Literacy First Whitepaper

How to Build a Culture of Literacy
that Accelerates Student Achievement
By Dr. Marcella L. Bullmaster-Day, Ed.D
Building a Culture of Literacy
Contributing Editors
Lisa Harper
Andrew Ordover
Diane Rymer
Lee Anne Housley
Rachel King
2014 Catapult Learning. All rights reserved.

that Accelerates Student Achievement
Table of Contents
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
Modern societies reward

individuals not for what they
know, but for what they can
do with what they know.
(OECD, 2013, p.2)
Introduction
Literacy is a students 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 textall 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.
Why We Need to Focus on

Literacy Instruction Now
Never before in human history has literacythe ability to read, think, write, and speak in the various
linguistic registers of the academic disciplinesbeen 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 nonroutine work, as many formerly lucrative occupations have been automated or outsourced.
Culture for Literacy Learning

Language Rich Environment
Promotion of Thinking Skills
Developing Effective
Instruction
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. Therefore, preparing our
1
students to thrive requires helping them attain

high-level skill in accessing and analyzing
information, along with the critical qualities of
leadership, initiative, entrepreneurialism,
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
curiosity, and imagination.
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
Reading Fluently
knowledge and skills to new situations[including]

reasoning, justification, synthesis, analysis, and
In order to initiate and sustain complex instructional change,

a school or district must develop a culture of literacy that
problem solving (Common Core State Standards

Initiative, and, p.2). States that have chosen not to
3
requires collaboration on all aspects of instruction and learning,

while following an efficient system for accountability.
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.
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. Reading scores
5
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 authors
purpose; make simple inferences; interpret word meanings; or state and support judgments. And
6
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
Race/Ethnicity Gender
100
Percent at or above Proficient
90
80
70
60
51
50
49
46
44
40
37
35
31
30
20
17
12
18
38
32
25
25
18
32
20
10
0
92 11 13
92 11 13

White

Black

92 11 13
Hispanic
92 11 13
Asian/Pacific
Islander
92 11 13
Male
92 11 13
Female
Table 1: 4th Grade Reading

Source: http://nationsreportcard.gov/reading_math_2013/#/student-groups
Percentage of Students at or Above Proficient

in Eighth-Grade NAEP Reading,1992, 2011, 2013
Race/Ethnicity
100
Gender
Percent at or above Proficient
90
80
70
60
52
50
43
40
47
46
38
37
35
31
42
35
29
30
17
20
15
9
10
19
23
22
13
0
92 11 13
92 11 13

White
Black

92 11 13
Hispanic
92 11 13
Asian/Pacific
Islander
92 11 13
Male
92 11 13
Female
Table 2: 8th Grade Reading

Source: http://nationsreportcard.gov/reading_math_2013/#/student-groups
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. These are proportions that, while they have improved over the past decade,
7
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.
Literacy First: Creating A Culture

For Literacy Learning
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. McRELs 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 goals
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 teachers 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 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.
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. Teachers with high
12
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. In fact, regular
14
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. These teachers
16
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
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, accountability, 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 controls , and quality coaching is a
20
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. Coaching in
21
schools takes a variety of forms, including instructional coaching; cognitive coaching; peer coaching;
and transformative coaching. Program implementation: Building a school and district culture to
22
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. Successful program implementation is specific in terms of
23
materials, information, professional development, guidance, instructions, monitoring, evaluation,

and feedback. Program developers and school staff learn to work together in a dynamic
24
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
Creating a Culture for Literacy Learning:

How Literacy First Enacts the Research
Building 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 Firsts 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 teachers manual,
resources books, and supplemental
curricular materials, since both people
and materials are necessary to facilitate
the successful implementation of the
Literacy First Framework.
10
Leadership Support: Critical to the Literacy First Frameworks 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.
11
Building a Language Rich Environment:

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. The quality,
29
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
12
Building a Language Rich Environment:

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.
13
Promoting Thinking Skills:

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. To meet these
31
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 selfregulated 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
14
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
15
Promoting Thinking Skills:

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.
16
Designing Effective Instruction:

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. Based on this desired evidence, appropriate learning activities must be
41
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. Effective priming strategies include
42
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
17
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 transferthe 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
18
Designing Effective Instruction:

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)
Instructional Model for Systematic, Explicit Instruction

