Aligned to the Texas Essential Knowledge & Skills … to the Texas Essential Knowledge & Skills...

Product Research & Documentation

Updated October 2016

Aligned to the Texas Essential Knowledge & Skills (TEKS)

Visit mentoringminds.com

In the United States, reading levels among the adult population appear to be low. According to the 2003 National Assessment of Adult Literacy (Kutner, Greenberg, Jin, Boyle, Hsu, & Dunleavy, 2007), statistics showed 14% of adults read prose texts at such a low level, indicating that only the most basic and concrete literacy skills are under-stood. It appears that only 13% read prose at the proficient level, demonstrating complex literacy activities. Proficient readers, as reported by the National Assessment of Adult Literacy, have de-clined 15% from 1992.

The percentage of adults in the United States reading literature declined from 54.0 in 1992 to 46.7 in 2002 (National Endowment for the Arts, 2004). The percentage of adults reading any book also dropped 7 percentage points. This low and declining achievement rate may be con-nected to a general lack of independent read-ing. Thus, a focus was placed on text complexity among the reading passages and their associa-tion with Lexile ranges. The text complexity of all passages within Total Motivation™ Reading were aligned to Lexile ranges so that the development of reading comprehension between and among the grades would lead students to read at the college and career readiness level by the time they graduated high school. The Lexile ranges for the passages within each grade level are 650L to 1130L for fifth grade, 630L to 950L for fourth grade, 510L to 910L for third grade, and 470L to 900L for second grade. Lexile analyzers are widely adopted measures of reading ability and text difficulty. These valuable tools help teachers determine the difficulty of a text and better match students to texts as well as predict whether stu-dents will be more likely to understand the text.

Research from the American College Test re-search report (ACT, 2006) confirmed that text complexity is important in reading achievement. Over the last fifty years, texts in K-12 grades seem

to be less complex; yet higher education and the workforce have not lowered reading demands. In the last half of the century, the difficulty of college textbooks, as measured by Lexile scores, has not decreased but increased (Stenner, Koons, & Swartz, in press). College students are expected to read complex texts more independently and with little more scaffolding than in their K-12 ed-ucation years. Studies report that reading in the workplace varies, but some Lexile measures show the text complexity levels exceed grade 12. The vocabulary difficulty of newspapers re-mained stable over the 1963–1991 years (Hayes, Wolfer, & Wolfe, 1996). With a decline in complex-ity of texts and a lack of reading of complex texts independently, the emphasis on reading com-prehension and text complexity is essential and continues to rise in importance. Thus, the need existed for Total Motivation Reading to place em-phasis on text complexity. The high-quality pas-sages provide the appropriate level of text com-plexity and engage students in topics related to science, social studies, fine arts, and technology.

Reports from the National Assessment of Edu-cational Progress (NAEP, 2003) indicated that 38%of fourth graders cannot read well enough to grasp meaning from a basic children’s book. With scientifically based approaches to reading, stu-dents with reading or language problems, atten-tion or learning deficits, or those with a reading disability or with limited English speaking abilities risk their performances lagging behind those of their peers. Chall (2000) noted that research findings are not always widely accepted. Prac-titioners do not always readily transfer findings into classroom practices. It is imperative that ed-ucators and others appreciate, recognize, agree upon, and implement pertinent research findings that are scientifically based. Educators must seek to optimize learning opportunities for students validated by research. Students are expected to independently read some unfamiliar texts, relying


(TEKS)


on the print and drawing meaning from it. Total Motivation Reading seeks to provide a resource that supports the concept of “reading to learn.”

Total Motivation Reading is a comprehensive, rigorous, and relevant supplemental reading resource developed by Texas educators to in-tegrate critical and focused reinforcement into reading instruction. Total Motivation Reading ad-dresses all Readiness and Supporting student expectations of the English Language Arts/Read-ing Texas Essential Knowledge and Skills (ELA/R TEKS) and is designed to develop and improve students’ reading comprehension and critical analysis of text. With a unique emphasis on crit-ical thinking in the classroom, students are em-powered to extend and apply learning beyond the classroom.

Total Motivation Reading units are aligned with the STAAR™ Reporting Categories as outlined on the Assessed Curriculum Document prepared by the Texas Education Agency (2010). This resource also aligns with the STAAR® Blueprint (TEA, 2010) as it includes activities or questions that prepare students for the Readiness TEKS (60-70%). An emphasis is also placed on questions or tasks that reinforce the Supporting TEKS (30-40%). The rigor, depth, and level of cognitive complexity will increase in order to measure a greater range of student achievement and to better link the results to college and career readiness and success. Students must display a beyond literal under-standing of texts as they exhibit critical and in-ferential skills. Students must also show sufficient skill in forming connections within and across texts, using evidence to justify or form conclu-sions and make real-life applications. Each unit includes components that represent the STAAR® requirements of developing rigor and complexity of thought in order to move students forward in mastering the existing Reading Standards. The development of the unit contents were based on STAAR® Blueprints (2011), Test Design Schemat-ics (2010), Released Test Questions (2012), ELA/R TEKS eligible for testing (2011), Reading Power-Point shared by Young (2015), and other assess-

ment curriculum documents found on the Texas Education Agency website. Updates for Read-ing assessments presented at Texas Elementary Principals and Supervisors Association (TEPSA) and Coalition of Reading and English Supervisors of Texas (CREST) conferences were also consid-ered while developing Total Motivation Reading.

Student data from the Spring 2016 STAAR® Read-ing Summary Report (TEA, 2016) demonstrated a range of scores for students in grades three through five. The total number of third grade stu-dents tested was 357,320. The released data from each of the three reporting categories yielded the following results for the All Students summary. For the category Understanding/Anal-ysis Across Genres, third graders answered 69% of items correctly or an average of 4.1 items out of 6; for Understanding/Analysis of Literary Texts category, third graders answered 68% of items correctly or an average of 12.2 items out of 18; for Understanding/Analysis of Informational Texts third graders answered 63% of items correctly or an average of 10.0 items out of 16. The total num-ber of fourth grade students tested was 353,370. The released data from the three reporting cat-egories yielded the following results for the All Students summary. For the category Understand-ing/Analysis Across Genres, fourth graders an-swered 75% of items correctly or an average of 7.5 items out of 10; for Understanding/Analysis of Literary Texts, fourth graders answered 67% of items correctly or an average of 12.0 items out of 18; for Understanding/Analysis of Information-al Texts, fourth graders answered 65% of items correctly or an average of 10.4 items out of 16. The total number of fifth grade students tested was 359,130. The released data from each of the three reporting categories yielded the following results for fifth graders in the All Students sum-mary. For the category Understanding/Analysis Across Genres, fifth graders answered 71% of items correctly or an average of 7.1 items out of 10; for Understanding/Analysis of Literary Texts, fifth graders answered 70% of items correctly or an average of 13.2 items out of 19; for Understand-


ing/Analysis of Informational Texts, fifth graders answered 68% of items correctly or an average of 1.6 items out of 17.

Student data from the Spring 2016 STAAR® Read-ing Summary Report (TEA, 2016) demonstrated a range of scores for students in grades six through eighth. The number of total sixth grade students tested was 365,062. For the category Under-standing/Analysis Across Genres, sixth graders answered 71% of items correctly or an average of 7.1 items out of 10; for Understanding/Analysis of Literary Texts category, sixth graders answered 67% of items correctly or an average of 13.4 items out of 20; for Understanding/Analysis of Informa-tional Texts sixth graders answered 64% of items correctly or an average of 11.5 items out of 18. The total number of seventh grade students tested was 363,051. The released data from the three reporting categories yielded the following results for the All Students summary. For the category Understanding/Analysis Across Genres, seventh graders answered 69% of items correctly or an average of 6.9 items out of 10; for Understand-ing/Analysis of Literary Texts, seventh graders answered 67% of items correctly or an average of 14.2 items out of 21; for Understanding/Analysis of Informational Texts, seventh graders answered 68% of items correctly or an average of 12.8 items out of 19. The total number of eighth grade students tested was 356,728. The released data from each of the three reporting categories yield-ed the following results for eighth graders in the All Students summary. For the category Under-standing/Analysis Across Genres, eighth graders answered 72% of items correctly or an average of 7.2 items out of 10; for Understanding/Analysis of Literary Texts, eighth graders answered 73% of items correctly or an average of 16.0 items out of 22; for Understanding/Analysis of Information-al Texts, eighth graders answered 65% of items correctly or an average of 12.9 items out of 20.

