newark, DE: Author.
Isakson, L., Marchand-Martella, N. E., & Martella, R. C. (2011). Assessing the effects of the McGraw-Hill Phonemic Awareness program with preschool children with developmental delays: A case study. Education & Treatment of Children, 34, 1–15. doi:10.1353/etc.2011.0022
Johnson, K., & Street, E. M. (2013). Response to intervention and precision teaching: Creating synergy in the classroom. New York, NY: Guilford Press.
Jones, J. S., Conradi, K., & Amendum. S. J. (2016). Matching interventions to reading needs: A case for differentiation. Reading Teacher, 70, 307–316. doi:10.1002/trtr.1513
Jones, E. D., & Southern, T. (2003). Balancing perspectives on mathematics instruction. Focus on Exceptional Children, 35(9), 1–16. doi:10.17161/fec.v35i9.6867
Juel, C. (1988). Learning to read and write: A longitudinal study of 54 children from first through fourth grades. Journal of Educational Psychology, 80(4), 437–447. doi:10.1037/0022–0622.214.171.1247
Juel, C., Kame'enui, E. J., Carnine, D. W., Dixon, R. C., Simmons, D. C., & Coyne, M. D. (2002). Effective teaching strategies that accommodate diverse learners (2nd ed.). Lebanon, IN: Pearson.
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/Docs/PracticeGuide/adlit_pg_082608.pdf
Klingner, J. K., & Harry, B. (2006). The special education referral and decision-making process for English language learners: Child study team meetings and placement conferences. Teaches College Record, 108, 2247–2281. doi:10.1111/j.1467–9620.2006.00781.x
Lemons, C. J., Vaughn, S., Wexler, J., Kearns, D. M., & Sinclair, A. C. (2018). Envisioning an improved continuum of special education services for students with learning disabilities: Considering intervention intensity. Learning Disabilities Research & Practice, 33, 131–143. doi:10.1111/ldrp.12173
Leonard, K. M., Coyne, M. D., Oldham, A. C., Burns, D., & Gillis, M. B. (2019). Implementing MTSS in beginning reading: Tools and systems to support schools and teachers. Learning Disabilities Research & Practice, 34, 110–117. doi:10.1111/ldrp.12192
Lyon, G. R. (2001). Measuring success: Using assessments and accountability to raise student achievement. Washington, DC: Subcommittee on Education Reform Committee on Education and the Workforce U.S. House of Representatives.
Marchand-Martella, N. E., Klingner, J. K., & Martella, R. C. (2013). Effective reading intervention practices for English language learners. Columbus, OH: McGraw-Hill School Intervention Group.
Marchand-Martella, N. E., Martella, R. C., Fisher, D., McTighe, J., Kosanovich, M., Johnson-Glenberg, M., & Morrell, E. (2016). SRA FLEX Literacy. Grades 3–5 and Grades 6–12. Columbus, OH: McGraw-Hill. See program samples at https://www.mheducation.com/prek-12/program/flex-literacy-2016/MKTSP-RBT01M0.html
Marchand-Martella, N. E., Martella, R. C., & Lambert, M. C. (2015). Targeted management tips to enhance the effectiveness of tier 2, guided reading instruction. Intervention in School and Clinic, 50, 169–172. doi:10.1177/1053451214542045
Marchand-Martella, N. E., Martella, R. C., Modderman, S. L., Latterell, H. M., & Pan, S. (2013). Key areas of effective adolescent literacy programs. Education & Treatment of Children, 36, 161–184. doi:10.1353/etc.2013.0005
Martella, R. C., & Marchand-Martella, N. E. (2015). Improving classroom behavior through effective instruction: An illustrative program example using SRA FLEX Literacy. Education & Treatment of Children, 38, 241–272. Retrieved from https://eric.ed.gov/?id=EJ1070267
Martella, R. C., Marchand-Martella, N. E., Miller, T. L., Young, K. R., & Macfarlane, C. A. (1995). Teaching instructional aides and peer tutors to decrease problem behaviors in the classroom. Teaching Exceptional Children, 27, 53–56. doi:10.1177/004005999502700212
Martella, R. C., Nelson, J. R., Marchand-Martella, N. E., & O’Reilly, M. (2012). Comprehensive behavior management: Individualized, classroom, and schoolwide approaches (2nd ed.). Los Angeles, CA: Sage.
