Literacy First Whitepaper

By Dr. Marcella L. Bullmaster-Day, Ed.D

How to Build a Culture of Literacy that Accelerates Student Achievement

©2014 Catapult Learning. All rights reserved.

B u i l d i n g a C u l t u r e o f L i t e r a c y

Lisa Harper

Andrew Ordover

Diane Rymer

Lee Anne Housley

Rachel King

Contributing Editors


Introduction................................................................................................................. 2

Why We Need to Focus on Literacy Now ............................................................ 3

Literacy First: Creating a Culture for Literacy .................................................... 6

Creating a Culture for Literacy Learning ............................................................. 8

What the Research Says .......................................................................................... 8

How Literacy First Enacts the Research ................................................................10

Building a Language Rich Environment ............................................................12

What the Research Says ........................................................................................12


Promoting Thinking Skills .....................................................................................14



Developing Effective Instruction .........................................................................17



Developing Proficient Readers ............................................................................21



Literacy First Performance Results ....................................................................27

Table of Contents

How to Build a Culture of Literacy that Accelerates Student Achievement


H o w t o B u i l d a C u l t u re o f L i t e r a c y

2

IntroductionLiteracy is a student’s lifeline to opportunity, and

fundamental to literacy is reading skill. Developing

proficient, fluent readers requires proven instructional

strategies for assessing students’ current

performance, honing their decoding skills to the point

of automaticity, and teaching them to acquire and

apply meaning from text—all within a language-rich

environment that promotes higher-order thinking.

Creating this environment and developing literacy in

all subject areas is the responsibility of the entire

school, including teachers from all grade levels

and disciplines. The Literacy First Framework for

Teaching, Learning, and Leading incorporates these

critical elements in a coherent, research-based,

three-year framework designed to build the capacity

and collective efficacy of school leaders and teachers

to use literacy as the driving force for raising student

achievement. This white paper sets forth the robust

research base upon which the Framework was

developed, explains how Literacy First enacts the

research, and presents results data from Literacy First

implementation in U.S. schools.

Modern societies reward

individuals not for what they

know, but for what they can

do with what they know. (OECD, 2013, p.2)



3

Why We Need to Focus on Literacy Instruction Now

Never before in human history has literacy—the ability to read, think, write, and speak in the various

linguistic registers of the academic disciplines—been such a basic necessity on such a massive scale.

Swift and sweeping worldwide change has stimulated new patterns of consumption; radically altered

infrastructures that move information, people, and goods; and generated greater rewards for non-

routine work, as many formerly lucrative occupations have been automated or outsourced.

A Global Economy that Requires More

Innovation: Productive citizens today need

to frame and solve novel problems through

well-honed abilities to communicate, collaborate,

design, and invent.1 Therefore, preparing our

students to thrive requires helping them attain

high-level skill in accessing and analyzing

information, along with the critical qualities of

leadership, initiative, entrepreneurialism,

curiosity, and imagination.2

The Impact of High Literacy Stakes for U.S.

Students: The demands of the 21st century

university and workforce are raising the literacy

stakes for young people across the country. In

response to these rigorous demands, most U.S.

states have a focused their school systems on

college- and career-readiness. Many have adopted

the Common Core State Standards, which

“ask students to demonstrate deep conceptual

understanding through the application of content

knowledge and skills to new situations…[including]

reasoning, justification, synthesis, analysis, and

problem solving” (Common Core State Standards

Initiative, and, p.2).3 States that have chosen not to In order to initiate and sustain complex instructional change,

a school or district must develop a culture of literacy that

requires collaboration on all aspects of instruction and learning,

while following an efficient system for accountability.

Culture for Literacy Learning

Language Rich Environment

Promotion of Thinking Skills

Developing Effective Instruction

Development of Proficient Readers

Skilled in Decoding and Automaticity

• Mechanics of Print• Phonological Awareness

• Phonics, Advanced Decoding, and Spelling

Constructing and Applying Meaning

• Purpose for Reading• Vocabulary, Syntax, and Semantics

• Comprehension Skills • Strategic Reading Tools

• Strategies for Complex Text

Reading Fluently

©2014 Catapult Learning. All rights reserved. 4

adopt the Common Core State Standards have implemented their own set of rigorous standards

designed to prepare students for college and the workplace. After high school graduation, K-12

students, regardless of where they come from and where their career paths lead, will be expected to

read more complex texts, do more with different types of texts, and handle larger amounts of reading.4

While reading scores have trended slightly upward since 1992, the level of literacy skill demanded

by participation in society and the labor market today has risen sharply, and the opportunity gap

continues to widen between those with adequate levels of literacy and those without.5 Reading scores

of U.S. fourth and eighth graders on the National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP) continue

to reveal that a majority of students lack solid reading skills.

In 2013, nearly two-thirds of fourth and eighth graders (65% and 64%, respectively) did not attain the

Proficient level, which means that these fourth graders were unable to consistently draw conclusions

or make evaluations, and these eighth graders could not summarize main ideas and themes; make

and support inferences; connect parts of a text; analyze text features; and substantiate judgments.

Further, 32% of fourth graders and 22% of eighth graders performed below even the Basic level,

which means that these fourth graders could not locate relevant information; make simple inferences;

identify details to support a given conclusion; or interpret word meanings. The eighth graders at

this level were unable to locate information; identify statements of main idea, theme, or author’s

purpose; make simple inferences; interpret word meanings; or state and support judgments.6 And

when disaggregated by demographic groups, the data for fourth- and eighth-grade reading scores

demonstrate that pernicious achievement gaps persist (see Tables 1 and 2 below)

Percentage of Students at or above Proficient in Fourth-Grade NAEP Reading,1992, 2011, 2013

Per

cent

at

or

abo

ve P

rofi

cien

t

Race/Ethnicity Gender100

90

80

70

60

50

40

30

20

10

0

White Black Hispanic Asian/Pacific Male Female Islander

‘92 ‘11 ‘13 ‘92 ‘11 ‘13 ‘92 ‘11 ‘13 ‘92 ‘11 ‘13 ‘92 ‘11 ‘13 ‘92 ‘11 ‘13

35

44

46

25

31

32 32

37

38

8

17

1812

18

20

25

49

51

Table 1: 4th Grade Reading

Source: http://nationsreportcard.gov/reading_math_2013/#/student-groups



5

Percentage of Students at or Above Proficient in Eighth-Grade NAEP Reading,1992, 2011, 2013

Per

cent

at

or

abo

ve P

rofi

cien

t

Race/Ethnicity Gender100

90

80

70

60

50

40

30

20

10

0

White Black Hispanic Asian/Pacific Male Female Islander

‘92 ‘11 ‘13 ‘92 ‘11 ‘13 ‘92 ‘11 ‘13 ‘92 ‘11 ‘13 ‘92 ‘11 ‘13 ‘92 ‘11 ‘13

35

43

46

23

29

31

35

38

42

9

15

17

13

19

22

37

47

52

Source: http://nationsreportcard.gov/reading_math_2013/#/student-groups

Table 2: 8th Grade Reading

Further, low reading scores correlate with high dropout rates. In 2010, while researchers

estimated the overall U.S. high school graduation rate to be 79.6%, 20% of White students,

38% of African American students, and 32% of Latino students failed to graduate from high

school on time.7 These are proportions that, while they have improved over the past decade,

are unacceptably high in an economy has fewer low-skill jobs available and requires a higher

level of literacy and problem solving in the workforce.8



6

The creation of a culture of literacy learning in a district or even a building requires a clear

sense of mission on the part of the superintendent. McREL’s research on the impact of the

superintendency makes clear that the following four tenets contribute significantly to the cultivation

of school culture:

• Non-negotiable achievement goals

• Non-negotiable instructional model

• Monitoring of achievement and instructional goals

• Use of resources to support achievement and instructional goals9

The Literacy First Framework, when implemented with consistent school leadership support and

with fidelity, builds teacher and leader capacity across the entire school, accelerates student

achievement, and closes the achievement gap among all student groups. Based on a strong

site relationship among administrators, teachers, students, and an experienced Literacy First

consultant, the Literacy First Framework:

(1) Builds a systemic culture of literacy across the school, touching every subject area and specialization.

(2) Refines every teacher’s instructional skills to promote critical thinking and improved comprehension with an effective, research-based instructional model used in all classrooms.

(3) Ensures effective, research-based reading instruction is occurring in all classrooms.

Principals, instructional coaches, school reading specialists, and teachers across the entire

school refine their ability to monitor and support the critical instructional elements necessary for

outstanding student achievement, ensuring that the common, school-wide instructional model

is implemented with fidelity. A school-wide culture of literacy is built through a systematic and

explicit three-year professional development and coaching process in which teachers learn how to

instruct students in the use of literacy strategies, tools, and protocols for decoding and for building

vocabulary, reading comprehension, and metacognitive processes. Teachers learn to frame their

instruction within a highly-effective instructional model based on the gradual-release method,

and instruction is consistently driven by the thoughtful use of formative assessment data.

Literacy First: Creating A Culture For Literacy Learning



7

Literacy First professional development and job-embedded coaching focuses on:

• Building a school culture that promotes and supports literacy in all content areas and classrooms

• Building the collective efficacy of the school around literacy

• Implementing a system of data-driven instruction that creates opportunities for differentiation

• Implementing a research-based instructional model used in all classrooms that creates Academic Learning Time

• Implementing research-based reading instruction built upon the Five Pillars from the National Reading Panel

What follows is a summary of how the Literacy First design rests upon an empirical research base.