Several reasons might account for the lower range results. The following reasons indicate most likely why students answered in the lower range: Literary texts may be more difficult to an-alyze, infer, and think differently about as most all questions go beyond literal understanding. Also, students must understand how the writer’s craft affects the meaning, and how to use text evidence to confirm the validity of their ideas. As evidenced by these results, there appears to be a need for quality resources that support the implementation of reading skills and show a strong potential for improving outcomes for stu-dents with or without reading difficulties. Total Motivation Reading provides an essential frame-work that offers all students exposure to literary and informational texts that encourage narrow and deep thinking, and opportunities to make connections within and across texts, a variety of levels of questions so that students must think more critically and inferentially about a variety of genres as well as about using context to interpret vocabulary and determine word meaning. Total Motivation Reading offers instructional support in the form of formative assessment opportunities for targeted TEKS within passages that reflect lit-erary and informational genres.

Total Motivation Reading incorporates re-search-based strategies and pedagogically sound principles for teaching and learning. This product is designed to support and enhance best practices for incorporating the standards into student instruction. Total Motivation Read-ing is founded on the modeling of active teach-ing, which is teacher-directed instruction that proceeds in small steps. Active instruction in-cludes a wide range of instructional approaches: small groups, class discussion, concrete objects, hands-on experiences, reading, and writing. In Total Motivation Reading, teachers can ask stu-dents to think aloud, consider different options for responses, show evidence for the response


(TEKS)


reached, and put their thoughts in writing. All of these ways help students to organize their think-ing and assist teachers in determining the level of understanding of reading concepts. Studies have indicated that instruction which emphasiz-es active student engagement in hands-on op-portunities improves attitudes toward learning and indicates a positive effect on achievement. Research has also shown that the active teach-ing approach is associated with higher levels of student achievement. Throughout Total Motiva-tion Reading, student engagement is invited in numerous ways. Students are guided through the learning process and are afforded opportuni-ties for success, which include: Reading Passage, Assessment, Critical Thinking, Creative Thinking, and Homework with Parent Activities.

The National Reading Panel (2000) identified com-prehension of text as critical to reading success-fully. This panel pointed out a series of strategies that influence the meaning of text. The Teacher Edition of Total Motivation Reading will delineate strategies that students can use independently as they read. Pressley and Afflerbach (1995) stat-ed that when students learn and apply such strat-egies, their comprehension improves. Without comprehension, teachers and students become frustrated when students can read words but only have a surface understanding of the print-ed word. With the absence of comprehension, reading for pleasure and knowledge appears to be virtually impossible (Vaughn & Linan-Thomp-son, 2004). The questions and instructional activ-ities at the end of each unit accent specific skills and provide practice designed to challenge stu-dents and address elements of reading compre-hension. Reading comprehension skills include applying one’s prior knowledge and experiences to the text, understanding vocabulary and other concepts, linking ideas, recognizing the author’s purpose, distinguishing between facts and opin-ions, and making inferences or drawing reason-able conclusions. Poor readers cannot actively process text. Teaching students to use strategies that target the aforementioned skills or the indi-

vidual difficulties they encounter can increase comprehension (Gersten, Fuch, Williams, & Bak-er, 2001; Mastropieri & Scruggs, 1997; Swanson, 1999). Strategy instruction seems to consistently improve the abilities of students to see relation-ships in reading selections and to grasp mean-ing while actively engaging students. Explicit and systematic instruction is linked closely with improved outcomes in reading comprehension. Thus, learning experiences must entail participa-tion from both students and teacher, determine what students need, and should adapt to meet the needs of each learner in order to progress in reading.

Total Motivation Reading is not a reading ap-proach but a supplement to reading for grade levels one through eight. This product provides students with practice in components essential to learning: repeated practice, assessment, crit-ical thinking, creative thinking, homework, and parent activities. This product contains reading passages that reflect a variety of genres incor-porating literary or informational selections. Each selection will include questions that measure or assess the comprehension of students toward the passage. Critical thinking questions, based on Bloom’s Taxonomy, are offered to help students derive meaning from texts using lower- and high-er-order thinking questions. A creative thinking activity is provided within each unit to stimulate the mind by connecting an element of the pas-sage in an engaging, productive manner. Home-work for Levels 2-5 is provided through a para-graph which follows each passage and parallels some aspect of the passage, coupled with ques-tions that assess the comprehension of that paragraph. In Levels 6-8, the Writing Connec-tion provides opportunities for students to apply the writing process to create planning tools, as well as to compose a variety of pieces, including personal narrative, expository essay, persuasive letter, and narrative poem. The purpose is to en-courage students to observe the natural relation-ship between reading and writing. All of these ac-tivities provide practice to extend the learning of


each reading passage and to reinforce selected ELA/R TEKS. Parent activities are suggested to promote home-school connections and engage parents in the learning of their children.

Adams (1990) advocated for the need for prac-tice in reading. Furthermore, the exposure to many reading materials could reinforce vocabu-lary learning and provide motivating reading ma-terials that would interest students. Chall (2000) also noted the need to provide children with the practice in reading that would provide challeng-ing reading material in addition to texts. These supplemental materials would enable students to practice skills they had acquired. A review of literature reveals a strong correlation between children’s academic engaged time and growth in achievement.

Vaughn and Linan-Thompson (2004) indicat-ed that sometimes teachers pose questions to students and those students who respond in a reasonable manner achieve. Such students are regarded as those making adequate prog-ress. Those who do not respond correctly or completely are then given answers or just pro-vided cues leading these students to the specific answers sought. Students may or may not under-stand the text but both of these situations appear to satisfy some teachers. However, the best ap-proach to ensuring comprehension of text is to directly and explicitly teach comprehension strat-egies. Studies during the late 70s by Durkin re-vealed a minimum amount of minutes that should be dedicated toward the direct instruction of comprehension. Studies have continued to show that comprehension is not being taught as of-ten as it should be (Pressley & El-Dinary, 1997; Schumm, Moody, & Vaughn, 2000). Total Mo-tivation Reading provides a supplement for the teacher to apply the taught comprehension strat-egies and an opportunity to check the progress of students toward identified standards or skills.

With the emphasis on district and state level reading assessments, the purpose for teaching comprehension strategies to students is of dire necessity. Every state is required by law to show evidence of student progress in reading. Vaughn and Linan-Thompson (2004) noted that gains will surface in the assessments of students’ progress if teachers will provide systematic and explicit comprehension instruction. Cunningham (1998) agreed with the importance of teaching com-prehension strategies. Although she noted that teachers may ask questions after the reading of a text, modeling how to answer the questions does not occur often enough. Teachers appear to con-fuse asking questions with teaching. Teachers also assign tasks with questions to be answered by the students yet they fail to demonstrate how to answer written questions which is also the teaching of comprehension strategies that skilled readers use.

The experiences, discussions, and review of the literature convinced the Mentoring Minds Prod-uct Development Team that quality supplemen-tal resources for reading practice were need-ed. Thus, the format for a Student Edition was designed to help move reading practice and assessment forward so that teachers could in-corporate standards-based teaching on a higher level and develop within students the confidence they need to succeed. Developed by Texas edu-cators, Total Motivation Reading provides exten-sive supplemental reading practice for all student expectations in grades two through five in Span-ish and in English. The Student Edition for each level contains twenty-five reading passages, with paired selections as an integral component of the fourth- and fifth-grade levels. Each level reflects a diversity of literary or informational passages re-lated to curricular content in science, social stud-ies, music, and art.