1.) Student
UNDERSTANDS
the Lesson
Objective
Academic
Learning
Time (ALT)
Anatomy of a
Lesson
(AOL)
Assess,
Activate, &
Augment Relevant
Knowledge (ARK)
20%
2.) Student
ACTIVELY
MANIPULATES
the Lesson
Content
Teacher
Input (TIP)
20%
3.) Student
Experiences
75-95%
Success Rate
Student Active
Participation
(SAP)
Identify Student
Success
(ISS)
15%
Teacher MONITORS AND ADJUSTS the lesson to ensure ALL students succeed
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
The Literacy First instructional design is based upon Fisher and Freys 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:
19
Modeled: I do (ME)
Guided: We do (WE)
Partner: Two Do (TWO)
Independent: You Do (YOU)
Bell Work
Anatomy of a Lesson
Activate, Assess and

Augment Relevant
Knowledge
(20%)
Anticipatory
Lesson Objective
Teacher Input (20%)
Vocabulary
Explicit Instruction &
Teacher Modeling
ME
Guided Practice
WE
Student Activate
Participation
(45%)
TWO
Collaborative
YOU
Independent
Identify Student Success/

Evidence of Learning
Assesment/Closure
(15%)
Literacy First addresses priming through the Anatomy of a Lesson
One distinction between other
component: Assessing, Activating, and Augmenting Relevant
gradual release models and the
Knowledge. In conjunction with the lesson objective, teachers are
Literacy First instructional design
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.
is the incorporation of partner

collaboration (Two Do). By
inserting partner collaboration
into the structure of each lesson,
students are not only experiencing
To address transfer, Literacy First teaches strategies that identify
an effective means to building
student success and cause all students to be metacognitive about
knowledge, but also gaining
their learning. This includes proving their answer, explaining the
practice in communicating
process used to find an answer, applying the new learning to a

different context, and providing evidence of learning.
and collaborating.
20
Developing Proficient Readers:

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. Effective reading instruction trains the brain to build
47
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. Reading ability rests on
48
the integration of a complex set of skills, including abilities to:

Hear, replicate, and manipulate phonemesthe 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. Learning to speak does not require
50
conscious awareness of the individual sound segments in words, but learning to read relies on
phonemic awarenessthe ability to notice, reproduce, and manipulate these individual sounds
so that they can then be represented by letters.
21
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 dont 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 codingthe ability to link individual phonemes with their alphabetic spellingsnot
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 childs vocabulary in
the early school years, the more likely the child is to have developed more refined within-word discrimination
abilitythe 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
22
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. The end goal of this systematic, explicit phonics instruction
54
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 readers 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. Students who havent achieved
56
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. For most inefficient readers, these
57
strategies divert attention and effort to the wordrecognition process and away from building
vocabulary and comprehension.
23
In the upper elementary grades, vocabulary,

language, and concepts become increasingly
complex and texts become less predictable. Nonfluent 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 abouta 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 comprehensionthe 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
24
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. When students have frequent, regular opportunities to write
65
about what they read, the teacher can gain insight into their comprehension levels.
66
Developing Proficient Readers:

Literacy First addresses the National Reading Panels five reading pillarsphonemic awareness, alphabetic
principle (phonics and word study), fluency, vocabulary, and comprehensionthrough 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 students 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.
25
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.
26
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 states 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 Scores
1200
Oklahoma State Average
1150
Literacy First
1100
1050
57
points
1000
119
points
1056
1145
1026
999
950
900
27
2009
2010
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.
Teacher Knowledge: Structural Analysis

of Concept Maps Before and After Literacy First
10
15
20
25
12.99
Total Number of Concepts
20.29
2.33
Breadth of Knowledge
2.44
8.44
Depth of Knowledge
11.79
2.50
Hierarchiacal Structure
Score
Degree Concepts
Interconnected
Extent Concepts
Interconnected
4.51
1.81
Before Literacy First

2.60
After Literacy First
.01
.10
28
Literacy First Leads to Increased

Student Engagement in the Bronx
In 2012-2013, New Venture Learning Academy in New York City called on Catapult Learnings
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 whats going on in the classroom. When theyre not, they are going
to leave, act out, whatever, and thats not happening the way it has in the past.
Suspensions Drop Across All Student
Dramatic Decrease in Special Ed Student
Groups. In 2011-2012, there were a total
Suspension Rate. Suspensions reported for
of 86 student suspensions at New Venture
Special Education students dropped from
Academy. After one year of Literacy First,
42 in 2011 to 14 in 2013, a 67% decrease
overall school suspensions decreased from
compared to the 23% decrease experienced
86 to 48, a 44% decrease.
by the general student base.
All Students Suspensions New Venture Academy