McFarland, J., Hussar, B., Zhang, J., Wang, X., Wang, K., Hein, S., . . . Barmer, A. (2019). The condition of education 2019 (NCES 2019–144). U.S. Department of Education. Washington, DC: National Center for Education Statistics. Retrieved from https://nces.ed.gov/pubs2019/2019144.pdf
Marzano, R. J., & Marzano, J. S. (2003). The key to classroom management. Educational Leadership, 61(1), 6–13. Retrieved from http://www.ascd.org/publications/educational-leadership/sept03/vol61/num01/The-Key-to-Classroom-Management.aspx
McCardle, P., Chhabra, V., & Kapinus, B. (2008). Reading research in action: A teacher’s guide for student success. Baltimore, MD: Paul H. Brookes.
McFarland, J., Hussar, B., Zhang, J., Wang, X., Wang, K., Hein, S., Diliberti, M., Forrest Cataldi, E., Bullock Mann, F., & Barmer, A. (2019). The condition of education 2019 (NCES 2019–144). U.S. Department of Education. Washington, DC: National Center for Education Statistics. Retrieved from https://nces.ed.gov/pubsearch/pubsinfo.asp?pubid=2019144
McIntosh, K., & Goodman, S. (2016). Integrated multi-tiered systems of support: Blending RTI and PBIS. New York, NY: Guilford.
Miciak, J., & Fletcher, J. M. (2020). The critical role of instructional response for identifying dyslexia and other learning disabilities. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 53, 1–11. doi:10.1177/0022219420906801
Moats, L. (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.
Moats, L. (2007). Whole-language high jinks: How to tell when “scientifically-based reading instruction” isn’t. Baltimore, MD: Thomas B. Fordham Foundation.
Moore Partin, T. C., Robertson, R., Maggin, D. M., Oliver, R. M., & Wehby, J. H. (2010). Using teacher praise and opportunities to respond to promote appropriate student behavior. Preventing School Failure, 54, 172–178. doi:10.1080/10459880903493179
Musti-Rao, S., & Haydon, T. (2011). Strategies to increase behavior-specific teacher praise in an inclusive environment. Intervention in School and Clinic, 47, 91–97. doi:10.1177/10534512114141787
National Dropout Prevention Center. (2020). Early literacy development. Anderson, SC: Author. Retrieved from http://dropoutprevention.org/effective-strategies/early-literacy-development/
NICHD [National Institute of Child Health and Human Development]. (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 https://www.nichd.nih.gov/sites/default/files/publications/pubs/nrp/Documents/report.pdf
NIFL [National Institute for Literacy]. (2007). What content-area teachers should know about adolescent literacy. Retrieved from
Ogden, J. (2020, February). How I learned to teach reading. Educational Leadership, 77(5), 28–30. Retrieved from http://www.ascd.org/publications/educational-leadership/feb20/vol77/num05/How-I-Learned-to-Teach-Reading.aspx
Olson, J. L., & Platt, J. M. (2000). Teaching children and adolescents with special needs (3rd ed). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Merrill.
Paine, S. C., Radicchi, J., Rosellini, L. C., Deutchman, L., & Darch, C. B. (1983). Structuring your classroom for academic success. Champaign, IL: Research Press.
Perfetti, C. (1995). Cognitive research can inform reading education. Journal of Research in Reading, 18, 106–115. doi:10.1111/j.1467–9817.1995.tb00076.x
Price, A. T., Martella, R. C., Marchand-Martella, N. E., & Cleanthous, C. C. (2002). A comparison of immediate feedback delivered via an FM headset versus delayed feedback on the inappropriate verbalizations of a student with ADHD. Education & Treatment of Children, 25, 159–171. https://eric.ed.gov/?id=EJ655473
Rayner, K., Foorman, B. R., Perfetti, C. A., Pesetsky. D., & Seidenberg, M. S. (2001). How psychological science informs the teaching of reading. Psychological Science in the Public Interest, 2(2), 31–74. doi:10.1111/1529–1006.00004
Richards-Tutor, C., Aceves, T., & Reese, L. (2016). Evidence-based practices for English learners (Document No. IC-18). Retrieved from University of Florida, Collaboration for Effective Educator, Development, Accountability, and Reform Center website: http://ceedar.education.ufl.edu/tools/innovation-configurations/
Rivera, M. O., Moughamian, A. C., Lesaux, N. K., & Francis, D. J. (2008). Language and reading interventions for English language learners and English language learners with disabilities. Portsmouth, NH: RMC Research Corporation, Center on Instruction.