(TEKS)


Every unit for Levels 2-5 features a reading pas-sage, assessment practice, critical thinking ques-tions, creative thinking activities, a homework/parent activity page, Word Study (Level 1), and Writing Connection (Levels 6-8). Effective teach-ing literature indicates that students need to be given both an opportunity to discover and invent new knowledge and an opportunity to prac-tice what they have learned to improve student achievement. Teachers must ensure that ample opportunities are provided for students to learn important skills in reading. A specific focus must accentuate all targeted skills on a regular basis. Therefore, time must be built into the schedule for instructional opportunities. Evidence from re-search demonstrates that a successful instruc-tional program must include time for students to practice what they are learning and experiences to perform the tasks for which they are to demon-strate competence. A positive relationship be-tween total time allocated to instruction and gen-eral student performance exists. Total Motivation Reading is an educational tool that enables stu-dents to practice what they are learning.

Assessment plays a critical role in all aspects of teaching and learning. The need for high-er-quality assessments is well established. Stud-ies have shown that teachers spend as much as one-third to one-half of their time involved in assessment-related activities (Stiggins & Conk-lin, 1992). For instruction to be effective, class-room assessments must reflect quality. Evalua-tive tools, which closely align with the objectives, are usually more beneficial for diagnosing and revising instructional needs. With the passing of the Every Student Succeeds Act (ESSA), feder-al law now requires that academic assessments for “math and reading or language arts be ad-ministered annually in grades 3-8 and at least once in grades 9-12…” (Mandlawitz, 2016, p.1). The critical issue of accountability will continue with ESSA, but assessments will be used to help improve schools and inform instruction. The law allows the state and local levels the opportunity to create systems for accountability, resources, interventions and teacher evaluation systems.

The federal requirements of Every Student Suc-ceeds Act mandate that all students participate in the state assessment program. Therefore, assessment is interwoven into each unit from whence the teacher can gather timely student information to readily and continuously maintain accountability for academic achievement stan-dards. Total Motivation Reading provides supple-mental reading passages that contain a variety of multiple-choice, open-ended, and short-answer questions to provide practice and measure com-prehension of literary and informational texts. Therefore, there exists a critical need to improve reading instruction and address the accountabil-ity outlined in the specific plans that the legisla-tion requires each state and local district to de-velop. As the issue of accountability continues to prevail across our nation, student achievement will always be a priority. Test scores are one way to measure success, but not an end unto itself. The scores are like a barometer that measures the success of the educational environment of a school or that of a district. Juel (1988) stated that the ability to read well is necessary for academic success and that still is true today. The goal is for educators to use scientifically based practic-es to improve their knowledge and improve their effectiveness toward reading instruction. Novice and veteran teachers can enhance their instruc-tional delivery to lead students in becoming pro-ficient lifelong readers.

Total Motivation Reading also offers Performance Task Assessment which are used to evaluate student learning. The task itself relates to the unit topic and allows students to demonstrate the ability to think and reason while using high-er-order thinking skills. The task requires stu-dents to create a product that integrates multi-ple TEKS using research, writing, and speaking within real-world contexts. Scoring guides or rubrics are used to measure student responses. Research shows that when teachers use perfor-mance-based tasks, their instructional practices began to align more with best practices (Vogler, 2002). Evidence-based practices must be em-bedded in our instruction to guide students to


improved performance. According to the Part-nership for 21st Century Skills (Fadel, Honey, & Pasnik, 2007, p. 34), the workplace will require “new ways to get work done, solve problems, or create new knowledge”—the assessment of students will need to be largely performance based so that students can show how well they are able to apply content knowledge to critical thinking, problem solving, and analytical tasks throughout their education. Hess advocates that students must be able think deeply—to process information analytically, to independently draw inferences and reach conclusions, and to solve problems.

Teachers must view assessment as an integral and natural component of the instructional pro-cess. Formative and summative assessment results should inform instruction. Formative as-sessments are information-gathering activities that take place during the actual teaching of concepts or skills. Summative assessments are administered to students periodically to deter-mine what students have learned (National Re-search Council, 2001). Formative and summative assessments work together to form a complete picture of student performance and are essen-tial in providing a balanced approach for as-sessing student achievement. Teachers cannot wait to assess students using summative test results. Assessments must be ongoing and skill-fully used. Based on many studies, Black and Wil-iam (1998) noted that significant gains can result due to formative assessment. Other researchers confirmed the finding that formative assessment has a positive impact on learning (Black, Harri-son, Lee, Marshall, & Wiliam, 2004; Primo and Furtqak, 2006). When students know their learn-ing targets and receive descriptive feedback in relation to the targets, then they are aware of what they need to do or what steps to take to improve. Engaging students in self-assessment is a powerful element in increasing student per-

formance. The Chart Your Success chart in Total Motivation Reading involves students in shared responsibility for assessment, and the formative assessment opportunities provide teachers with ongoing data to inform instruction and provide one vehicle from which regular, descriptive feed-back can be provided to students. This chart is included at all levels and is located in the back of each Student Edition on which students can visually record, observe, and monitor individual progress on an ongoing basis.

The involvement of students in assessment pro-motes student engagement in individual learn-ing targets and develops student accountability as they monitor and measure learning. Students need to know what learning targets they are re-sponsible for mastering, and at what level. Mar-zano (2005) stated, “students who can identify what they are learning significantly outscore those who cannot.” This self-assessment oppor-tunity promotes practices that are crucial to in-dependent learning. Research on formative as-sessment has suggested that students should be aware of their learning target, their present status, and the next steps in reaching that goal or clos-ing any gaps (Atkin, Black, & Coffey, 2001). Such knowledge helps students keep track of their achievements, know how close they are to their learning targets, and determine future steps to advance their learning. When students are aware of their achievement gaps and teachers motivate students with continuous feedback linked to the expected outcomes and criteria for success, stu-dents are able to surge ahead and close perfor-mance gaps in the ELA/R TEKS. Black and Wiliam (1998) noted that there is evidence to support a strong relationship between interactive feedback and student achievement.

Teachers have to assess the subject matter accu-rately so accurate information can be collected about student achievement. Assessment results


(TEKS)


help educators make sound decisions for the purpose of improving student achievement. Most teachers are unprepared to meet the assess-ment challenges they face today. Licensure does not state that teachers have to show assessment competence, yet much of their time is spent in assessment-related activities (Stiggins & Conklin, 1992; Trevisan, 1999). Teachers must have help in accurate assessment. Mentoring Minds sought to develop a product to assist in the practice of reading skills and the assessment of teaching and learning. Assessment of incorrect and cor-rect answers to questions for each reading unit will be charted by each student to maintain ac-curate and useful data. By observing the stu-dents’ Chart Your Success charts, teachers and students can determine individual strengths and weaknesses. In the Teacher Edition, the TEKS Frequency chart lists the reading skills that cor-relate to the Total Motivation Reading Student Edition passages and test questions. Through utilization of this chart and using the data from the students’ chart, specific areas could be iden-tified where students need additional practice in mastering skills before participation in an actual state assessment. Reading data informs educa-tors about their students as readers. Once data is retrieved, deciding how to organize it is vital so that better instructional decisions can be made. A study of student data allows for individualiza-tion of instruction to meet the needs of students.

Studies have supported the use of a variety of measures to gauge student achievement. Due to accountability issues, Mentoring Minds encour-ages teachers to maintain accurate and useful data records as well as to employ a variety of as-sessment measures to form a more valid insight on where a campus, a classroom, or a student stands in mastery of reading performance stan-dards. Following each main reading passage in the Student Edition are sections entitled Critical Thinking and Creative Thinking. Six critical think-ing questions, one for each level of Bloom’s Tax-onomy, are provided to stimulate students to think about the passage(s) read. The Creative Thinking page contains an inspirational message. Interdis-

ciplinary creative thinking activities are presented under the Motivation Station heading and range in variety from word puzzles, art activities, map skills, to figurative language. This section offers students engaging and rigorous, independent thinking opportunities with which to practice or apply reading skills and concepts. Therefore, To-tal Motivation Reading reflects formative assess-ments mingled with interactive student/teacher conversation. Data from the Assessment page used in conjunction with other measures from the Student and Teacher Editions provide crucial information for the teacher in improving perfor-mance relating to the ELA/R TEKS.