PS 219 BronxNY
Number of Suspensions Reported
90
60
50
44%
Drop in
Suspension
50
48
40
44
General
30
34
Sp
eci
20
20
Ed
42
30
40
al E
67%
Drop in
Suspension
14
10
0
29
60
86
80
70
New Venture Academy Suspension Report

2011-2013, by IEP
10
2011-2012
2012-13
2011-2012
2012-13
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 shrinkespecially 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
Percentage Of Students Performing At Or Above Standard
above standard increasing by 40 points.
11th Grade Kansas Reading Assessment

Performance by Student Groups
90%
80%
2008-2009
70%
73%
65%
60%
54%
50%
52%
65%
61%
53%
40%
30%
20%
10%
14%
0.0
English
Language
Learners
2011-2012
Hispanic
Students
Economically
Disadvantaged
All Students
30
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 goalsalmost 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.
After one year of implementation,
100% Elementary students scored at or
High School student performance
above standard by the 7th year of service.
increased by 62%. When Arkansas City High
When C-4 Elementary School began Literacy
School began Literacy First, only 55% of students
First, 70% of their learners were meeting the state
were scoring at Meets Standard or above on the
standards in reading; however, 10% of learners were
KRA. After the first year, that number increased
in academic warning. With Literacy First, C-4 ES
to 89%. In the seven years since ACHS adopted
accomplished their goal in 2011 when 100% of their
Literacy First, more than 80% of students have
learners met the state standards in reading.
100%
90%
80%
70%
60%
62%
Increase
over
the first
year
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%
0203 0304 0405 0506 0607 0708 0809 0910 1011
Literacy First
31

Results: C-4 Elementary School

Results: Arkansas City High School
% of students scoring at meets

standard through exemplary
% of students scoring at meets standard

through exemplary
continued to Meet or Exceed the state standards.
100%
100% of students by 2010
90%
80%
70%
60%
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%
0304 0405 0506 0607 0708 0809 0910 1011 1112
Literacy First
Endnotes:
1. 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.
2. Wagner, T. (2008). The global achievement gap: Why even our best schools dont teach the new
survival skills our children needand what we can do about it. New York, NY: Basic Books.
3. 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/Rhttp://www.corestandards.org/ELA-Literacy/CCRA/R)
4. Peery, A.B. (2013). Reading for the future: How the Common Core will change
instruction. New England Reading Association Journal, 48(2), 19.
5. Duncan, G.J., & Murnane, R.J. (Eds.)(2011). Whither opportunity? Rising inequality,
schools, and childrens 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), 693718.
6. See: http://nces.ed.gov/nationsreportcard/reading/achieve aspxhttp://
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
7. Education Week. (2013). Graduation in the United States. Diplomas Count, 32(34), 2327.
8. Murnane, R.J., & Hoffman, S.L. (2013). Graduations on the rise. Education Next, 13(4), 58 65.
9. Waters, T., & Cameron, G. (2007). The balanced leadership framework: Connecting vision
with action. Denver, CO: Mid-continent Research for Education and Learning.
10. Francois, C. (2013). Reading in the crawl space: A study of an urban schools literacyfocused community of practice. Teachers College Record, 115(5), 135.