8

Creating a Culture for Literacy Learning: What the Research Says

Literacy growth is best supported in a school environment in which adults and students engage ardently

and collaboratively in reading, writing, and high-level discourse. A culture for literacy learning makes time,

space, and materials available in a way that prioritizes meaningful interaction with text and transforms

traditionally individual literacy experiences into a social enterprise of apprenticeship and shared practices.10

Positive, skilled improvement of teaching through leadership and coaching are vital to creating a culture for

literacy learning, and to implementing new instructional programs.11

Teaching: Teachers’ beliefs, expectations, and personal characteristics, together with school-context

variables, influence instructional practices, classroom climates, and student outcomes.12 Teachers with high

expectations of their students’ learning provide students with more feedback, probe student thinking with

higher-order questions, and manage student behavior in more

positive ways than do teachers with lower expectations.13

Teacher self-efficacy is a belief in personal agency, the

expectation that teaching can influence student learning, and

a sense of personal teaching competence. Participation in

professional development contexts that allow teachers to learn

from each other can enhance self-efficacy.14 In fact, regular

professional collaboration among teachers does more to boost

student achievement than individual teachers’ experience or

ability.15

Self-efficacious teachers are enthusiastic about teaching. They

exhibit high levels of planning, organization, and commitment

to the profession and believe that their teaching contributes to

the social good. They believe that they can and should control what occurs in their classrooms and are

committed to investing their personal resources as a sign of caring for their students; they make conscious

efforts to avoid burn-out through striking a balance between routine and variety, work and play; and they

develop successful coping mechanisms to shut out the negative conditions of teaching.16 These teachers

purposefully cultivate a “growth mindset” in their students. Students with a growth mindset are eager for

new challenges and enthusiastic, rather than fearful, about learning from mistakes. They understand that

success is a result of effort, more than of raw ability alone, while students with a “fixed mindset” worry about

the judgments of others, fear failure, and resist risks, thwarting their own learning.17



9

Leadership: Building capacity for a school-wide culture for literacy learning is not the work of

teachers alone. The effort depends upon the support of the principal, librarian, school reading

specialists, coaches, teaching assistants, and parents. Successful school leaders are persistent

and attentive to keeping all parts of a complex system moving toward improvement in a coherent,

focused way. They build capacity by coordinating curriculum, instruction, assessment, account-

ability, and professional development efforts toward the goal of student literacy and achievement.18

A principal sets and monitors expectations for faculty and students and is the mediating influence

on what happens in the school community.

Practices like creating a positive, productive school climate are social and team-oriented and rely

on interpersonal skills, cultural sensitivity, and emotional intelligence, while overseeing curriculum,

instruction, and assessment requires more cognitive and task-oriented practices.19

Coaching: Building capacity is more effective than designing controls20, and quality coaching is a

capacity-building vehicle. Research shows that placing greater emphasis on professional learning

produces higher student achievement than a narrow focus on accountability outcomes, because

a collaborative peer culture of teachers becomes the source of innovation and energy toward

improving student learning. Developing peer cultures that strengthen student achievement and

linking those peer cultures to school and district systems is the work of coaches.21 Coaching in

schools takes a variety of forms, including instructional coaching; cognitive coaching; peer coaching;

and transformative coaching.22 Program implementation: Building a school and district culture to

support implementation of new instructional programs in which teachers and leaders work with

external program designers relies on collaboration, clear lines of communication, ongoing direct

personal contact between school staff and program designers, and continuous professional l

earning of both teachers and leaders.23 Successful program implementation is specific in terms of

materials, information, professional development, guidance, instructions, monitoring, evaluation,

and feedback.24 Program developers and school staff learn to work together in a dynamic

process of mutual adaptation to produce predicted results, making iterative adjustments as

needed according to the particular school context. Further, any whole-school change is more

effectively implemented when the design is consistent with other school efforts and with state

and district policy.25

Successful program implementation requires high levels of commitment on the part of

teachers; consistent, ongoing training; and conscious commitment to building sustainable

leadership through knowledge-sharing communities and planning for smooth transition to their

successors. Limits on competing time demands from other projects and positive relationships

with adequate emotional support between adults and students are also necessary.26



10

Creating a Culture for Literacy Learning: How Literacy First Enacts the ResearchBuilding strong site relationships among administrators, teachers, students, and an experienced

Literacy First consultant is key to the success of the Literacy First Framework. Over the three-year

program, Literacy First provides teachers with professional development and job-embedded coaching,

establishes building-level leadership teams, and monitors for implementation fidelity all along the way.

Content area district personnel, administrators, and teachers meet regularly to discuss issues regarding

implementation.

Professional Development and Coaching: Literacy First includes frequent, needs-based,

practical professional development to strengthen teachers’ knowledge and skills for meeting the needs

of a diverse student population. During the three-year process, a Literacy First consultant works closely

with teachers to model best practices and provide job-embedded training on those practices.

Literacy First’s professional development and job-embedded coaching focuses

on the following key areas:

• Academic Learning Time

• Anatomy of a Lesson

• Acquisition of Academic Vocabulary

• Phonological Awareness

• Phonics

• Comprehension Skills

• Strategic Reading Tools

• Fluency

• Strategies for Complex Text

• Metacognition and Textual Evidence

Literacy First includes a teacher’s manual,

resources books, and supplemental

curricular materials, since both people

and materials are necessary to facilitate

the successful implementation of the

Literacy First Framework.



11

Leadership Support: Critical to the Literacy First Framework’s success, the leadership plan

focuses on both product and processes in the cognitive and affective domains. Principals and

school leaders are provided with rubrics for scheduling, observations, effective use of instructional

time, meetings, and coordination of resources. In addition, tools for modeling behavior, providing

encouragement and support, and collaboration are discussed and modeled.

Essential members of leadership teams are the building principal and a Literacy Instructional

Coach. Throughout the three-year program, each school is supported by a visiting Literacy

Consultant who works with the leadership team to guide teachers in effective implementation

and the development of plans for sustainability after the three-year implementation process.

Instruction: The Literacy First Framework builds teacher capacity and confidence as well as

strong, supportive instructional leadership. Critical success factors are set in place with easy

to follow, step-by-step procedures that are aligned to the Common Core State Standards for

English Language Arts and Literacy, as well as other state and national standards. Throughout the

three-year program, the critical attributes of effective lesson planning, instruction, and classroom

management are implemented by teachers to communicate instructional material to students and

to motivate and engage them as partners in the learning process. The result: a significant increase

in student engagement and academic success.



12

Building a Language Rich Environment: What the Research Says

Academic language is the language of college- and career-readiness. It incorporates general and

domain-specific vocabulary, syntax, structures, and reasoning processes that enable learners to

comprehend complex texts, and discuss and write about higher order concepts and relationships

with precision and specificity.27

Academic English is a second language for all U.S.

students, native English speakers, and English learners

alike, and fluency in any new language is built through

repeated use and practice in authentic contexts. An

environment that facilitates the acquisition of academic

English is characterized by a rich array of high-quality

texts and print resources and numerous scaffolded

opportunities to speak, hear, read, and write in the

registers of the academic disciplines.28

As students discuss their own views and consider

alternative interpretations of the texts they read,

cognitive engagement is strengthened.29 The quality,

not the quantity, of teacher talk and the quality of

student-teacher/student-student verbal interactions

in the classroom have been shown to have positive

effects on students’ acquisition of academic language.30



13

Building a Language Rich Environment: How Literacy First Enacts the Research

The Literacy First Framework provides many

language opportunities for students each day.

Teachers using the Literacy First instructional

model specifically plan multiple opportunities for

students to hear, speak, read, and write daily.

During the whole-group portion of the reading

block, teachers model academic language

and expect students to use the language

during group work and partner discussions.

During the small skill-focused small-group

portion of the reading block, students are

given explicit instruction on the academic

language related to their specific set of skills.

Teachers are able to monitor students’ use

of vocabulary during the small-group work,

correcting misconceptions and encouraging

word consciousness.

The Literacy First Framework promotes the daily use of Walls that Teach for vocabulary, critical processes

like summarizing, and student exemplars. The process of building these walls is explicitly modeled to

teachers in every professional development day so that they experience the integration of creating

these instructional walls as part of every lesson.



14

Promoting Thinking Skills: What the Research Says

The Common Core Anchor Standards for Reading call for students to make logical inferences,

determine central ideas or themes, summarize key supporting details and ideas, analyze word

choice and text structure, evaluate arguments, and compare themes across texts.31 To meet these

standards, and similar standards in non-Common Core states, students must develop high-level

self-regulation and critical-thinking skills.32

Self-Regulation: The more ownership students take of their own learning, the more self-

regulated they become and the greater the extent of their understanding and mastery of desired

outcomes. Self-regulation is the cyclical metacognitive process of analyzing learning tasks, setting

goals, strategically planning and monitoring progress toward the goals, and knowing when and

how to ask for help along the way.33

Self-regulated learners are intrinsically motivated, possess a sense of self-efficacy, and believe

that errors afford learning opportunities. They are aware of their own strengths and limitations

and attribute outcomes to factors over which they have control, such as effort. These students

assemble a repertoire of problem-solving strategies and

apply them appropriately to challenging new tasks. They

restructure physical and social contexts to align with learning

goals, habitually evaluating their progress in order to further

adapt their methods. In addition to being more successful

academically, self-regulated learners are more likely to view

their futures optimistically.34

Self-regulating processes, however, do not “come naturally”

to most students. They must be intentionally, explicitly taught

through a skillful combination of teacher-directed and

student-directed activities, including direct instruction, clear

explanations, modeling, well-defined learning goals, shared

understandings of evaluation criteria, and ample opportunities

for student choice with continued guidance and feedback.35

Instruction that promotes self-regulated learning engages students in meaningful, complex

tasks that extend over long periods of time and allow students to choose among processes and

products, evaluate their work, and collaborate with peers as the instructor purposefully helps them

monitor their learning progress.36



15

Critical Thinking: Students who master metacognitive self-regulation strategies are more likely to

employ higher-level reasoning (comparing, classifying, sequencing, predicting), judgment, decision making,

and problem solving. While these thinking processes are common at a superficial level in everyday life, they

become critical thinking when applied to new, complex situations within specific content-area contexts.37

Critical thinking is enhanced through repeated, systematic instruction, practice, and feedback.38

One proven strategy that allows students to

experiment with critical thinking is structured

group work. When students work in effectively

structured pairs or groups they exert more effort to

achieve, use higher-level reasoning strategies more

frequently, retain information more accurately, receive

peer validation, and build confidence. When they

must work to explain and argue ideas rather than

passively receive transmitted information, students’

understanding of concepts and ideas increases and

their interpersonal communication skills improve.39

Since students differ in their learning pace and

readiness, teachers must plan for grouping students

in ways that will best accommodate individual

student capabilities and learning needs.40



16

Promoting Thinking Skills: How Literacy First Enacts the Research

The Literacy First instructional model ensures that critical

thinking is part of every lesson. The adoption of the instructional

model across the school, and across grade levels, ensures

that this kind of critical thinking continues beyond the reading

block and the primary classroom.