A writing activity in the format of a journal entry always concludes the creative thinking section. Students must learn to read, write, speak, listen, and use language effectively in a variety of con-tent areas. Journal prompts are an important ele-ment in each unit for the purpose of incorporating writing into reading. Journal prompts are used within each unit in the Student Edition to provide authentic writing opportunities and, as promot-ed by research, serve as a valuable instruction-al learning experience for concept application to real-world settings. Prompts or questions are used to compose original responses that inte-grate student writing skills with reading based on upper levels of critical thinking. This writing prompt invites students to apply a concept from the text selection to their own lives, thus making real-world connections. Literary concept prompts allow students to reflect and communicate their knowledge as they integrate reading and writ-ing as required by the ELA/R TEKS. The journal prompts in Total Motivation Reading serve as another formative assessment opportunity for students to express their thoughts and reason-ing abilities as they transfer concepts across the disciplines and to everyday life.

Research indicates that thinking skills instruction makes a positive difference in the achievement levels of students. Thinking skills involve two modes of thinking: critical and creative think-ing. An essential goal in education is to assist


students in learning how to think in a produc-tive manner. Authorities in the field of thinking indicate both creative and critical thinking lead to a “well-rounded” thinker (Cotton, 1991; Hillis & Puccio, 1999; Paul 1995). Studies that reflect achievement over time show that learning gains can be accelerated. These results indicate that the teaching of thinking skills can enhance the academic achievement of participating students (Bass & Perkins, 1984; Bransford, 1986; Frese-man, 1990; Kagan, 1988; Matthews, 1989; Nicker-son, 1984). Critical thinking is a complex activity and we should not expect that one method of instruction would prove sufficient for developing each of its component parts. Carr (1990) acknowl-edged that we have learned that while it is possi-ble to teach critical and creative thinking and its components as separate skills, they are devel-oped and used best when learned in connection with content knowledge. To develop competency in critical thinking, students must use these skills across the disciplines or the skills could simply decline and disappear. Torrance (1972) examined the extent to which creative thinking could be taught. The culmination of his research showed that creative thinking could be enhanced. Tor-rance indicated that Creative Problem Solving (CPS) was a widely accepted model of teaching creative thinking. Total Motivation Reading allows students opportunities to apply their thinking us-ing creative and critical thinking avenues. Teach-ers should expect students to use thinking skills in every class and evaluate their skills accord-ingly. Hummel and Huitt (1994) stated, “What you measure is what you get.”

Critical thinking is an important issue in education today. Attention is focused on quality thinking as an important element of life success (Hess, 2016; Huitt, 1998; Stobaugh, 2013; Thomas & Smoot, 1994). In the 1950s, Bloom found that 95% of the test questions developed to assess learning re-quired students to only think at the lowest level

of learning, the recall of information. Similar find-ings indicated an overemphasis on lower-level questions and activities with little emphasis on the development of students’ thinking skills (Ris-ner, Skeel, & Nicholson, 1992). As Gough (1991) pointed out, “Perhaps most importantly in to-day’s information age, thinking skills are viewed as crucial for educated persons to cope with a rapidly changing world. Many educators believe that specific knowledge will not be as important to tomorrow’s workers and citizens as the abili-ty to learn and make sense of new information.” Hobgood, Thibault, and Walberg (2005) argued that, “Now, a considerable amount of attention is given to students’ abilities to think critically about what they do.” It is imperative for students to com-municate their thinking coherently and clearly to peers, teachers, and others.

It is crucial to invite students to explain their thought processes. If the results are inaccurate, teachers can identify the precise point at which students deviated from using critical thinking. Thus, teachers must purposely promote critical thinking as part of the learning experiences that align with the English Language Arts/Reading TEKS. The literature has noted that when stu-dents use their critical thinking abilities integrated with content instruction, depth of knowledge can result. Teachers are encouraged to refrain from limiting instruction to lectures, rote memorization, and other strategies that exercise only lower lev-els of thought as opposed to incorporating those that build conceptual understanding (Bransford, Brown, & Cocking, 2000).

The ability to engage in careful, reflective thought is viewed in education as paramount. Teaching students to become skilled thinkers is a goal of education. Students must be able to acquire and process information since the world is changing so quickly. Some studies have reported that stu-dents exhibit an insufficient level of skill in criti-


(TEKS)


cal or creative thinking. In his review of research on critical thinking, Norris (1985) surmised that students’ critical thinking abilities are not wide-spread. Most students do not score well on tests that measure ability to recognize assumptions, evaluate controversy, and scrutinize inferences.

Students are not likely to develop these complex skills or to improve their critical thinking abilities if educators fail to establish definite expectations and measure those expectations with some type of assessment. Assessments (e.g., tests, demon-strations, exercises, panel discussions) that target higher-level thinking skills could more than likely lead teachers to teach content at those levels, and students, according to Redfield and Rous-seau (1981), to perform at those levels. Students not only need to know an enormous amount of facts, concepts, and principles, but they also must be able to effectively think about this knowl-edge in a variety of increasingly complex ways. If test items are used that only require lower-level thinking skills such as knowledge and compre-hension, students will not develop and use their higher-order skills even if instructional methods that employ these skills are implemented. Indi-viduals do not do what is expected, only what is inspected.

Solving problems in the real world and making worthwhile decisions is valued in our rapidly changing environment today. Paul (1985) point-ed out, “thinking is not driven by answers but by questions.” The driving forces in the thinking pro-cess are the questions. When a student needs to think through an idea or issue or to rethink anything, questions must be asked to stimulate thought. When answers are given, sometimes thinking stops completely. When an answer gen-erates another question, then thought continues. Paul ascertained that students who ask quality questions are really thinking and learning.

As Cardellichio and Field (1997) pointed out, “Multiple forms of student engagement exist when high-level thinking is fostered. Examples of engagement include collaborative group ac-tivities, problem-solving experiences, open-end-

ed questions that encourage divergent thinking, activities that promote the multiple intelligences and recognize learning styles, and activities in which both genders participate freely. Brain re-searchers suggest that teachers use a variety of higher-order questions in a supportive environ-ment to strengthen the brain.” Ó Murchú further explained, “Meaningful learning requires teach-ers change their role from sage to guide, from giver to collaborator, from instructor to instigator.” Bhattacharya (2002) argued that, “Since students learn from thinking about what they are doing, the teacher’s role becomes one of stimulating and supporting activities that engage learners in critical thinking.” Authorities in the field of criti-cal thinking agree that teachers must be facilita-tors of thinking and use questions that promote deeper thinking and learning (Hess, 2016; Stob-augh, 2013).

Thus, students’ performances on measures of higher-order thinking ability reveal a critical need for students to develop the skills and attitudes of effective thinking. Furthermore, another reason that supports the need for thinking skills instruc-tion is the fact that educators appear to be in general agreement that it is possible to increase students’ creative and critical thinking capaci-ties through instruction and practice. Presseisen (1986) asserted that the basic premise is that stu-dents can learn to think better if schools teach them how to think. Adu-Febiri (2002) agreed that thinking can be learned. According to Sousa (2006), students are not actually taught to think because children are born with the brain organi-zational structure that originates thinking. As ed-ucators, students can be assisted in organizing the content of their thinking to facilitate complex reasoning. Sousa supported Bloom’s Taxonomy as an organizational structure that is compatible with the manner in which the brain processes in-formation to promote comprehension.