11. Hargreaves, A., & Fullan, M. (2013). The power of professional capital. Journal of Staff Development, 34(3), 3639.
12. 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), 317328.
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), 270288.
13. Rubie-Davies, C. M. (2007). Classroom interactions: Exploring the practices of high and low
expectation teachers. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 77(2), 289306.
14. 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), 6074.
15. Leana, C.R. (2011). The missing link in school reform. Stanford Social Innovation Review, 9(4), 3035.
32
16.
Allinder, R. (1994). The relationship between efficacy and the instructional practices of special
education teachers and consultants. Teacher Education and Special Education, 17(2), 8695.
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), 6369.
Vittorio Caprara, G., Barbaranelli, C., Steca, P., & Malone, P.S. (2006). Teachers selfefficacy beliefs as determinants of job satisfaction and students academic achievement:
A study at the school level. Journal of School Psychology, 44(6), 473490.
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. 627653). New York: Routledge.
17.
Dweck, C. (2006). Mindset: The new psychology of success. New York: Random House.
18.
Elmore, R. (2003). Knowing the right thing to do: School improvement and performancebased accountability. Washington, DC: NGA Center for Best Practices.
Fullan, M. (2010). The awesome power of the principal. Principal, 89(4), 1015.
Sharratt, L., & Fullan, M. (2013). Capture the human side of learning. Journal of Staff Development, 34(1), 4448.
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.
19.
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), 409419.
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), 123127.
Fullan, 2010.
Hallinger, P., & Heck, R. (1998). Exploring the principals contribution to school effectiveness:
19801995. School Effectiveness and School Improvement, 9(2), 157191.
Hargreaves, A. (2007). Sustainable leadership and development in education: Creating the
future, conserving the past. European Journal of Education, 42(2), 223233.
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. 2247, 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.
33
Leithwood, K., Patten, S., & Jantzi, D. (2010). Testing a conception of how school leadership
influences student learning. Educational Administration Quarterly, 46(5), 671706.
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), 8485.
Sharratt & Fullan, 2013.
Waters, Marzano, & McNulty,2003.
20.
Darling-Hammond, L. (1993). Reframing the school reform agenda. Phi Delta Kappan, 74(10), 752761.
21.
Fullan, M., & Knight, J. (2011). Coaches as system leaders. Educational Leadership, 69(2), 5053.
Mourshed, M., Chinezi, C., & Barber, M. (2010). How the worlds most improved
systems keep getting better. London: McKinsey and Company.
22.
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 schoolbased 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.
23.
Hall, G.E. (2013). Evaluating change processes: Assessing extent of implementation (constructs,
method, and implications). Journal of Educational Administration, 51(3), 264289.
Supovitz, A., & Weinbaum, E.H. (Eds.). (2008). The implementation gap: Understanding
reform in high schools. New York: Teachers College Press, 2008.
24.
Desimone, L. (2002). How can comprehensive school reform models be successfully