During the 140-minute reading block at the elementary level,

both during the whole-group and skill-group activities, teachers

model the metacognitive thinking processes they use during

read-alouds. This modeling process provides students with a

scaffolded demonstration of the critical-thinking process before

they are expected to use those higher levels of thinking and

reasoning processes independently.

During the Identify Student Success (ISS) portion of each

lesson, students are expected to justify their answers

and replies, explaining why or how they came to a certain

conclusion. Students are provided multiple opportunities for

partner and group discussions in which they verbally explain

their thinking and logic.

Literacy First in grades 6-12 follows a similar process for

critical thinking, with all content area teachers modeling their

comprehension process through think-alouds, use of graphic

organizers, and tasks designed to have students thinking and

working at the higher levels of Blooms Taxonomy.



17

Designing Effective Instruction: What the Research Says

Effective instructional design begins with “the end in mind” through clearly articulated learning

outcomes and identification of what will count as evidence that those outcomes have been

achieved.41 Based on this desired evidence, appropriate learning activities must be

planned and sequenced, with explicit checks for understanding built in all along the way.

Successful instruction progresses from priming to processing to retaining for transfer.

Priming: Priming involves activating students’ existing skills and understandings so

that these are ready to be modified and expanded.42 Effective priming strategies include

pretesting, brainstorming, advance organizers, anticipation guides, text previews,

problem scenarios, eliciting student stories and experiences, as well as pre-reading

work on new vocabulary.43

Processing: Students process new material by engaging in various forms of practice,

repetition, and problem solving. The teacher gradually releases responsibility for mastery

and performance through a cycle of direct instruction, modeling (“I do”), guided practice

with immediate feedback (“we do,” “two do”), and independent practice (“you do”)

with assessment.44



18

Academic Learning Time (ALT) is critical to processing. ALT is comprised of three components,

which must all be in place for learning to occur:

(1) Students must know and understand the objective;

(2) Students must actively manipulate the content of the lesson; and

(3) Students must experience a 75-95% success rate during the manipulation.

Active manipulation can include both physical manipulation (sorting words according to

patterns, making words with letters, finding text features in a book, filling out graphic organizers,

etc.) and cognitive manipulation (discussing with a partner, summarizing, retelling, reading,

clarifying, predicting, etc.). Processing strategies include note taking, summarizing, seeking

similarities and differences, working with nonlinguistic representations, questioning, reflecting,

and working in cooperative groups. Regular monitoring of student understanding, by both

teacher and students, is particularly critical and must include timely, focused, substantive

feedback so that students and teachers can continue to readjust their learning strategies.45

Transfer: The goal of priming and processing is retention for transfer—the ability to select

and apply the right skills or information at the right time to novel situations. Retention for transfer

is strengthened by frequent self-testing; spacing study and practice over time and locations;

and mixing or “interleaving” different types of problems or tasks. Novelty, repetition, challenge,

emotional arousal, visual stimuli, and physical activity also enhance retention for transfer.46



19

Designing Effective Instruction: How Literacy First Enacts the Research

The Literacy First instructional design, Anatomy of a Lesson (AOL), follows the priming, processing,

retaining cycle through the following elements:

• A clearly articulated learning objective

• ARK: Activate, Assess, and Augment Relevant Knowledge (20% of lesson)

• TIP: Teacher Input (20% of lesson)

• SAP: Student Active Participation (45% of lesson)

• ISS: Identify Student Success (15% of lesson)

• Teacher monitors and adjusts instruction (100% of lesson)

The Literacy First instructional design is based upon Fisher and Frey’s Gradual Release of

Responsibility progression. Task completion and learning is shifted from teacher to student over

time as instruction moves from teacher-centered to student-centered. This model requires time

and explicit planning, and scaffolds instruction through four levels:

• Modeled: I do (ME)

• Guided: We do (WE)

• Partner: Two Do (TWO)

• Independent: You Do (YOU)

Instructional Model for Systematic, Explicit Instruction

Academic Learning

Time (ALT)

1.) Student UNDERSTANDS

the Lesson Objective

2.) Student ACTIVELY

MANIPULATES the Lesson

Content

3.) Student Experiences

75-95% Success Rate

Lesson

Progression

• State the objective • ARK focusing on the Lesson Objective

• Explicit Instruction/

Teacher Modeling with

Student Participation

• Student Guided Practice

• Student Independent

• Student Identifies information learned and reflects on why or how to use the skill

Anatomy of a Lesson (AOL)

Assess, Activate, &

Augment Relevant Knowledge (ARK)

20%

Teacher Input (TIP)

20%

Student Active Participation

(SAP)

Identify Student Success

(ISS)15%

Teacher MONITORS AND ADJUSTS the lesson to ensure ALL students succeed



20

Literacy First addresses priming through the Anatomy of a Lesson

component: Assessing, Activating, and Augmenting Relevant

Knowledge. In conjunction with the lesson objective, teachers are

explicitly taught strategies to create an emotional hook, get student

brains to start working in the patterns of the lesson, and understand

what they are learning and why it is important. This lesson component

also includes the vocabulary critical to the lesson and is an important

first step in checking for understanding.

To address transfer, Literacy First teaches strategies that identify

student success and cause all students to be metacognitive about

their learning. This includes proving their answer, explaining the

process used to find an answer, applying the new learning to a

different context, and providing evidence of learning.

One distinction between other

gradual release models and the

Literacy First instructional design

is the incorporation of partner

collaboration (Two Do). By

inserting partner collaboration

into the structure of each lesson,

students are not only experiencing

an effective means to building

knowledge, but also gaining

practice in communicating

and collaborating.

Bell Work

Anticipatory

Lesson Objective

Vocabulary

Assesment/Closure

Activate, Assess and Augment Relevant

Knowledge (20%)

Teacher Input (20%)

Student Activate

Participation

(45%)

Identify Student Success/Evidence of Learning

(15%)

Anat

omy

of a

Les

son

Explicit Instruction & Teacher Modeling

Guided Practice

Collaborative

Independent

TWO

YOU

ME

WE



21

Most young children develop oral language naturally and quickly, even without much direct

instruction. Yet many students do not learn to read efficiently by third grade. This is because,

while speech develops naturally, reading and writing must be explicitly taught and learned

through conscious, applied effort.47 Effective reading instruction trains the brain to build

connections between phonological and oral language systems so that students are able to

read and write at the level at which they already speak and listen.48 Reading ability rests on

the integration of a complex set of skills, including abilities to:

• Hear, replicate, and manipulate phonemes—the separate sounds in words;

• Associate sounds with letters (phonics);

• Automatically and fluently read words;

• Build vocabulary; and

• Understand what they read (reading comprehension).49

The research from the National Reading Panel identified five pillars needed to teach

children how to read. These five pillars are:

(1) Phonemic Awareness

(2) Alphabetic Principle

(3) Fluency

(4) Vocabulary

(5) Comprehension

Phonemic Awareness: In the English language, 44 separate sounds, called phonemes,

can be combined and ordered in infinite ways to produce syllables, words, phrases, sentences,

and syntax to ultimately convey ideas and meaning.50 Learning to speak does not require

conscious awareness of the individual sound segments in words, but learning to read relies on

phonemic awareness—the ability to notice, reproduce, and manipulate these individual sounds

so that they can then be represented by letters.

Developing Proficient Readers: What the Research Says



22

In spoken interactions, our focus is on whole words and meanings, so we combine phonemes fast enough

for working memory to process whole words and word sequences. We don’t consciously notice the

individual overlapping and co-articulated sounds that combine to produce words. We say “pet the gray cat,”

chunking the sounds together into successions of words, rather than recognizing strings of separate sounds:

/P/-/e/-/t/-/th/-/e/-/g/-/r/-/ay/-/c/-/a/-/t/. On the other hand, when we read, we see a sequence of letters

and spaces that our brains translate into sounds, syllables, and words, linking encoded language with oral

language. The words we read are “heard” in our minds and connected to the meanings we have stored in memory.

Fluent reading skill rests on phonemic awareness. Children who do not master these skills by first grade

are at risk of having difficulty learning to read, and older students and adults who are poor readers typically

continue to demonstrate limited phonemic awareness. Poor reading performance most often results from

difficulty with phonological coding—the ability to link individual phonemes with their alphabetic spellings—not

from visual deficits or problems with meaning

or language structures. Some children are able

to hear, identify, reproduce, and manipulate

phonemes early and with relatively minimal

training, while many others require additional

intensive and explicit instruction in learning to

recognize, manipulate, and then spell sounds.51

Phonological difficulties are rooted in neurology,

not in intelligence. Biological factors such

as childhood ear infections interact with

experiences so that the ease with which a child

develops phonemic awareness depends upon a

combination of genetic and environmental factors.