The sections Homework and Parent Activities for Levels 2-5 or Word Study and Parent Activities for Level 1 are located at the conclusion of each unit in the Student Edition. Total Motivation Read-


ing includes these activities to invite and en-courage parent engagement in the education of their children. Product developers recognize that teachers must support and encourage parent collaboration with students regarding reading. Teachers are provided with activities per unit with which to cultivate parent involvement with their children by reinforcing previously introduced skills. Research has concluded that productive collaboration and interaction with parents have a favorable impact on attitudes towards read-ing and student achievement (Calabrese Barton et al, 2004). Parents can be significant contrib-utors to the learning process. Opportunities for parents to be involved in their students’ learning allow parents to show an interest in the students’ work. Parent involvement helps parents become familiar with the content and the way students are learning. When parents take time to provide home encouragement, students have another opportunity to apply and practice the concepts previously learned.

Research has indicated that the more parents are involved and excited in the learning of their children, the more successful a child can be ac-ademically. When schools cultivate partnerships and engage families in their children’s educa-tion, author Constantino (2008) stated, student achievement can increase. In addition, Constan-tino noted that schools must continuously nur-ture relationships with parents by providing them with resources to help their children succeed in school. Constant attention in strengthening rela-tionships lays the foundation for high-quality en-gagement. West (1985) and Weller (1999) indicat-ed that there are parent behaviors that can lead to effective schools. When parents are support-ive, interested, and involved, the success rate of students can rise. Students in at-risk situations show an increase in grades, test scores, and ac-ademics when their parents become involved in instructional programs (Dolan, 1996). The activ-

ities for parents in Total Motivation Reading of-fer opportunities within each unit to reach and meaningfully engage parents.

Bagin and Gallagher (2001) noted that commu-nicating on a regular basis with parents can pro-mote student learning and reduce attendance problems. Weller (1999) advised that when schools and teachers treat parents with genu-ine concern and make them feel important, wel-come, and needed, parents are more apt to take an active role in supporting their children in ac-ademic achievement. Thus, a letter is offered at the back of each Total Motivation Reading Teach-er Edition inviting parents to join in the education of their children. The one-page Homework page contains a paragraph accompanied by three or four questions to address various tested student expectations. Each Homework paragraph con-nects to the information presented within the unit passage. The 2-3 multiple-choice formatted questions and an open-ended question provide additional skill practice, assessment, and critical thinking opportunities. Vocabulary development is addressed with one or more questions. The re-maining questions address some aspect of read-ing comprehension.

Following the homework exercise, Parent Activ-ities are provided to help parents support their children with meaningful and relevant applica-tions to the previously taught concepts. Find-ings from an extensive research review on par-ent/family involvement programs were shared by Henderson and Mapp (2002) in the report A New Wave of Evidence: The Impact of School, Family, and Community Connections on Student Achievement. Henderson and Mapp concurred with other researchers that a favorable and sub-stantiated relationship exists between family involvement and student success, regardless of race/ethnicity, class, or parents’ level of edu-cation. A key finding is that children of parents


(TEKS)


who are involved in home and in school settings show improved performance in school. Thus the sections Homework and Parent Activities are provided to help parents support their children with meaningful and relevant applications to the previously taught concepts. The information giv-en helps the parent and child build oral language through informal conversation. Simply stated, the text invites parents to support learning by asking questions, making relevant comments, or setting up other home learning activities to reinforce previously introduced concepts. Assignments, intended to be completed in class or at home, enhance students’ understanding, skills, and pro-ficiency in reading. Total Motivation Reading re-flects the careful planning taken by the Mento-ring Minds Product Development Team as they support research findings and develop home-work and parent activities that are meaningful ex-tensions of the concepts taught. The Total Moti-vation Reading Teacher Edition includes a parent letter, written in Spanish and English, so teachers can invite parents to actively support their chil-dren in reading instruction.

The application of ELA/R TEKS requires students to develop a depth of understanding as well as the ability to read and comprehend. Therefore, teachers can benefit from quality educational re-sources that align with the ELA/R TEKS. Studies have shown that teacher subject knowledge has an impact on student achievement (Yoon, et.al, 2007). Researchers have continued to share the importance of content knowledge for effective teaching, but they have also pointed to pedagogy as being essential. Thus, knowledge and skill in how to teach are both necessary. Effective teach-ers must understand and apply strategies that help students increase achievement. Ongoing targeted professional development is an element that affects student performance, and it can take many forms. Reading and teacher collaboration are both vehicles from which to promote profes-sional development. Total Motivation Reading is a student and teacher resource that focuses on teaching and learning of standards that are ap-plicable to reading. The Teacher Edition for Total

Motivation Reading is designed to provide teach-ers an array of information that can guide them in the implementation of the standards to promote a high level of reading achievement. All sections give teachers background knowledge in what to teach and suggestions for activities. The con-tents will guide teachers in the preparation and planning of effective instruction and successful use of Total Motivation Reading to enhance stu-dent achievement in reading. In turn, the Teach-er Edition can be said to increase a teacher’s knowledge and improve a teacher’s preparation. Collaboration and receiving feedback from other colleagues while implementing Total Motivation Reading can advance teacher understanding of ELA/R TEKS and effective instructional practices.

The section entitled Components delineates a descriptive overview of the components of each reading unit followed with suggestions on how a teacher might use the components. Another fea-ture in the Teacher Edition is the TEKS Frequen-cy Chart. This section denotes all Readiness and Supporting Standards and student expectations for each unit in the Student Edition. This chart lists each unit title and the number of assess-ment questions from both the unit selection and the homework passage that address the TEKS/STAAR Reporting Categories. A TEKS Frequency Chart is an organizational tool from which teach-ers may identify standards which are in need of reteaching and/or may need tutorials. Answer keys for each unit, vocabulary pertinent to each individual reading selection, and a grade appro-priate glossary for each level are also included in the Teacher Edition. Answer keys identify coding based on TEKS, STAAR® Reporting Categories, Readiness and Supporting Standards, and En-glish Language Proficiency Standards (ELPS).

Enrichment literature that can be used for inte-grating lessons across the curriculum is noted for each individual reading unit. Recommended books may relate to the content of the selection, focus reading skills, or both. Children’s literature offers excellent resources to help students form connections between literature and skills instruc-


tion. Skill-based literature is also identified which can be used to develop, reinforce, and extend targeted ELA/R skills. Literature brings relevance to skills, strengthens student motivation, and presents meaningful contexts for stimulating a variety of responses to critical and creative think-ing. Higher levels of engagement are increased when discussions are held to build conceptual understanding. Becoming a Nation of Readers: The Report of the Commission on Reading (An-derson, 1985) stressed the importance of the integration of reading. Reading is a communica-tion tool that helps students become successful learners, impacting the rest of their lives.

Within the Teacher Edition is the section Unpack-ing the TEKS. This section introduces teachers to the ELA/R TEKS. These pages identify the TEKS, describe the skill or concepts within, and offer suggestions for practice and skill mastery of the student expectation. This information builds background knowledge for teachers or provides information relating to skill or concept develop-ment. Enrichment or practice activities to fit the needs of a particular student, a small group of students, or the entire class can be selected from those provided and used to foster active learn-ing, offer additional practice, provide the means for assessing students beyond traditional class-room methods, reteach or reinforce concepts, or provide targeted skill intervention.

Many other topics are included in the Teacher Edition to assist teachers as they plan high-quali-ty, effective instruction. Topics include: 5E Model of Instruction; Reading Comprehension; Ques-tions Before, During, and After Reading; Reading Graphic Organizers; Genres; Four Rs; and STAAR Reporting Categories: Readiness and Supporting Standards. Previously mentioned studies note the importance of providing teachers with infor-mation that will help improve their skills in the preparation, planning, and delivery of high-qual-ity instruction.