implemented? Review of Educational Research, 72(3), 433479.
25.
Weinbaum, E. H., & Supovitz, J. A. (2010). Planning ahead: Make program

implementation more predictable. Phi Delta Kappan, 91(7), 6871.
26.
Hargreaves, A. & Fink, D. (2004). Seven principles of sustainable leadership. Educational Leadership, 61(7), 813.
Levin, B., & Fullan, M. (2008). Learning about system renewal. Educational
Management, Administration, & Leadership, 36(2), 289303.
Loukas, A., Suzuki, R., & Horton, K.D. (2006). Examining school connectedness as a mediator
34
of school climate effects. Journal of Research on Adolescence, 16(3), 491502.

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), 7989.
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), 403422.
27.
Anstrom, K., DiCerbo, P., Butler, F., Katz, A., Millet, J., & Rivera, C. (2010). A review of the literature on academic
language: Implications for K12 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.pdfhttp://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), 91108.
28.
Dickinson, D. K. & Porche, M. V. (2011). Relationship between language experiences in preschool classrooms and
childrens kindergarten and fourth-grade language and reading abilities. Child Development, 82(3), 870886.
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), 124.
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. 281292). New York, NY: Guilford.
29.
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, 399484.
Lyon, 1998.
Moats, 1999.
Snow, Burns, & Griffin, 1998.
Walczyk & Griffith-Ross, 2007.
30.
Klibanoff, R., Levine, S.C., & Huttenlocher, J., Vasilyeva, M. & Hedges, L. (2006). Preschool childrens
mathematical knowledge: The effect of teacher math talk. Developmental Psychology, 42(1), 5969.
Lesaux, N.K, & Gmez, P.B. (2012). Examining classroom talk in the San Diego Unified
School District. Washington, DC: Council of the Great City Schools.
35
31.
Common Core State Standards Initiative. (nd). Standards setting criteria. Retrieved November 19, 2013,
from http://www.corestandards.org/assets/Criteria.pdfhttp://www.corestandards.org/assets/Criteria.pdf.
32.
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/.
33.
Zimmerman, B. (2002). Becoming a self-regulated learner: An overview. Theory into Practice, 41(2), 6470.
34.
Butler, D.L. (2002). Individualizing instruction in self-regulated learning. Theory into Practice, 41(2), 8192.
Newman, R.S. (2002). How self-regulated learners cope with academic difficulty: The role of adaptive
help seeking. Theory into Practice, 41(2), 132138. 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), 269286.
35.
Corno, L. (2004). Work habits and work styles: Volition in education. Teachers College Record, 106(9), 16691694.
Eshel & Kohavi, 2003.
Perry, N., & Drummond, L. (2002). Helping young students become self-regulated
researchers and writers. The Reading Teacher, 56(3), 298310.
36.
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), 92106.
Kiewra, K.A. (2002). How classroom teachers can help students learn and
teach them how to learn. Theory into Practice, 41(2), 7180.
Pape, S.J, & Smith, C. (2002). Self regulating mathematics skills. Theory into Practice, 41(2), 94101.
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), 317338.
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. 651685). New York: Academic Press.
37.
Willingham, D.T. (2007). Critical thinking: Why is it so hard to teach? American Educator, 31(2), 819.
38.
Beyer, B.K. (2008). What research tells us about teaching thinking skills. Social Studies, 99(5), 223232.
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. 266270. 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), 11021134.
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), 737.
39.
Topping, K.J. (2005). Trends in peer learning. Educational Psychology, 25(6), 631645.
Willis, J. (2007). Cooperative learning is a brain turn-on. Middle School Journal, 38(4), 413.
40.
Gregory, G., & Chapman, C. (2002). Differentiated instructional strategies:

One size doesnt 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), 2631. Medina, 2008.
Nordlund, M. (2003). Differentiated instruction: Meeting the educational needs of
all students in your classroom. Lanham, MD: Scarecrow Education.
36
Rock, M. L., Gregg, M., Ellis, E., & Gable, R. A. (2008). REACH: A framework for
differentiating classroom instruction. Preventing School Failure, 52(2), 3147.
Tomlinson, C.A., & Kalbfleisch, M.L. (1998). Teach me, teach my brain: A call for
differentiated classrooms. Educational Leadership, 56(3), 5255.
41.
Wiggins, G., & McTighe, J. (2005). Understanding by design. New York: Prentice Hall.
42.
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.
43.
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), 420436.
Peterson, C.L., Caverly, D.C., Nicholson, S.A., ONeal, 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), 35.
44.
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. 205242). 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), 317344.
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. 815860).
New York: Longman.
Berliner & Fisher, 1985
45.
Black, P., & Wiliam, D. (1998). Inside the black box: Raising standards through
classroom assessment. Phi Delta Kappan, 80(2), 139144.
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), 921.Bransford, Brown, & Cocking, 2000.
Eshel, Y., & Kohavi, R. (2003). Perceived classroom control, self-regulated learning strategies,
and academic achievement. Educational Psychology, 23(3), 249260.
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), 18541878.
Marzano, R.J. (2007). The art and science of teaching: A comprehensive framework for effective
instruction. Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.
37
Rosenshine, B.V. (2002). Converging findings on classroom instruction. In A. Molnar (Ed.),