For example, vocabulary size also plays a role in phonemic awareness. The larger a child’s vocabulary in

the early school years, the more likely the child is to have developed more refined within-word discrimination

ability—the ability to hear the different sounds in words and to compare words to each other based on

sounds within the words.52

While early intervention for reading difficulties in grades K-2 is optimal, abundant research shows that

concentrated, systematic intervention designed to foster phonemic awareness in older struggling readers

is effective at any age and can significantly reduce the occurrence of reading disability diagnoses and help

the majority of struggling readers close the oral language-written language gap and be ready to maintain

grade-level performance, thereby lessening the number of assignments of students to special education.53



23

Alphabetic Principle: Alphabetic principal is comprised of a combination of phonics, decoding, and an

the ability to spell. Phonics is the system in the English language by which 26 letters (graphemes), alone and

in combinations, represent 44 basic phonemes, combining in infinite ways to encode words and meanings.

While the English language system does not use one-to-one letter-sound correspondence, there is enough

correspondence to make the teaching of phonics essential to creating proficient readers.

Explicit instruction in phonics helps students understand that print represents the sounds of the language

and establishes the phonological processing system that connects written words to their pronunciations so

that the written words are “heard” in the mind.54 The end goal of this systematic, explicit phonics instruction

is that students are able to decode with such automaticity that their cognitive energies can be focused on

making meaning of the words and phrases rather than on decoding them.

Fluency: When students develop phonemic awareness and phonics together (phonology) to the point of

automaticity, along with a large bank of sight words, they achieve fluency – the ability to read connected

text with the accuracy, speed, and prosody (appropriate rhythm, intonation, and phrasing).

Words that have been encountered and decoded successfully a number of times become

“chunked” and recognizable by sight as whole words, their spellings and meanings fully bonded to their

pronunciations in the reader’s memory bank (lexicon). Sight-word learning is an alphabetic, phonological

process based upon repeated experiences. Learning sight words depends upon sensitivity to orthography

(common spellings of phonemes) and to the morphology of English (the system of prefixes and suffixes that

change the meanings of root words according to common patterns).55

In addition to chunking letters together into sight words, efficient, automatic readers chunk words together

into phrases to increase reading speed. Instructional practices that include quality feedback and guidance

through oral readings of text help students

achieve fluency.56 Students who haven’t achieved

fluency may develop idiosyncratic compensatory

strategies such as slowing reading rate, pausing,

looking back, reading aloud, re-reading,

sounding out, rhyming, analogizing to known

sight words, contextual guessing, and jumping

over words.57 For most inefficient readers, these

strategies divert attention and effort to the word-

recognition process and away from building

vocabulary and comprehension.



24

In the upper elementary grades, vocabulary,

language, and concepts become increasingly

complex and texts become less predictable. Non-

fluent readers fall, and often remain, behind. Rather

than reading more as they progress through the

grades, these students often read less, which further

hinders their opportunity to become more efficient

readers.58

Fluency is necessary but not sufficient for reading

comprehension because decoding printed words

at the word level and making meaning of them at

the language level require different neurological processes. It is possible for some inefficient readers to

derive meaning from text through laborious compensatory processes, and for some fluent readers to read

connected text smoothly without attending to the meaning or being able to recall afterwards what the text

was about—a process known as “word calling.”59

Vocabulary: Vocabulary links the word-level processes of phonics and fluency and the meaning-making

process of comprehension. Language shapes thinking, so the complexity and range of receptive and

expressive vocabulary students have acquired affects the degree to which their critical thinking can

evolve.60 Factors like socioeconomic status and prior experience affect the size of students’ vocabulary

lexicons. By third grade, the expectation is that students have learned to read and now must “read to

learn,” encountering increasingly complex texts and thousands of new words each year, including many

academic and literary terms that are outside their ordinary everyday oral language interactions.61

Students and adults learn most of their new words incidentally through multiple exposures to

increasingly complex texts and oral language environments. Efficient readers gain and use new words

more quickly because when they encounter a new word, they recognize it phonetically and link it to the

language lexicons already stored in memory. While only about 400 new vocabulary words are explicitly

taught in school throughout an academic year, students who have learned to read efficiently by third grade

will annually add 2,000 to 3,500 distinct new words to their vocabularies.62

Comprehension: Fluency, vocabulary, and content-domain background knowledge together form

the foundation of reading comprehension—the ability to understand, analyze, evaluate, compare, make

inferences and predictions, and draw conclusions from texts.63 When students read fluently and have

command of the necessary vocabulary, their attention (working memory) is freed to focus on making

meaning and retaining information rather than on the process of lifting words from the page.64



25

Comprehension instruction must include ample reading, vocabulary and decoding development, as well

as rich experiences with fiction and nonfiction. Comprehension is dependent on adequate vocabulary,

background knowledge, and explicit comprehension strategy instruction.

Specific comprehension skills include retelling, summarizing, determining main idea, detecting sequence,

predicting, inferring, clarifying, questioning, drawing conclusions, and visualizing. Strategies to teach

comprehension include scanning to preview text; creating concept maps or other graphic organizers;

thinking aloud; re-reading confusing parts; questioning during reading; monitoring accuracy and

understanding, using and applying prior knowledge; applying personal experience; visualizing; using basic

story structure; and using organized note-taking strategies such as the three-column note-taking strategy

that includes quotes, notes, and comments.65 When students have frequent, regular opportunities to write

about what they read, the teacher can gain insight into their comprehension levels.66

Developing Proficient Readers: How Literacy First Enacts the Research

Literacy First addresses the National Reading Panel’s five reading pillars—phonemic awareness, alphabetic

principle (phonics and word study), fluency, vocabulary, and comprehension—through a daily 140-minute

reading block, which includes listening comprehension through read-alouds; vocabulary/word study

activities; oral language and reading fluency activities; interaction with walls that teach (word walls); explicit

skill instruction; practice in metacognitive processes; and 20 minutes for MIRP

One hour of the daily reading block is devoted to whole-class instruction to provide further practice and

application of mastered skills. During whole-group instruction, students are actively engaged in listening

comprehension through read-alouds, vocabulary and word study activities, oral language experiences,

fluency practice, and interaction with walls that teach (word walls). It is important to note that this portion of

the reading block is not a time for the teacher to lecture to seated students; rather, the students are actively

involved through both cognitive and physical manipulation of the content and have multiple experiences to

collaborate with peers in partner and small groups.

Another hour of the daily reading block is allocated to small, flexible-skill group activities that focus on

systematic, explicit instruction in phonological awareness, phonics, vocabulary, fluency, or comprehension.

Small-group instruction is based on assessment data, tailored to each individual student’s Zone of Proximal

Development (ZPD). While the teacher is working with students in a small group, the other students practice

and apply mastered skills in literacy work stations, which are also tailored based on assessment data.



26

During Monitored Independent Reading

Practice (MIRP) time students read

independently from books, which are at

their appropriate independent level, and then

spend two minutes discussing their reading

with a partner. Reading from books at the

independent reading level allows students

an opportunity to practice decoding skills

and fluency while building vocabulary and

comprehension. The two-minute partner

discussion provides one more oral language

experience and causes students to be

metacognitive.

Formative assessments included in Literacy First curricular resources measure both accuracy and

speed along with phrasing, intonation, and smoothness. Strategies for whole group, small group, and

literacy center practice are modeled that can be easily transferred for immediate use in the classroom.



27

Literacy First Performance Results

The results that follow demonstrate how the Literacy First Framework effectively creates a culture

of learning by increasing student engagement and raising literacy levels of students in a variety of

environments.

Literacy First Schools in Oklahoma Outperformed the State Control Group In one of the largest independent statewide reading studies ever conducted, Literacy First schools

significantly outperformed the state’s control group in both teacher performance and student outcomes.

Literacy First Schools API Scores Exceed the State Average. The Academic Performance

Index (API) is an Oklahoma State Department of Education testing series that measures the

percentage of students performing at proficient levels in reading and math. Literacy First elementary

schools performed higher than the state in both 2009 (by 57 points) and 2010 (by 119 points).

Oklahoma Elementary API Scores1200

1150

1100

1050

1000

950

900

2009 2010

57 points

119 points

999

1026

1056

1145

Oklahoma State Average

Literacy First

{{



28

Teacher Knowledge: Structural Analysis

of Concept Maps Before and After Literacy First

Teachers Demonstrate Significant Growth. Teachers demonstrated statistically

significant growth in the depth of their understanding of the reading instruction process.

They also demonstrated more knowledge about the five essential elements of reading

instruction and the strategies associated with those elements.

Before Literacy First

After Literacy First

Total Number of Concepts

Breadth of Knowledge

Depth of Knowledge

Hierarchiacal Structure

Score

Degree Concepts

Interconnected

Extent Concepts

Interconnected

12.99

20.29

2.33

2.50

1.81

.01

2.44

4.51

2.60

.10

8.44

11.79

0 5 10 15 20 25



29

Literacy First Leads to Increased Student Engagement in the Bronx

In 2012-2013, New Venture Learning Academy in New York City called on Catapult Learning’s

Literacy First Framework to help them strengthen their classroom practices and create a

common instructional language among their school leaders and teachers.

Within months of the initial Literacy First training, New Venture Academy noticed marked

improvement in student suspension rates, which principal Dom Cipollone said is “an indicator

that kids are interested in what’s going on in the classroom. When they’re not, they are going

to leave, act out, whatever, and that’s not happening the way it has in the past.”

Suspensions Drop Across All Student

Groups. In 2011-2012, there were a total

of 86 student suspensions at New Venture

Academy. After one year of Literacy First,

overall school suspensions decreased from

86 to 48, a 44% decrease.

86

48

2012-132011-2012

Nu

mb

er

of

Su

spe

nsi

on

s R

ep

ort

ed

0

20

10

30

50

70

40

60

80

90

All Students Suspensions New Venture Academy PS 219 BronxNY

44% Drop in

Suspension

44

34

14

42

2012-132011-2012

New Venture Academy Suspension Report2011-2013, by IEP

General Ed

Special Ed

20

10

30

50

40

60

67% Drop in

Suspension

Dramatic Decrease in Special Ed Student

Suspension Rate. Suspensions reported for

Special Education students dropped from

42 in 2011 to 14 in 2013, a 67% decrease

compared to the 23% decrease experienced

by the general student base.