Suggestions are also provided to classroom teachers on how to address critical thinking us-ing Bloom’s Taxonomy to stimulate and devel-op students’ higher order thinking skills. Read-ing questioning prompts are included on all six levels of thinking and other question stems that stimulate and encourage creative thinking are also suggested. Bloom (Bloom, Englehart, Furst, Hill, & Krathwohl, 1956) developed a classifica-tion of the levels of intellectual behavior in learn-ing. This taxonomy contained three domains: the cognitive, psychomotor, and affective. Within the cognitive domain, Bloom identified six levels: knowledge, comprehension, application, analy-sis, synthesis, and evaluation. This domain and all levels are still useful today in developing the critical thinking skills of students.

The model used to develop critical thinking throughout the Student and Teacher Editions of Total Motivation Reading is Bloom’s Taxonomy (1956). The English Language Arts Product Devel-opment Team employed this framework to stimu-late and develop students’ higher order thinking skills and to make extensions to the real world. Critical thinking is integrated into each compo-nent of the unit through higher-order questions and complex problematic situations. Students are invited to shift to new levels of increased aware-ness when analyzing, problem solving, and eval-uating. In the Student Edition, two pages are ded-icated to the component Critical Thinking. This opportunity is presented to entice students to think critically and move them beyond basic com-prehension and rote memorization. This compo-nent typically offers open-ended questions that are coded to all six levels of Bloom’s Taxonomy. While students are applying and using higher or-der thinking skills in real-life situations, they are also learning to question the accuracy of their re-sponses or solutions.

Strategies to develop vocabulary and promote meaningful connections are also included with-


(TEKS)


in the Teacher Edition that accompanies Total Motivation Reading for students. Assessment questions pertaining to these words are includ-ed in the Student Edition. Passages within Total Motivation Reading include underlined vocabu-lary words. Students have to understand vocab-ulary to understand the academic content they encounter in school. Stahl and Fairbanks (1986) revealed that when specific vocabulary from ac-ademic subject areas is selected as the focus of instruction, the result was a 33% increase. There-fore, it appears that when students are taught specific content vocabulary in each subject area at each grade level, students have an excellent opportunity to acquire the academic background knowledge they need to understand the subject area content. Teaching content vocabulary using a systematic approach appears to be a powerful tool for student success (Marzano & Pickering, 2005). Furthermore, research firmly documents that academic background knowledge has an ef-fect on academic achievement. Any intervention for the achievement of students should identify increasing students’ content vocabulary knowl-edge through direct instruction as a leading pri-ority (Marzano, 2004). In earlier research, Becker (1977) concluded that the implementation of sys-tematic vocabulary programs appeared essential in order to close gaps between students from economically disadvantaged backgrounds and those who were not.

Student acquisition of vocabulary is imperative to success in reading comprehension. The sig-nificance of its relationship to comprehension was supported by the National Institute of Child Health and Human Development (2000). Re-searchers have agreed that vocabulary level dif-ferences among students are reasons for the var-ied ranges in academic achievement (Baumann & Kameenui, 1991; Stanovich, 1986). Although studies have revealed the importance of vocab-ulary instruction, schools exist that neither have frequent nor systematic vocabulary instruction (Lesaux, Kieffer, Faller, & Kelley, 2010; Scott and Nagy, 1997). Students must be given varied and repeated opportunities to comprehend mean-

ing of words and to use them in different con-texts. (Landauer, McNamara, Dennis, & Kintsch, 2007). The Vocabulary Focus page features se-lection-specific vocabulary and TEKS vocabulary in the unit. Each unit offers a Word Study activ-ity with the purpose being to engage students in activities that focus on the foundation skills of print awareness, phonological awareness, and phonics if they are to successfully read and comprehend texts. Thus, Total Motivation Read-ing acknowledges these findings and reflects the importance of vocabulary in the development of this resource.

Researchers noted that generally between 5 and 15% of new words when read for the first time are retained. Furthermore, the weaker the student’s vocabulary the smaller the gain (Hayes & Ahrens, 1988; Herman, Anderson, Pearson, & Nagy, 1987). Research has indicated that students must com-prehend approximately 95% of the terms (Carv-er, 1994). Therefore, as students encounter new words, they benefit significantly when instruction centers on connections and patterns in the lan-guage (Beck, McKeown, & Kucan, 2008). When teachers extend vocabulary development with reading, writing, speaking, and listening oppor-tunities, students become more aware of how these interrelated skills impact word learning. The product development team made a con-scious effort to include vocabulary as an integral element in Total Motivation Reading.

Exposure to vocabulary and interaction with language throughout education years enable students to comprehend word meanings, build awareness of language, and apply their knowl-edge to understand as well as to produce lan-guage. Within each Student Edition of Total Mo-tivation Reading, a glossary of key terms related to the ELA/R is found. These words increase student comprehension of terms pertinent to the TEKS and successful performance in reading. A common academic language is essential to sup-port application of the academic vocabulary with texts and assessments. In the Teacher Edition, the same glossary is contained. Within each unit


in the Teacher Edition, the vocabulary is identi-fied with an asterisk placed aside the terms that are assessed in the passage.

Earlier in 2012, the United States Department of Education and the Federal Communications Commission announced a blueprint to invite schools to transition to digital textbooks by the end of the next five years. While not mandat-ed, the initiative encouraged schools to make the switch from print-to-digital materials based on the projected cost-savings and the academ-ic improvement. These benefits are due to the expense of printed textbooks and the personal-ization of digital content. Total Motivation Read-ing also features a print-to-digital transition. Cam-puses will have digital access to all the Student and Teacher Edition content if using Internet-con-nected computers, providing an interactive de-livery method for their students and classrooms. This new dimension of flexibility offers an engag-ing learning environment, not only for educators, but also for students. Tools such as online prog-ress monitoring, automatic tracking, and report-ing are built into this innovative program. With the appropriate use of technology, students can develop deeper understanding of reading skills identified in the ELA TEKS.

Mentoring Minds seeks to understand the issues involved in teaching and learning reading. The National Research Council (2001) asserted that the performance of students in both reading and math at the conclusion of elementary school is an important predictor of their educational success. Students who have not mastered a quality foun-dation in reading skills can expect to encounter problems across the disciplines throughout their schooling and later. Summary statements such as these, other research findings, and a review of literature combined with recommendations from studies and observations from classroom expe-riences have yielded much knowledge about

what works. With this wealth of information, Total Motivation Reading was developed as a supple-ment to complement reading instruction for any campus.

Effective instruction and meaningful practice sup-port student success on STAAR®. Within instruc-tion, it is important that students acquire and use the language of the English Language Arts/Read-ing TEKS. Total Motivation Reading offers stu-dents in-depth exposure to all assessed genres. Furthermore, these genres are associated with relevant learning activities that include compare/contrast strategies and opportunities to analyze and make connections between different genres and strands. The Mentoring Minds ELA Product Development Team embraces the goal that all students receive quality-based opportunities to develop the essential reading skills so that they can read to learn for the remainder of their lives. Teachers must establish an environment condu-cive to independent reading and include a va-riety of literature. They must also provide their students quality reading instruction, addressing the Reading TEKS in order to develop literacy and raise the achievement rate. Total Motivation Reading is a resource for teachers and students that aligns with the ELA/R TEKS, contains texts that fall within the general complexity ranges for specific grade levels, and offers numerous op-portunities that promote depth, rigor, and com-plexity of thought.

Bibliography for Total Motivation Reading

Adams, M. (1990). Beginning to read: Thinking and learning about print. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

Adu-Febiri, F. (2002). Thinking skills in education: ideal and real academic cultures. CDTL Brief, 5. Singapore: National University of Singapore.


(TEKS)


Allington, R., & Walmsley, S. (Eds.) (1995). No quick fix: Rethinking literacy programs in America’s el-ementary schools. New York: Teachers College Press.

American College Testing, Inc. (2006). Reading between the lines: What the ACT reveals about college readiness in reading. Iowa City, IA: ACT, Inc. Retrieved from http://www.act.org/research/policymakers/pdf/reading_summary.pdf

Anderson, R. (1985). Becoming a nation of read-ers: The report of the commission on reading. Center for the Study of Reading. Champaign, IL: University of Illinois.