School Reform Proposals: The Research Evidence. Information Age Publishing.
46.
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), 406412.
Smith, S.M., Glenberg, A., & Bjork, R.A. (1978). Environmental context and
human memory. Memory & Cognition, 6(4), 342353.
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 dont students like school? San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
47.
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), 95111.
Lyon, G.R., & Chhabra, V. (2004). The science of reading research. Educational Leadership, 61(6), 1217.
Shaywitz, S.E., & Shaywitz, B.A. (2004). Reading disability and the brain. Educational Leadership, 61(6), 611.
48.
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. 340). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
Pikulski, J.J., & Chard, D.J. (2005). Fluency: Bridge between decoding and
reading comprehension. The Reading Teacher, 58(6), 510519.
49.
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.
50.
Liberman, 1999.
51.
Bashir, A.S., & Scavuzzo, A. (1992). Children with language disorders: Natural history
and academic success. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 25(1), 5365.
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), 1418.
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), 523527.
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), 342356.
Moats, L.C. (1998). Teaching decoding. American Educator, Spring/Summer, 19.
38
Moats, L.C. (2004). Relevance of neuroscience to effective education for students with reading
and other learning disabilities. Journal of Child Neurology, 19(10), 840845.
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), 367397.
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), 223238.
Wolf, M., Bowers, P.G., Biddle, K. (2000). Naming-speed processes, timing, and reading:
A conceptual review. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 33(4), 387407.
Winskel, H. (2006). The effects of an early history of otitis media on childrens language and
literacy skill development. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 76, 727744.
52.
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
Panels meta-analysis.Phonemic awareness instruction helps children learn to read: Evidence from the
National Reading Panels 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), 203212.
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. 111125). New York: Guilford.
National Reading Panel, 2000.
Metsala, J.L. (1999a). The development of phonemic awareness in readingdisabled children. Applied Psycholinguistics, 20(1), 149158.
Metsala, J.L. (1999b). Young childrens phonological awareness and nonword repetition
as a function of vocabulary. Journal of Educational Psychology, 91(1), 319.
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. 89120). 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.
39
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), 520.
Blachman, 2000.
53.
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), 444461.
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), 155182.
Hirsch, E.D. (2003). Reading comprehension requires knowledgeof words and the world: Scientific insights into
the fourth-grade slump and the nations stagnant comprehension scores. American Educator, 27(1), 1013.
Liberman, I.Y., & Shankweiler, D. (1986). Phonology and the problems of learning to read and write.
Remedial and Special Education, 6, 817. 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), 840845. Shaywitz & Shaywitz, 2004.
Stanovich, K.E. (1986). Matthew effects in reading: Some consequences of individual
differences in the acquisition of literacy. Reading Research Quarterly, 21, 360407.
Tallal, P. (2000). The science of literacy: From the laboratory to the classroom.
Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 97(6), 24022404.
Torgesen, J.K. (2002a). The prevention of reading difficulties. Journal of School Psychology, 40(1), 726.
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 difficultiescan
they be prevented? A comparison of prevention and intervention approaches. Exceptionality, 13(4), 209227.
Vellutino, F.R., Scanlon, D.M., & Spearing, D. (1995). javascript:__doLinkPostBack(,target~~fullText||ar
gs~~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), 76123.
Vellutino, F. R, Scanlon, D. M., Sipay, E., Small, S., Pratt, A., Chen, R., & Denckla, M.(1996). Cognitive profiles of difficultto-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), 601638.
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.
54.
Ehri, 1999.
Harm, McCandliss, & Seidenberg, 2003.
Moats, 1999.
Torgesen & Mathes, 1998.
40
55.
Archer, A.L., Gleason, M.M., & Vachon, V.L. (2003). Decoding and fluency: Foundation
skills for struggling older readers. Learning Disability Quarterly, 26(2), 89101.
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), 411422.
Ehri, L.C. (1995). Phases of development in learning to read words by sight.
Journal of Research in Reading, 18(2), 116125. Ehri et al., 2001.
Lyon, G.R., Shaywitz, S.E., & Shaywitz, B.A. (2003). A definition of dyslexia. Annals of Dyslexia, 53(), 114.
Moats, 2004.
Ramus, F. (2003). Developmental dyslexia: Specific phonological deficit or general
sensorimotor dysfunction? Current Opinion in Neurobiology, 13(2), 212218.
Scanlon et al., 2005.
Shaywitz & Shaywitz, 2004.
56.
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), 613639.
Hook, P.E., & Jones, S.D. (2002). The importance of automaticity and fluency
for efficient reading comprehension. Perspectives, 28(1), 914.
LaBerge, D., & Samuels, S.J. (1974). Toward a theory of automatic information
processing in reading. Cognitive Psychology, 6(2), 293323.
Lyon, 1998.
Moats, 1998; 1999.
Torgesen & Mathes, 1998.
57.
Walczyk, J.J., & Griffith-Ross, D.A. (2007). How important is reading skill fluency
for comprehension? The Reading Teacher, 60(6), 560569.
Walczyk, J.J., Marsiglia, C.S., Johns, A.K., Bryan, K.S. (2004). Childrens compensations for poorly
automated reading skills. Discourse ProcessesA Multidisciplinary Journal, 37(1), 4766.
58.
Ehri, 1999.
Moats, 2004.
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(), 1147. 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. 275297). Timonium, MD: York Press, Inc.
41
59.
LaBerge & Samuels, 1974.