30

English Language Learners in Liberal, Kansas, Close the Achievement Gap In Just Three Years

In 2009, Liberal High School in Liberal, Kansas, belonged to the lowest performing district in

the state. As part of a district-wide effort to improve student outcomes, Liberal High School

implemented the Literacy First Content Area Framework to strengthen instruction across all subject areas.

By the end of the third year, student test scores on the eleventh-grade Kansas Reading Assessment

(KRA) were closing in on the state average, and the achievement gap between student groups

began to shrink—especially for ELL students. In 2009, 14% of ELL students were performing on

standard, but by 2012, over 50% of students were meeting the Kansas reading standards. Liberal

High School is now ranked as the 7th best high school in the state of Kansas, according to U.S.

News and World Report.

Percentage of ELL Students Performing At or Above Standard Increased 40.4

Percentage Points in three Years. After three years of Literacy First, the percentage of students

scoring at the “Meets Standard” level or above on the Kansas Reading Assessment increased by

at least 10 points for all student groups. As the achievement gap between the different groups

continued to close, ELLs improved the most, with the percentage of students achieving at or

above standard increasing by 40 points.

11th Grade Kansas Reading Assessment Performance by Student Groups

Per

cent

age

Of S

tude

nts

Per

form

ing

At O

r A

bove

Sta

ndar

d 90%

80%

70%

60%

50%

40%

30%

20%

10%

0.0

2008-2009 2011-2012

All Students

53%

61%

52%

65%

73%

65%

Hispanic Students

Economically Disadvantaged

14%

54%

English Language Learners



31

After one year of implementation,

High School student performance

increased by 62%. When Arkansas City High

School began Literacy First, only 55% of students

were scoring at “Meets Standard” or above on the

KRA. After the first year, that number increased

to 89%. In the seven years since ACHS adopted

Literacy First, more than 80% of students have

continued to “Meet or Exceed” the state standards.

100% Elementary students scored at or

above standard by the 7th year of service.

When C-4 Elementary School began Literacy

First, 70% of their learners were meeting the state

standards in reading; however, 10% of learners were

in “academic warning.” With Literacy First, C-4 ES

accomplished their goal in 2011 when 100% of their

learners met the state standards in reading.

Seven Years of Sustained Literacy Achievement

Across All Grade Levels in Arkansas City, Kansas In 2003, Arkansas City Public Schools were not meeting their literacy goals—almost half of their

high school learners were scoring below standard, and scores among elementary students were

inconsistent from school to school. In need of a dramatic transformation, Arkansas City Public

Schools turned to Literacy First because of its proven track record in comprehensive, research-based

literacy reform. Literacy First successfully established a consistent reading framework across the

entire school district, from Pre-K to 12th grade.

% o

f st

ud

ents

sco

rin

g a

t “m

eets

st

and

ard

” th

rou

gh

exe

mp

lary

5th Grade Kansas Reading Assessment Results: C-4 Elementary School

03–04 04–05 05–06 06–07 07–08 08–09 09–10 10–11 11–120%

20%

10%

30%

50%

70%

80%

90%

40%

60%

100% 100% of students by 2010

Literacy First

02–03 03–04 04–05 05–06 06–07 07–08 08–09 09–10 10–110%

20%

10%

30%

50%

70%

80%

90%

40%

60%

100%

% o

f st

ud

ents

sco

rin

g a

t “m

eets

sta

nd

ard

” th

rou

gh

exe

mp

lary

11th Grade Kansas Reading Assessment Results: Arkansas City High School

Literacy First

62% Increase

over the first

year{



32

Endnotes:Darling-Hammond, L. & Adamson, F. (2010). Beyond basic skills: The role of performance assessment in achieving 21st century standards of learning. Stanford, CA: Stanford University, Stanford Center for Opportunity Policy in Education.

Wagner, T. (2008). The global achievement gap: Why even our best schools don’t teach the new survival skills our children need—and what we can do about it. New York, NY: Basic Books.

Common Core State Standards Initiative. (nd). English Language Arts college and career readiness anchor standards for reading. Retrived January 14, 2014, from: “http://www.corestandards.org/ELA-Literacy/CCRA/R”http://www.corestandards.org/ELA-Literacy/CCRA/R)

Peery, A.B. (2013). Reading for the future: How the Common Core will change instruction. New England Reading Association Journal, 48(2), 1–9.

Duncan, G.J., & Murnane, R.J. (Eds.)(2011). Whither opportunity? Rising inequality, schools, and children’s life chances. New York: Russell Sage Foundation.Milner, H.R. (2012). Beyond a test score: Explaining opportunity gaps in educational practice. Journal of Black Studies, 43(6), 693–718.

See: “http://nces.ed.gov/nationsreportcard/reading/achieve aspx”http://nces.ed.gov/nationsreportcard/reading/achieve.aspx“http://nationsreportcard.gov/reading_math_2013/” \l “/what-knowledge ” http://nationsreportcard.gov/reading_math_2013/#/what-knowledge“http://nationsreportcard.gov/reading_math_2013/” \l “/student groups” http://nationsreportcard.gov/reading_math_2013/#/student-groups

Education Week. (2013). Graduation in the United States. Diplomas Count, 32(34), 23–27.

Murnane, R.J., & Hoffman, S.L. (2013). Graduations on the rise. Education Next, 13(4), 58 – 65.

Waters, T., & Cameron, G. (2007). The balanced leadership framework: Connecting vision with action. Denver, CO: Mid-continent Research for Education and Learning.

Francois, C. (2013). Reading in the crawl space: A study of an urban school’s literacy-focused community of practice. Teachers College Record, 115(5), 1–35.

Hargreaves, A., & Fullan, M. (2013). The power of professional capital. Journal of Staff Development, 34(3), 36–39.

Cazden, C. B. (1988). Classroom discourse: The language of teaching and learning. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.

McKown, C., & Weinstein, R.S. (2008). Teacher expectations, classroom context, and the achievement gap. Journal of School Psychology, 46(3), 235 –261.

Nespor, J. (1987). The role of beliefs in the practice of teaching. Curriculum Studies, 19(4), 317–328.

Rubie-Davies, C.M., Flint, A., & McDonald, L.G. (2012). Teacher beliefs, teacher characteristics, and school contextual factors: What are the relationships? British Journal of Educational Psychology, 82(2), 270–288.

Rubie-Davies, C. M. (2007). Classroom interactions: Exploring the practices of high and low expectation teachers. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 77(2), 289–306.

Gabriele, A. J., & Joram, E. (2007). Teachers’ reflections on their reform-based teaching in mathematics: Implications for the development of teacher self-efficacy. Action in Teacher Education, 29(3), 60–74.

Leana, C.R. (2011). The missing link in school reform. Stanford Social Innovation Review, 9(4), 30–35.

1.

2.

3.

4.

5.

6.

7.

8.

9.

10.

11.

12.

13.

14.

15.



33

Allinder, R. (1994). The relationship between efficacy and the instructional practices of special education teachers and consultants. Teacher Education and Special Education, 17(2), 86−95.

Ashton, P.T., & Webb, R.B. (1986). Making a difference: Teachers’ sense of efficacy and student achievement. New York: Longman.

Guskey, T. (1988). Teacher efficacy, self-concept, and attitudes toward the implementation of instructional innovation. Teaching and Teacher Education, 4(1), 63−69.

Vittorio Caprara, G., Barbaranelli, C., Steca, P., & Malone, P.S. (2006). Teachers’ self-efficacy beliefs as determinants of job satisfaction and students’ academic achievement: A study at the school level. Journal of School Psychology, 44(6), 473–490.

Woolfolk Hoy, A., Hoy,W. K., & Davis, H. A. (2009). Teachers’ self-efficacy beliefs. In K. R. Wentzel & A. Wigfield (Eds.), Handbook of Motivation in School (pp. 627–653). New York: Routledge.

Dweck, C. (2006). Mindset: The new psychology of success. New York: Random House.

Elmore, R. (2003). Knowing the right thing to do: School improvement and performance-based accountability. Washington, DC: NGA Center for Best Practices.

Fullan, M. (2010). The awesome power of the principal. Principal, 89(4), 10–15.

Sharratt, L., & Fullan, M. (2013). Capture the human side of learning. Journal of Staff Development, 34(1), 44–48.Waters, J. T., Marzano, R. J., & McNulty, B. A. (2003). Balanced leadership: What 30 years of research tells us about the effect of leadership on student achievement. Aurora, CO: Mid-Continent Research for Education and Learning.

Cotton, K. (2003). Principals and student achievement: What the research says. Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.

Fullan, M. (2002). The role of leadership in the promotion of knowledge management in schools. Teachers & Teaching, 8(3/4), 409–419.

Fullan, M. (2006a). Leading professional learning. School Administrator, 10(63), Retrieved January 18, 2014, from “http://www.aasa.org/SchoolAdministratorArticle.aspx?id=7620” http://www.aasa.org/SchoolAdministratorArticle.aspx?id=7620

Fullan, M. (2006b). The future of educational change: System thinkers in action. Journal of Educational Change, 7(3), 123–127.

Fullan, 2010.Hallinger, P., & Heck, R. (1998). Exploring the principal’s contribution to school effectiveness: 1980–1995. School Effectiveness and School Improvement, 9(2), 157–191.

Hargreaves, A. (2007). Sustainable leadership and development in education: Creating the future, conserving the past. European Journal of Education, 42(2), 223–233.Institute for Educational Leadership. (2000). Leadership for student learning: Reinventing the principalship. Washington, DC: Author.

Leithwood, K. & Riehl, C. (2005). What we know about successful school leadership. In W. Firestone & C. Riehl (Eds.), A new agenda: Directions for research on educational leadership, pp. 22–47, New York: Teachers College Press.

Leithwood, K., Day, C., Sammons, P., Harris, A., & Hopkins, D. (2006a). Seven strong claims about successful school leadership. Nottingham, UK: National College for School Leadership.