Atkin, J. M., Black, P., & Coffey, J. (2001). Class-room assessment and the national science ed-ucation standards. Washington, D.C.: National Academy Press.

Bagin, D., & Gallagher, D. (2001). The school and community relations. Nedham Heights, MA: Allyn and Bacon.

Bass, G., & Perkins, H. (1984). Teaching criti-cal thinking skills with CAI: A design by two re-searchers shows computers can make a differ-ence. Electronic Learning, 4(2), 32, 34, 96.

Baumann, J., & Kameenui, E. (1991). Research on vocabulary instruction: Ode to Voltaire. In J. Flood, J. M. Jensen, D. Lapp, & J. R. Squire (Eds.), Hand-book of research on teaching the English lan-guage arts (pp. 604–32). New York: Macmillan.

Beck, I., McKeown, M., & Kucan, L. (2002). Bring-ing words to life: Robust vocabulary instruc-tion. New York: Guilford.

Beck, I., McKeown, M., & Kucan, L. (2008). Creat-ing robust vocabulary: Frequently asked ques-tions and extended examples. New York: Guil-ford.

Bhattacharya, M. (2002). Creating a meaning-ful learning environment Using ICT. CDTL Brief, 5(3). Singapore: National University of Singapore. Retrieved from http://www.cdtl.nus.edu.sg/brief/v5n3/sec3.htm.

Black, P., Harrison, C., Lee, C., Marshall, B., & Wil-iam, D. (2006). Developing a theory of formative assessment. In J. Gardner (Ed.), Assessment and Learning (pp. 81–100). London: Sage.

Black, P., & Wiliam, D. (1998). Assessment and classroom learning. Assessment in Education, 5(1), 7–74.

Bloom, B., Englehart, M., Furst, E., Hill, W., & Krath-wohl, D. (1956). Taxonomy of educational objec-tives: The classification of educational goals. Handbook I: Cognitive Domain. New York: Long-mans Green.

Bransford, J., Brown, A., & Cocking, R. (Eds.) (2000). How People Learn: Brain, Mind, Expe-rience and School. Washington D.C.: National Academy Press.

Bransford, J., Burns, M., Delclos, V., & Vye, N. (1986) Teaching thinking: evaluating evaluations and broadening the data base. Educational Leadership, 44(2), 68–70.

Calabrese Barton, A., Drake, C., Perez, J., St. Lou-is, K., & George, M. (2004). Ecologies of parental engagement in urban education. Educational Re-searcher, 33(4), 3–12.

Cambourne, B. (1999). Explicit and systematic teaching of reading: a new slogan? The Reading Teacher, 53(2), 126–27.

Cardellichio, T., & Field, W. (1997). Seven strate-gies to enhance neural branching. Educational Leadership, 54.

Carr, K. (1990). How can we teach critical think-ing? (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 326 304)

Carver, R. P. (1994). Percentage of unknown vo-cabulary words in text as a function of the rela-tive difficulty of the text: Implications for instruc-tion. Journal of Reading Behavior, 26(4), 413–37.

Cawelti, G. (Ed.) (1999). Handbook of research on improving student achievement (2nd Ed.). Educa-tional Research Service.


Chappuis, J. (2005). Helping students understand assessment. Educational Leadership, 63(3), 39–43.

Constantino, S. (2008). 101 Ways to create real family engagement. Galax, PA: Engage Press.

Cotton, K. (1991). Close-Up #11: Teaching Thinking Skills. Retrieved from http://www.nwrel.org/scpd/sirs/6/cu11.html

Cunningham, P. (1998). The multisyllabic word dilemma: Helping students build meaning, spell, and read “big” words. Reading and Writing Quar-terly: Overcoming Learning Difficulties, 14(2), 189–218.

Dolan, G. (1996). Communication: a practical guide to school and community relations. Bel-mont, CA: Wadsworth.

Durkin, D. (1978). What classroom observations reveal about reading comprehension instruc-tion. Reading Research Quarterly, 14(4), 241–533.

Fadel, C., Honey, M., & Pasnik, S. (2007). Assess-ment in the age of innovation. Education Week, 26(38), 34, 40. Retrieved from http://www.ed-week.org/ew/articles/2007/05/23/38fadel.h26.html

Freseman, R. (1990). Improving higher order thinking of middle school geography students by teaching skills directly. Fort Lauderdale, FL: Nova University.

Gersten, R., Fuchs, L., Williams, J., & Baker, S. (2001). Teaching reading comprehension strate-gies to students with learning disabilities. Review of Educational Research, 71(2), 279–320.

Gough, D. (1991). Thinking about thinking. Alex-andria, VA: National Association of Elementary School Principals.

Hayes, D., & Ahrens, M. (1988). Vocabulary sim-plification for children: A special case of “moth-erese”? Journal of Child Language, 15(02), 395–410.

Hayes, D., Wolfer, L., & Wolfe, M. (2006). School-book simplification and its relation to the decline in SAT-Verbal scores. American Educational Re-search Journal, 33(2), 489–508.

Henderson, A., & Mapp, K. (2002). A new wave of evidence: The impact of school, family, and com-munity connections on student achievement. Austin, TX: Southwest Educational Development Laboratory.

Herman, P., Anderson, R., Pearson, P., & Nagy, W. (1987). Incidental acquisition of word meaning from expositions with varied text features. Read-ing Research Quarterly, 22, 263–84.

Hess, K. (2016). Does all critical thinking lead to deeper understanding? Keynote presentation at the Mentoring Minds Critical Thinking LIVE Con-ference in Costa Mesa, CA.

Hillis, P., & Puccio, G. (1999). Literature analysis of the interdisciplinary applications of creative problem solving. Buffalo, NY: International Center for Studies in Creativity.

Hobgood, B., Thibault, M., & Walbert, D. (2005). Ki-netic connections: Bloom’s taxonomy in action. Chapel Hill, NC: Learn NC.

Huitt, W. (1998). Critical thinking: An overview. Ed-ucational Psychology Interactive. Valdosta, GA: Valdosta State University. Retrieved from http://chiron.valdosta.edu/whuitt/col/cogsys/critthnk.html

Hummel, J., & Huitt, W. (1994). What you measure is what you get. GaASCD Newsletter: The Re-porter, 10–11.


(TEKS)


Juel, C. (1988). Learning to read and write: A lon-gitudinal study of 54 children from first through fourth grades. Journal of Educational Psycholo-gy, 80(4), 437–47.

Kagan, D. (1988). Evaluating a language arts pro-gram designed to teach higher level thinking skills. Reading Improvement, 25(1), 29–33.

Kutner. M., Greenberg, E., Jin, Y., Boyle, B., Hsu, Y., & Dunleavy, E. (2007). Literacy in everyday life: Results from the 2003 National Assessment of Adult Literacy. Washington, D.C.: National Center for Educational Statistics (NCES). Retrieved from http://nces.ed.gov/pubs2007/2007480.pdf

Landauer, T., McNamara, D., Dennis, S., & Kintsch, W. (Eds.) (2007). Handbook of latent semantic analysis. London, England: Psychology Press.

Lesaux, N., Kieffer, M., Faller, S., & Kelley, J. (2010). The effectiveness and ease of implementation of an academic English vocabulary intervention for linguistically diverse students in urban mid-dle schools. Reading Research Quarterly, 45(2), 196–228.

Mandlawitz, M. R. (2016). Every Student Succeeds Act: Summary of Key Provisions. Retrieved from http://www.casecec.org/legislative/Every%20Student%20Succeeds%20Act_CASE%20(2).pdf

Marzano, R. (2004). Building background knowl-edge for academic achievement: Research on what works in schools. Alexandria, VA: Associ-ation for Supervision and Curriculum Develop-ment.

Marzano, R. & Pickering, D. (2005). Building ac-ademic vocabulary. Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.

Mastropieri, M., & Scruggs, T. (1997). Best practic-es in promoting reading comprehension in stu-dents with learning disabilities: 1976 to 1996. Re-medial and Special Education, 18(4), 197–214.