Stanovich, 1986.
Walczyk & Griffith-Ross, 2007.
60.
Boroditsky, L. (2001). Does language shape thought? Mandarin and English speakers conceptions
of time. Cognitive Psychology, 43(), 122. Available online at http://www-psych.stanford.edu/~lera/
papers/mandarin.pdfhttp://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): 22931, 247-8.
61.
Chall, J. S. (1983). Stages of reading development. New York: McGraw-Hill.

Chall, J. S., & Jacobs, V. A. (2003). The classic study of poor childrens fourthgrade slump. American Educator, 27(1), 1415.
Lehr, F., Osborn, J., & Hiebert, E. (2004). A focus on vocabulary. Honolulu,
HI: Pacific Resources for Education and Learning.
62.
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), 124. Foorman & Torgesen, 2001.
Hart, B., & Risley, T.R. (2003). The early catastrophe. Education Review, 17(1), 110118. Hirsch, 2003.
Lehr, Osborn, & Hiebert, 2004.
Lyon, 1998.
Moats, 1999.
Nation & Snowling, 2004.
Stahl, S.A. (2003). How words are learned incrementally over multiple exposures. American Educator, 27(1), 1819, 44.
63.
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), 239256.
Pikulski & Chard, 2005.
64.

LaBerge & Samuels, 1974.
Liberman, 1999.
Moats, 1999.
Pikulski & Chard, 2005.
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.
65.
Beers, K. (2003). When kids cant 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.
42
Dean, C.B., Hubbell, E.R., Pitler, H., & Stone, B. (2012). Classroom instruction that works: Researchbased 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), 261287.
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 dont get it. Portland, ME: Stenhouse.
Tovani, C. (2004). Do I really have to teach reading? Portland, ME: Stenhouse.
66.
43

Moats, 1999.
44
A Nationally Proven Teaching, Learning, & Leading Framework
800.841.8730 I catapultlearning.com
CL14198

Literacy First Whitepaper

Transféré par

Informations du document

Titre original

Copyright

Formats disponibles

Partager ce document

Partager ou intégrer le document

Options de partage

Avez-vous trouvé ce document utile ?

Ce contenu est-il inapproprié ?

Droits d'auteur :

Formats disponibles

Literacy First Whitepaper

Transféré par

Droits d'auteur :

Formats disponibles

How to Build a Culture of Literacy

that Accelerates Student Achievement

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

Building a Culture of Literacy

2014 Catapult Learning. All rights reserved.

How to Build a Culture of Literacy

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

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

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

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

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

2014 Catapult Learning. All rights reserved.

How to Build a Culture of Literacy

Modern societies reward

2014 Catapult Learning. All rights reserved.

How to Build a Culture of Literacy

Why We Need to Focus on

Culture for Literacy Learning

A Global Economy that Requires More

students to thrive requires helping them attain

curiosity, and imagination.

The Impact of High Literacy Stakes for U.S.

knowledge and skills to new situations[including]

In order to initiate and sustain complex instructional change,

problem solving (Common Core State Standards

requires collaboration on all aspects of instruction and learning,

2014 Catapult Learning. All rights reserved.

Percentage of Students at or above Proficient

Percent at or above Proficient

Table 1: 4th Grade Reading

2014 Catapult Learning. All rights reserved.

How to Build a Culture of Literacy

Percentage of Students at or Above Proficient

Percent at or above Proficient

Table 2: 8th Grade Reading

2014 Catapult Learning. All rights reserved.

How to Build a Culture of Literacy

Literacy First: Creating A Culture

Non-negotiable achievement goals

Non-negotiable instructional model

Monitoring of achievement and instructional goals

Use of resources to support achievement and instructional goals

2014 Catapult Learning. All rights reserved.

How to Build a Culture of Literacy

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

2014 Catapult Learning. All rights reserved.

How to Build a Culture of Literacy

Creating a Culture for Literacy Learning:

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

professional collaboration among teachers does more to boost

Self-efficacious teachers are enthusiastic about teaching. They

2014 Catapult Learning. All rights reserved.

How to Build a Culture of Literacy

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

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

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

2014 Catapult Learning. All rights reserved.

How to Build a Culture of Literacy

Creating a Culture for Literacy Learning:

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

2014 Catapult Learning. All rights reserved.

How to Build a Culture of Literacy

2014 Catapult Learning. All rights reserved.