Leithwood, K., Day, C., Sammons, P., Harris, A., & Hopkins, D. (2006b). Successful school leadership: What it is and how it influences pupil learning. Research Report 800. Nottingham, UK: National College for School Leadership.

16.

17.

18.

19.



34

Leithwood, K., Patten, S., & Jantzi, D. (2010). Testing a conception of how school leadership influences student learning. Educational Administration Quarterly, 46(5), 671–706.

National College for School Leadership. (2007). What we know about school leadership. Nottingham, UK: Author.

Osher, D., Dwyer, K., & Jackson, S. (2004). Safe, supportive and successful schools step by step. Longmont, CO: Sopris West.

Osher, D., & Fleischman, S. (2005). Positive culture in urban schools. Educational Leadership, 62(6), 84–85.Sharratt & Fullan, 2013.Waters, Marzano, & McNulty,2003.

Darling-Hammond, L. (1993). Reframing the school reform agenda. Phi Delta Kappan, 74(10), 752–761.

Fullan, M., & Knight, J. (2011). Coaches as system leaders. Educational Leadership, 69(2), 50–53.

Mourshed, M., Chinezi, C., & Barber, M. (2010). How the world’s most improved systems keep getting better. London: McKinsey and Company.

Aguilar, E. (2013). The art of coaching. San Francisco: Jossey Bass.Costa, A.L., & Garmston, R.J. (2002). Cognitive coaching: A foundation for renaissance schools. Norwood, MA: Christopher-Gordon.

Killion, J., & Harrison, C. (2006). Taking the lead: New roles for teachers and school-based coaches. Oxford, OH: National Staff Development Council.

Knight, J. (2007). Instructional coaching: A partnership approach for improving instruction. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.

Knight, J. (2011). Unmistakable impact: A partnership approach for dramatically improving instruction. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.

Lee, K., Anderson, K., Dearing, V., Harris, E., & Shuster, F. (2010). Results coaching: The new essential for school leaders. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.

Hall, G.E. (2013). Evaluating change processes: Assessing extent of implementation (constructs, method, and implications). Journal of Educational Administration, 51(3), 264–289.

Supovitz, A., & Weinbaum, E.H. (Eds.). (2008). The implementation gap: Understanding reform in high schools. New York: Teachers College Press, 2008.

Desimone, L. (2002). How can comprehensive school reform models be successfully implemented? Review of Educational Research, 72(3), 433–479.

Weinbaum, E. H., & Supovitz, J. A. (2010). Planning ahead: Make program implementation more predictable. Phi Delta Kappan, 91(7), 68–71.

Hargreaves, A. & Fink, D. (2004). Seven principles of sustainable leadership. Educational Leadership, 61(7), 8–13.

Levin, B., & Fullan, M. (2008). Learning about system renewal. Educational Management, Administration, & Leadership, 36(2), 289–303.

Loukas, A., Suzuki, R., & Horton, K.D. (2006). Examining school connectedness as a mediator

20.

21.

22.

23.

24.

25.

26.



35

of school climate effects. Journal of Research on Adolescence, 16(3), 491–502.

Payne, C. (2008). So much reform, so little change: The persistence of failure in urban schools. Cambridge, MA: Harvard Education Press.

Noell, G.H., & Gansle, K.A. (2009). Moving from good ideas in educational systems change to sustainable program implementation: Coming to terms with some of the realities. Psychology in the Schools, 46(1), 79–89.

Ulf, L., & Wickenberg, P. (2013). Professional norms in school leadership: Change efforts in implementation of education for sustainable development. Journal of Educational Change, 14(4), 403–422.

Anstrom, K., DiCerbo, P., Butler, F., Katz, A., Millet, J., & Rivera, C. (2010). A review of the literature on academic language: Implications for K–12 English language learners. Arlington, VA: George Washington University Center for Equity and Excellence in Education. Retrieved January 15, 2014, from “http://ceee.gwu.edu/sites/files/Academic%20Lit%20Review_FINAL.pdf”http://ceee.gwu.edu/sites/files/Academic%20Lit%20Review_FINAL.pdf

Beck, I., McKeown, M., & Kucan, L. (2002). Bringing words to life. New York: Guilford.Nagy, W., & Townsend, D. (2012). Words as tools: Learning academic vocabulary as language acquisition. Reading Research Quarterly, 47(1), 91–108.

Dickinson, D. K. & Porche, M. V. (2011). Relationship between language experiences in preschool classrooms and children’s kindergarten and fourth-grade language and reading abilities. Child Development, 82(3), 870–886.

Gibbons, P. (2002). Scaffolding language, scaffolding learning. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.Himmele, P., & Himmele, W. (2009). The language-rich classroom: A research-based framework for teaching English language learners. Alexandria, VA: ASCD.

Jocson, K.M. & Thorne-Wallington, E. (2013). Mapping literacy-rich environments: Geospatial perspectives on literacy and education. Teachers College Record, 115(6), 1–24.

Roskos, K., & Neuman, S. (2002). Environment and its influences for early literacy teaching and learning. In S. Neuman & D. Dickinson (Eds.), Handbook of Early Literacy Research (pp. 281–292). New York, NY: Guilford.

Engle, R. A., & Conant, F. T. (2002). Guiding principles for fostering productive disciplinary engagement: Explaining an emergent argument in a community of learners classroom. Cognition and Instruction, 20, 399–484.Lyon, 1998.Moats, 1999.Snow, Burns, & Griffin, 1998.Walczyk & Griffith-Ross, 2007.

Klibanoff, R., Levine, S.C., & Huttenlocher, J., Vasilyeva, M. & Hedges, L. (2006). Preschool children’s mathematical knowledge: The effect of teacher “math talk.” Developmental Psychology, 42(1), 59–69.

Lesaux, N.K, & Gámez, P.B. (2012). Examining classroom talk in the San Diego Unified School District. Washington, DC: Council of the Great City Schools. Common Core State Standards Initiative. (nd). Standards setting criteria. Retrieved November 19, 2013, from “http://www.corestandards.org/assets/Criteria.pdf”http://www.corestandards.org/assets/Criteria.pdf.

Wenglinsky, H. (2002). How schools matter: The link between teacher classroom practices and student academic performance. Education Policy Analysis Archives, 10(12). Retrieved September 21, 2007, from “http://epaa.asu.edu/epaa/v10n12/”http://epaa.asu.edu/epaa/v10n12/. Zimmerman, B. (2002). Becoming a self-regulated learner: An overview. Theory into Practice, 41(2), 64–70.

Butler, D.L. (2002). Individualizing instruction in self-regulated learning. Theory into Practice, 41(2), 81–92.

27.

28.

29.

30.

31.

32.

33.

34.



36

Newman, R.S. (2002). How self-regulated learners cope with academic difficulty: The role of adaptive help seeking. Theory into Practice, 41(2), 132–138. Perry, Phillips, & Dowler, 2004.

Pintrich, P.R., & Schunk, D.H. (2002). Motivation in education: Theory, research, and applications. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Merrill Prentice-Hall.

Puustinen, M., & Pulkkinen, L. (2001). Models of self-regulated learning: A review. Scandinavian Journal of Educational Research, 45(3), 269–286.

Corno, L. (2004). Work habits and work styles: Volition in education. Teachers College Record, 106(9), 1669–1694.Eshel & Kohavi, 2003.

Perry, N., & Drummond, L. (2002). Helping young students become self-regulated researchers and writers. The Reading Teacher, 56(3), 298–310.

Butler, 2002. Bransford, Brown, & Cocking, 2000.

De La Paz, S. (1999). Self-regulated strategy instruction in regular education settings: Improving outcomes for students with and without learning disabilities. Learning Disabilities Research & Practice, 14(2), 92–106.

Kiewra, K.A. (2002). How classroom teachers can help students learn and teach them how to learn. Theory into Practice, 41(2), 71–80.

Pape, S.J, & Smith, C. (2002). Self regulating mathematics skills. Theory into Practice, 41(2), 94–101.

Perry, N.E., Nordby, C.J., & Vandekamp, K.O. (2003). Promoting self-regulated reading and writing at home and school. The Elementary School Journal, 103(4), 317–338.

Randi, J., & Corno, L. (1999). Teacher innovations in self-regulated learning. In M. Boekaerts, P.R. Pintrich, & M. Zeidner (Eds.), Handbook of Self-Regulation (pp. 651–685). New York: Academic Press.

Willingham, D.T. (2007). Critical thinking: Why is it so hard to teach? American Educator, 31(2), 8–19.

Beyer, B.K. (2008). What research tells us about teaching thinking skills. Social Studies, 99(5), 223–232.

Pressley, M., & Harris, K. (2001). Teaching cognitive strategies for reading, writing, and problem solving. In A.

Costa (Ed.), Developing minds: A resource book for teaching thinking, pp. 266–270. Alexandria, VA: ASCD.

Tamim, M., & Zhang, D. (2008). Instructional interventions affecting critical thinking skills and dispositions: A stage 1 meta-analysis. Review of Educational Research, 78(4), 1102–1134.

Van-Tassel-Baska, J., Bracken, B., Feng, A., & Brown, E. (2009). A longitudinal study of enhancing critical thinking and reading comprehension in Title 1 classrooms. Journal of Education for the Gifted, 33(1), 7–37.

Topping, K.J. (2005). Trends in peer learning. Educational Psychology, 25(6), 631–645.Willis, J. (2007). Cooperative learning is a brain turn-on. Middle School Journal, 38(4), 4–13.

Gregory, G., & Chapman, C. (2002). Differentiated instructional strategies: One size doesn’t fit all. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.

Lewis, S., & Batts, K. (2005). How to implement differentiated instruction? Adjust, adjust, adjust. Journal of Staff Development, 26(4), 26–31. Medina, 2008.

Nordlund, M. (2003). Differentiated instruction: Meeting the educational needs of all students in your classroom. Lanham, MD: Scarecrow Education.

35.

36.

37.

38.

39.

40.