Rosenshine, B. V. (1986). Synthesis of research on explicit teaching. Educational Leadership, 43, 60–69. Retrieved from http://www.ascd.org/ASCD/pdf/journals/ed_lead/el_198604_rosenshine.pdf
Rosenshine, B. V. (1987). Explicit teaching and teacher training. Journal of Teacher Education, 38(3), 34–36. doi:10.1177/002248718703800308
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.
Scott, T. M., Gage, N. A., Hirn, R. G., Lingo, A. S., & Burt, J. (2019). An examination of the association between MTSS implementation fidelity measures and student outcomes. Preventing School Failure: Alternative Education for Children and Youth, 63, 308–316. doi:10.1080/1045988X.2019.1605971
Shanahan, T. (2019, January 30). How would you schedule the reading instruction. [Web log post]. Reading Rockets. Retrieved from https://www.readingrockets.org/blogs/shanahan-literacy/how-would-you-schedule-reading-instruction
Shanahan, T. (2014, November 4). Unbalanced comments on balanced literacy [Web log post]. Retrieved from https://www.readingrockets.org/blogs/shanahan-on-literacy/unbalanced-comments-balanced-literacy
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. (2009). Educational psychology: Theory and practice (9th ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson.
Slavin, R. E. (2015). Educational psychology: Theory and practice (12th ed.). New York, NY: Pearson.
Smith, D. D., & Tyler, N. C. (2010). Introduction to special education: Making a difference (7th ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Merrill.
Snow, C. E., Burns, M. S., & Griffin, P. (Eds.). (1998). Preventing reading difficulties in young children. National Research Council. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.
Snyder, E., Witmer, S. E., & Schmitt, H. (2017). English language learners and reading instruction: A review of the literature. Preventing School Failure, 61, 136–145. doi:10.1080/1045988X.2016.1219301
Spear-Swerling, L. (2006). The use of context cues in reading [Web log post]. Reading Rockets. Retrieved from https://www.readingrockets.org/article/use-context-cues-reading
Stanovich, K. E. (2000). Progress in understanding reading: Scientific foundations and new frontiers. New York, NY: Guilford Press.
Steiner, D. (2017, March). Curriculum research: What we know and where we need to go. Standards Work. Retrieved from https://standardswork.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/03/sw-curriculum-research-report-fnl.pdf
Stewart, R., Benner, G., Martella, R. C., & Marchand-Martella, N. E. (2007). Three-tier models of reading and behavior: A research review. Journal of Positive Behavior Interventions, 9, 239–253. doi:10.1177/10983007070090040601
Student Achievement Partners. (2020, January). Comparing reading research to program design. Retrieved from https://achievethecore.org/content/upload/Comparing%20Reading%20Research%20to%20Program%20Design_An%20Examination%20of%20Teachers%20College%20Units%20of%20Study%20FINAL.pdf
TESOL. (2019). Standards for initial TESOL pre-K–12 teacher preparation programs. Alexandria, VA: Author. Retrieved from https://www.tesol.org/docs/default-source/books/2018-tesol-teacher-prep-standards-final.pdf?sfvrsn=23f3ffdc_6
Tomlinson, C. A., & McTighe, J. (2006). Integrating differentiated instruction + understanding by design. Alexandria, VA: ASCD.
Toste, J. R., Didion, L., Peng, P., Filderman, M. J., & McClelland, A. M. (2020). A meta-analytic review of the relations between motivation and reading achievement for K–12 students. Review of Educational Research, 90, 420–456. doi:10.3102/0034654320919352
Treiman, R. (2018). What research tells us about reading instruction. Psychological Science in the Public Interest, 19(1), 1–4. doi:10.1177/1529100618772272
Turnbull, A., Turnbull, R., & Wehmeyer, M. L. (2010). Exceptional lives: Special education in today’s schools (6th ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Merrill.
U.S. Department of Education. (2002). Reading First program state application. Washington, DC: Author.
U.S. Department of Education. (2015). Every Student Succeeds Act (ESSA). Washington, DC: Author. Retrieved from https://www.ed.gov/essa?src=rn
Vaughn, S., & Bos, C. S. (2012). Strategies for teaching students with learning and behavior problems (8th ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson.
Vaughn, S., & Bos, C. S. (2015). Strategies for teaching students with learning and behavior problems (9th ed.). Boston, MA: Pearson.
Weiss, S. L. (2013). Learning-related behaviors: Small group reading instruction in the general education classroom. Intervention in School and Clinic, 48, 294–302. doi:10.1177/1053451212472231
Whitney, S. (2003). Parent’s guide to No Child Left Behind. Retrieved from https://www.wrightslaw.com/info/nclb.parent.guide.heath.htm
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.