Matthews, D. (1989). The effect of a thinking-skills program on the cognitive abilities of middle school students. Clearing House, 62(5), 202–204.

National Endowment for the Arts (2004). Literary reading in dramatic decline, according to nation-al endowment for the arts survey. Washington, D.C.: National Endowment for the Arts. Retrieved from http://www.nea.gov/pub/ReadingAtRisk.pdf

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 re-search literature on reading and its implications for reading instruction (NIH Publication No. 00-4769). Washington, D.C.: U.S. Government Print-ing Office.

National Reading Panel (2000). Teaching chil-dren to read: An evidence-based assessment of the scientific research literature on reading and its implications for reading instruction. Reports of the subgroup. Bethesda, MD: National Institute of Child Health and Human Development.

National Research Council (2001). Knowing what students know. Washington, D.C.: National Acad-emies Press.

Nickerson, R. (1984). Research on the training of higher cognitive learning and thinking skills. Fi-nal Report #5560. Cambridge, MA: Bolt, Beranek and Newman, Inc.

Norris, S. P. (1985). Synthesis of research on crit-ical thinking. Educational Leadership, 42(8), 40–45.

Ó Murchú, D. (2003). Mentoring, technology and the 21st century’s new perspectives, challenges and possibilities for educators. Oxford, UK: Sec-ond Global Conference, Virtual Learning & High-er Education.

Paul, R. (1995). Critical thinking: How to prepare students for a rapidly changing world. Dillon Beach, CA: Foundation for Critical Thinking.

Presseisen, B. (1986). Critical thinking and think-ing skills: State of the art definitions and practice in public schools. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the American Educational Research Association, San Francisco, CA.


Pressley, M., & Afflerbach, P. (1995). Verbal pro-tocols of reading: The nature of constructively responsive reading. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Er-lbaum Associates.

Pressley, M., & El-Dinary, P. (1997). What we know about translating comprehension strategies in-struction research into practice. Journal of Learn-ing Disabilities, 30(5), 486–88, 512.

Price, D. (1998). Explicit instruction at the point of use. Language Arts, 76(1), 19–26.

Risner, G., Skeel, D., & Nicholson, J. (1992). A clos-er look at textbooks. The Science Teacher, 61(7), 42–45.

Ruiz-Primo, M., & Furtak, E. (2006). Informal for-mative assessment and scientific inquiry: Explor-ing teachers’ practices and student learning. Ed-ucational Assessment, 11(3/4), 205–235.

Schumm, J., Moody, S., & Vaughn, S. (2000). Grouping for reading instruction: Does one size fit all? Journal of Learning Disabilities, 33(5), 477–88.

Scott, J., & Nagy, W. (1997). Understanding the definitions of unfamiliar verbs. Reading Research Quarterly, 32(2), 184–200.

Sousa, D. (2006). How the brain learns. Thou-sand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.

Stanovich, K. (1986). Matthew effects in reading: Some consequences of individual differences in the acquisition of literacy. Reading Research Quarterly, 21, 360–407.

Stenner, A., Koons, H., & Swartz, C. (in press). Text complexity and developing expertise in reading. Chapel Hill, NC: MetaMetrics, Inc.

Stiggins, R., & Conklin, N. (1992). In teachers’ hands: Investigating the practice of classroom assessment. Albany, NY: SUNY Press.

Stiggins, R., Arter, J., Chappuis, J., & Chappuis, S. (2004). Classroom assessment for student learn-ing: Doing it right-using it well. Portland, OR: As-sessment Training Institute.

Stobaugh, R. (2013). Assessing critical thinking in elementary schools: Meeting the Common Core. Larchmont, NY: Eye on Education.

Swanson, H. (1999). Instructional components that predict treatment outcomes for students with LD: Support for a combined strategy and direct instruction model. Learning Disabilities Research and Practice, 14(3), 129–40.

Tama, C. (1989). Critical thinking has a place in every classroom. Journal of Reading, 33, 64–65.

Texas Education Agency Student Assessment Di-vision (2011). STAAR™ State of Texas Assessments of Academic Readiness Reading Assessment El-igible Texas Knowledge and Skills. Austin, TX: Texas Education Agency. Retrieved from http://www.tea.state.tx.us/student.assessment/staar/ac/

Texas Education Agency (2011). English Lan-guage Arts and Reading. Retrieved from http://www.tea.state.tx.us/index2.aspx?id=4434

Texas Education Agency (2011). STAAR™ Blue-prints Grades 3-5 Reading. Austin, TX: Texas Ed-ucation Agency. Retrieved from http://www.tea.state.tx.us/student.assessment/staar/blueprints/

Texas Education Agency (2012). STAAR™ Re-leased Test Questions Grades 3-5 Reading. Aus-tin, TX: Texas Education Agency. Retrieved from http://www.tea.state.tx.us/student.assessment/staar/testquestions/

Texas Education Agency (2012). State of Texas Assessments of Academic Readiness Summary Report Grades 3-5 Reading. Austin, TX: Texas Education Agency. Retrieved from http://www.tea.state.tx.us/student.assessment/staar/


(TEKS)


Texas Education Agency (2010). Reading Test Design Schematic Grades 3-5 Reading. Aus-tin, TX: Texas Education Agency. Retrieved from http://www.tea.state.tx.us/student.assessment/staar/reading/

Texas Education Agency (2016). State of Texas Assessments of Academic Readiness Summary Report: Reading 3-8. Austin, TX: Texas Educa-tion Agency. Retrieved from http://tea.texas.gov/Student_Testing_and_Accountability/Testing/State_of_Texas_Assessments_of_Academic_Readiness_(STAAR)/STAAR_Statewide_Summa-ry_Reports_2015-2016/

Thomas, G., & Smoot, G. (1994). Critical thinking: A vital work skill. Trust for Educational Leader-ship, 23, 34–38.

Torrance, E. P. (1972). Can we teach children to think creatively? Journal of Creative Behavior, 6(2), 437–45.

Trevisan, M. (1999). Administrator certification re-quirement for student assessment competence. Applied Measurement in Education, 12(1), 1–11.

University of Texas Center for Reading and Lan-guage Arts (2003). Effective instruction for ele-mentary struggling readers: Research-based practices (Revised edition). Austin, TX: Texas Ed-ucation Agency.

Vaughn, S., & Linan-Thompson, S. (2004). Re-search-based methods of reading instruction. Alexandria, VA: ASCD.

Weller, L. (1999). Quality middle school leader-ship: Eleven central skill areas. Lancaster, PA: Technomic Publishing Company.

West, C. (1985). Effects of school climate and school social structure on student academ-ic achievement in selected urban elementary schools. Journal of Negro Education, 54(3), 451–61.

Yoon, K. S., Duncan, T., Lee, S. W. Y., Scarloss, B., & Shapley, K. (2007). Reviewing the evidence on how teacher professional development affects student achievement (Issues & Answers Report,

REL 2007–No. 033). Washington, D.C.: U.S. De-partment of Education, Institute of Education Sci-ences, National Center for Education Evaluation and Regional Assistance, Regional Education-al Laboratory Southwest. Retrieved from http://ies.ed.gov/ncee/edlabs/regions/southwest/pdf/rel_2007033.pdf

Vogler, K. E. (2002). The impact of high-stakes, state-mandated student performance assess-ment on teachers’ instructional practices. Educa-tion, 123(1), 39.

Young, V. (2015). State of Texas Assessments of Academic Readiness (STAAR™) Grade 3-8 Read-ing PPT. Austin, TX: Texas Education Agency.

P.O. Box 8843 • Tyler, TX 75711800.585.5258 • mentoringminds.com

Aligned to the Texas Essential Knowledge & Skills … to the Texas Essential Knowledge & Skills...

Documents

Transcript of Aligned to the Texas Essential Knowledge & Skills … to the Texas Essential Knowledge & Skills...