37

Rock, M. L., Gregg, M., Ellis, E., & Gable, R. A. (2008). REACH: A framework for differentiating classroom instruction. Preventing School Failure, 52(2), 31–47.

Tomlinson, C.A., & Kalbfleisch, M.L. (1998). Teach me, teach my brain: A call for differentiated classrooms. Educational Leadership, 56(3), 52–55.

Wiggins, G., & McTighe, J. (2005). Understanding by design. New York: Prentice Hall.

Bransford, J.D., Brown, A.L., & Cocking, R.R. (Eds.) (2000). How people learn: Brain, mind, experience, and school. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.

Jensen, E. (2005). Teaching with the brain in mind. Alexandria, VA: ASCD.

Alvermann, D.E., Smith, L.C., & Readence, J.E. (1985). Prior knowledge activation and the comprehension of compatible and incompatible text. Reading Research Quarterly, 20(4), 420–436.

Peterson, C.L., Caverly, D.C., Nicholson, S.A., O’Neal, S., & Cusenbary, S. (2000). Building reading proficiency at the secondary level: A guide to resources. Austin, TX: Southwest Educational Development Laboratory. Marzano, 2004.

Tovar-Hilbert, J. (2010). Whose prior knowledge is it anyway? Creating common experiences for literacy success in culturally diverse classrooms. Reading Council Journal, 38(1), 3–5. Duke, N.K., & Pearson, P.D. (2002). Effective practices for developing reading comprehension. In A.E. Farstup & S.J. Samuels (Eds.). What research has to say about reading instruction (pp. 205–242). Newark, DE: International Reading Association.

Fisher, D., & Frey, N. (2008). Better learning through structured teaching: A framework for the gradual release of responsibility. Alexandria, VA: ASCD.

Pearson, P.D., & Gallagher, M.C. (1983). The instruction of reading comprehension. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 8(3), 317–344.

Pearson, P.D., & Fielding, L.G. (1991). Comprehension instruction. In R. Barr, M.L. Kamil, P.B. Mosenthal, & P.D. Pearson (Ed.), Handbook of reading research (Vol II, pp. 815–860). New York: Longman. Berliner & Fisher, 1985

Black, P., & Wiliam, D. (1998). Inside the black box: Raising standards through classroom assessment. Phi Delta Kappan, 80(2), 139–144.

Black, P., Harrison, C., Lee, C., Marshall, B., & Wiliam, D. (2003). Assessment for learning: Putting it into practice. Buckingham, UK: Open University Press.

Black, P., Harrison, C., Lee, C., Marshall, B., & Wiliam, D. (2004). Working inside the black box: Assessment for learning in the classroom. Phi Delta Kappan, 86(1), 9–21.Bransford, Brown, & Cocking, 2000.

Eshel, Y., & Kohavi, R. (2003). Perceived classroom control, self-regulated learning strategies, and academic achievement. Educational Psychology, 23(3), 249–260.

Perry, N.E., Phillips, L., & Dowler, J. ( 2004). Examining features of tasks and their potential to promote self-regulated learning. Teachers College Record, 106(9), 1854–1878.

Marzano, R.J. (2007). The art and science of teaching: A comprehensive framework for effective instruction. Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.

41.

42.

43.

44.

45.



38

Rosenshine, B.V. (2002). Converging findings on classroom instruction. In A. Molnar (Ed.), School Reform Proposals: The Research Evidence. Information Age Publishing.

Immordino-Yang, M.H., & Damasio, A. (2008). We feel, therefore we learn. In The Jossey-Bass reader on the brain and learning. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.Medina, J. (2008). Brain rules. Seattle, WA: Pear Press.

Rohrer, D., & Pashler, H. (2010). Recent research on human learning challenges conventional instructional strategies. Educational Researcher, 39(5), 406–412.

Smith, S.M., Glenberg, A., & Bjork, R.A. (1978). Environmental context and human memory. Memory & Cognition, 6(4), 342–353.

Tokuhama-Espinosa, T. (2010). The new science of teaching and learning: Using the best of mind, brain, and education science in the classroom. New York: Teachers College Press.

Willingham, D.T. (2009). Why don’t students like school? San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Wolfe, P. (2001). Brain matters: Translating research into classroom practice. Alexandria, VA: ASCD.Brady, S., & Moats, L. (1997). Informed instruction for reading success: Foundations for teacher preparation. Baltimore, MD: The International Dyslexia Association.

Liberman, A.M. (1999). The reading researcher and the reading teacher need the right theory of speech. Scientific Studies of Reading, 3(2), 95–111.

Lyon, G.R., & Chhabra, V. (2004). The science of reading research. Educational Leadership, 61(6), 12–17.

Shaywitz, S.E., & Shaywitz, B.A. (2004). Reading disability and the brain. Educational Leadership, 61(6), 6–11.

Ehri, L.C. (1998). Grapheme-phoneme knowledge is essential for learning to read words in English. In J.L. Metsala & L.C. Ehri (Eds.), Word recognition in beginning literacy (pp. 3–40). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.

Pikulski, J.J., & Chard, D.J. (2005). Fluency: Bridge between decoding and reading comprehension. The Reading Teacher, 58(6), 510–519.

National Reading Panel. (2000). Teaching children to read: An evidence-based assessment of the scientific research literature on reading and its implications for reading instruction. Reports of the subgroups. Washington, DC: Author. Liberman, 1999.

Bashir, A.S., & Scavuzzo, A. (1992). Children with language disorders: Natural history and academic success. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 25(1), 53–65.

Blachman, B. A. (2000). Phonological awareness. In M. L. Kamil, P. B. Mosenthal, P. D. Pearson, & R. Barr (Eds.), Handbook of reading research (Vol. 3, pp. 483-502). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Brady & Moats, 1997.

Lyon, G. R. (1998). Why reading is not a natural process. Educational Leadership, 55(6), 14–18.

MacDonald, G.W., & Cornwall, A. (1995). The relationship of phonological awareness and reading and spelling achievement eleven years later. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 28(8), 523–527.

Nation, K., & Snowling, M.J. (2004). Beyond phonological skills: Broader language skills contribute to the development of reading. Journal of Research in Reading, 27(4), 342–356.

Moats, L.C. (1998). Teaching decoding. American Educator, Spring/Summer, 1–9.

46.

47.

48.

49.

50.

51.



39

Moats, L.C. (2004). Relevance of neuroscience to effective education for students with reading and other learning disabilities. Journal of Child Neurology, 19(10), 840–845.

Shaywitz, S.E. 2003. Overcoming dyslexia: A new and complete science-based program for reading problems at any level. New York: Alfred P. Knopf.

Snow, C.E., Burns, M.S., & Griffin, P. (Eds.) (1998). Preventing reading difficulties in young children. Washington, DC: National Academy Press. Available online at: “http://www.nap.edu/readingroom/books/reading/”http://www.nap.edu/readingroom/books/reading/

Torgesen, J.K., & Mathes, P.G. (1998). What every teacher should know about phonological awareness. Tallahassee, FL: Florida Department of Education.

Vellutino, F.R., Scanlon, D.M., & Tanzman, M.S. (1998). The case for early intervention in diagnosing specific reading disability. Journal of School Psychology, 36(4), 367–397.

Vellutino, F.R., Scanlon, D.M., & Lyon, G.R. (2000). Differentiating between difficult-to-remediate and readily remediated poor readers: More evidence against the IQ-achievement discrepancy definition of reading disability. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 33(3), 223–238.

Wolf, M., Bowers, P.G., Biddle, K. (2000). Naming-speed processes, timing, and reading: A conceptual review. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 33(4), 387–407.

Winskel, H. (2006). The effects of an early history of otitis media on children’s language and literacy skill development. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 76, 727–744.

Ehri, L.C., Nunes, S.R., Willows, D.M., Schuster, B. V., Yaghoub-Zadeh, Z., & Shanahan, T. (2001). “http://libsys.uah.edu:3206/ehost/viewarticle?” “Phonemic awareness instruction helps children learn to read: Evidence from the National Reading Panel’s meta-analysis.”Phonemic awareness instruction helps children learn to read: Evidence from the National Reading Panel’s meta-analysis. By: Reading Research Quarterly, 36(3), 250 – 287.

Foorman, B.R., & Torgesen, J. (2001). Critical elements of classroom and small-group instruction promote reading success in all children. Learning Disabilities Research & Practice, 16(4), 203–212.

Goswami, U. (2001). Early phonological development and the acquisition of literacy. In S.B. Neuman & D.K. Dickinson (Eds.), Handbook of early literacy research(pp. 111–125). New York: Guilford.National Reading Panel, 2000.

Metsala, J.L. (1999a). The development of phonemic awareness in reading-disabled children. Applied Psycholinguistics, 20(1), 149–158.

Metsala, J.L. (1999b). Young children’s phonological awareness and nonword repetition as a function of vocabulary. Journal of Educational Psychology, 91(1), 3–19.

Metsala, J.L., & Walley, A.C. (1998). Spoken vocabulary growth and segmental restructuring of lexical representations: Precursors to phonemic awareness and early reading ability. In J.L. Metsala & L.C. Ehri (Eds.). Word recognition in beginning literacy (pp. 89–120). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.

Moats, L.C. (1999). Teaching reading is rocket science: What expert teachers of reading should know and be able to do. Washington, DC: American Federation of Teachers. Snow, Burns, & Griffin, 1998.

be able to do. Washington, DC: American Federation of Teachers.Snow, Burns, & Griffin, 1998.

52.



40

Walley, A.C., Metsala, J.L., & Garlock, V.M. (2003). Spoken vocabulary growth: Its role in the development of phoneme awareness and early reading ability. Reading and Writing: An Interdisciplinary Journal, 16(1-2), 5–20.Blachman, 2000.

Blachman, B.A., Schatschneider, C., Fletcher, J.M., Francis, D.J., Clonan, S.M., Shaywitz, B.A., & Shaywitz, S.E. (2004). Effects of intensive reading remediation for second and third graders and a 1-year follow-up. Journal of Educational Psychology, 96(3), 444–461.

Brady & Moats, 1997.Foorman & Torgesen, 2001.Harm, M.W., McCandliss, B.D., & Seidenberg, M.S. (2003). Modeling the successes and failures of interventions for disabled readers. Scientific Studies of Reading, 7(2), 155–182.

Hirsch, E.D. (2003). Reading comprehension requires knowledge—of words and the world: Scientific insights into the fourth-grade slump and the nation’s stagnant comprehension scores. American Educator, 27(1), 10–13.

Liberman, I.Y., & Shankweiler, D. (1986). Phonology and the problems of learning to read and write. Remedial and Special Education, 6, 8–17. Lyon, 1998. National Reading Panel, 2000.

Moats, L.C. (2004). Relevance of neuroscience to effective education for students with reading and other learning disabilities. Journal of Child Neurology, 19(10), 840–845. Shaywitz & Shaywitz, 2004.Snow, Burns, & Griffin, 1998.

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

Tallal, P. (2000). The science of literacy: From the laboratory to the classroom. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 97(6), 2402–2404.

Torgesen, J.K. (2002a). The prevention of reading difficulties. Journal of School Psychology, 40(1), 7–26.

Torgesen, J. K. (2002b). Lessons learned from intervention research in reading: A way to go before we rest. In R. Stainthorpe (Ed.), Literacy: Learning and teaching. London: British Psychological Association.

Scanlon, D.M., Vellutino, F.R., Small, S.G., Fenuele, D.P., & Sweeney, J.M. (2005). Severe reading difficulties—can they be prevented? A comparison of prevention and intervention approaches. Exceptionality, 13(4), 209–227.

Vellutino, F.R., Scanlon, D.M., & Spearing, D. (1995). “javascript:__doLinkPostBack(‘’,’target~~fullText||args~~9’,’’);” \o “Semantic and Phonological Coding in Poor and Normal Readers.” Semantic and phonological coding in poor and normal readers. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, v59(1), 76–123.

Vellutino, F. R, Scanlon, D. M., Sipay, E., Small, S., Pratt, A., Chen, R., & Denckla, M. (1996). Cognitive profiles of difficult-to-remediate and readily remediated poor readers: Early intervention as a vehicle for distinguishing between cognitive and experiential deficits as basic causes of specific reading disability. Journal of Educational Psychology, 88(4), 601–638.

Vellutino, F.R., & Scanlon, D. M. (1998). Research in the study of reading disability: What have we learned in the past four decades? Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, San Diego, CA.

Ehri, 1999.Harm, McCandliss, & Seidenberg, 2003.Moats, 1999.National Reading Panel, 2000.Snow, Burns, & Griffin, 1998.Torgesen & Mathes, 1998.

53.

54.



41

Archer, A.L., Gleason, M.M., & Vachon, V.L. (2003). Decoding and fluency: Foundation skills for struggling older readers. Learning Disability Quarterly, 26(2), 89–101.

Eden, G.F., Jones, K.M., Cappell, K., Gareau, L., Wood, F.B., Zeffiro, T.A., Dietz, N.A.E., Agnew, J.A., & Flowers, D.L. (2004). Neural changes following remediation in adult developmental dyslexia. Neuron, 44(3), 411–422.

Ehri, L.C. (1995). Phases of development in learning to read words by sight. Journal of Research in Reading, 18(2), 116–125. Ehri et al., 2001.

Lyon, G.R., Shaywitz, S.E., & Shaywitz, B.A. (2003). A definition of dyslexia. Annals of Dyslexia, 53(), 1–14.Moats, 2004.

Ramus, F. (2003). Developmental dyslexia: Specific phonological deficit or general sensorimotor dysfunction? Current Opinion in Neurobiology, 13(2), 212–218.Scanlon et al., 2005.Shaywitz & Shaywitz, 2004.Snow, Burns, & Griffin, 1998. Blachman et al, 2004.

Foorman, B. R., Breier, J.I., & Fletcher, J.M. (2003). Interventions aimed at improving reading success: An evidence-based approach. Developmental Neuropsychology, 24(2, 3), 613–639.

Hook, P.E., & Jones, S.D. (2002). The importance of automaticity and fluency for efficient reading comprehension. Perspectives, 28(1), 9–14.

LaBerge, D., & Samuels, S.J. (1974). Toward a theory of automatic information processing in reading. Cognitive Psychology, 6(2), 293–323.Lyon, 1998.Moats, 1998; 1999.National Reading Panel, 2000.Snow, Burns, & Griffin, 1998.Torgesen & Mathes, 1998.

Walczyk, J.J., & Griffith-Ross, D.A. (2007). How important is reading skill fluency for comprehension? The Reading Teacher, 60(6), 560–569.

Walczyk, J.J., Marsiglia, C.S., Johns, A.K., Bryan, K.S. (2004). Children’s compensations for poorly automated reading skills. Discourse Processes—A Multidisciplinary Journal, 37(1), 47–66. Ehri, 1999.Moats, 2004.National Reading Panel, 2000.Shaywitz & Shaywitz, 2004.Stanovich, 1986.

Torgesen, J. K. (1997). The prevention and remediation of reading disabilities: Evaluating what we know from research. Journal of Academic Language Therapy, 1(), 11–47. Torgesen & Mathes, 1998.

Torgesen, J., Rashotte, C., Alexander, A., Alexander, J., & McPhee, K. (2003). Progress toward understanding the instructional conditions necessary for remediating reading difficulties in older children. In B. Foorman (Ed.), Preventing and Remediating Reading Difficulties: Bringing Science to scale (pp. 275–297). Timonium, MD: York Press, Inc.

55.

56.

57.

58.



42

LaBerge & Samuels, 1974.Stanovich, 1986.Walczyk & Griffith-Ross, 2007.

Boroditsky, L. (2001). Does language shape thought? Mandarin and English speakers’ conceptions of time. Cognitive Psychology, 43(), 1–22. Available online at “http://www-psych.stanford.edu/~lera/papers/mandarin.pdf”http://www-psych.stanford.edu/~lera/papers/mandarin.pdf.”

Bowerman, M., & Levinson, S.C. (Eds.) (2001). Language acquisition and conceptual development. New York: Cambridge University Press.Whorf, B. L. (1940): Science and linguistics, Technology Review 42(6): 229–31, 247-8.

Chall, J. S. (1983). Stages of reading development. New York: McGraw-Hill.

Chall, J. S., & Jacobs, V. A. (2003). The classic study of poor children’s fourth-grade slump. American Educator, 27(1), 14–15.

Lehr, F., Osborn, J., & Hiebert, E. (2004). A focus on vocabulary. Honolulu, HI: Pacific Resources for Education and Learning.

Chen, R.S., and Vellutino, F.S. (1997). Prediction of reading ability: A cross-validation study of the simple view of reading. Journal of Literacy Research, 29(1), 1–24. Foorman & Torgesen, 2001.

Hart, B., & Risley, T.R. (2003). The early catastrophe. Education Review, 17(1), 110–118. Hirsch, 2003.Lehr, Osborn, & Hiebert, 2004.Lyon, 1998.Moats, 1999.Nation & Snowling, 2004.National Reading Panel, 2000.Snow, Burns, & Griffin, 1998.

Stahl, S.A. (2003). How words are learned incrementally over multiple exposures. American Educator, 27(1), 18–19, 44.

Hirsch, 2003.Fuchs, L.S., Fuchs, D., Hosp, M.K., & Jenkins, J.R. (2001). Oral reading fluency as an indicator of reading competence: A theoretical, empirical, and historical analysis. Scientific Studies of Reading, 5(3), 239–256.Pikulski & Chard, 2005. Brady & Moats, 1997.LaBerge & Samuels, 1974.Liberman, 1999.Moats, 1999.Pikulski & Chard, 2005.Snow, Burns, & Griffin, 1998.

Torgesen, J., Stancavage, F., Myers, D., Schirm, A., Stuart, E., Vartivarian, S., Mansfield, W., Durno, D., Javorsky, R., & Haan, C. (2006). Closing the reading gap: First year findings from a randomized trial of four reading interventions for striving readers. Washington, DC: Corporation for the Advancement of Policy Evaluation.Walczyk, Marsiglia, Johns, & Bryan, 2004.

Beers, K. (2003). When kids can’t read: What teachers can do. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.Block, Gambrell, & Pressley. (2002). Improving Comprehension Instruction: Rethinking Research, Theory, and Classroom Practice. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

59.

60.

61.

62.

63.

64.

65.



43

Dean, C.B., Hubbell, E.R., Pitler, H., & Stone, B. (2012). Classroom instruction that works: Research-based strategies for increasing student achievement. (2nd Ed.) Alexandria, VA: ASCD.

DeKoning, B.B., & van der Schoot, M. (2013). Becoming part of the story! Refueling the interest in visualization strategies for reading comprehension. Educational Psychology Review, 25(2), 261–287.

Garner, B.K. (2007). Getting to got it! Helping struggling students learn how to learn. Alexandria, VA: ASCD.

Harvey, S., & Goudvis, A. (2007). Strategies that work: Teaching comprehension for understanding and engagement. Portland, ME: Stenhouse.

Keene, E.O., & Zimmerman, S. (2007). Mosaic of thought: The power of comprehension strategy instruction. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.

Marzano, R.J. (2004). Building background knowledge for academic achievement. Alexandria, VA: ASCD.

Tovani, C. (2000). I read it, but I don’t get it. Portland, ME: Stenhouse.

Tovani, C. (2004). Do I really have to teach reading? Portland, ME: Stenhouse.

Brady & Moats, 1997.Moats, 1999.Snow, Burns, & Griffin, 1998.

66.



44


A Nationally Proven Teaching, Learning, & Leading Framework

800.841.8730 I catapultlearning.com

CL14198

Literacy First Whitepaper

Documents

Transcript of Literacy First Whitepaper