Académique Documents
Professionnel Documents
Culture Documents
ADVANCED LITERACY
PRACTICES: FROM
THE CLINIC TO THE
CLASSROOM
EDITED BY
EVAN ORTLIEB
Monash University, Victoria, Australia
EARL H. CHEEK, JR
Louisiana State University, Baton Rouge, LA, USA
No part of this book may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system, transmitted in any
form or by any means electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording or otherwise
without either the prior written permission of the publisher or a licence permitting
restricted copying issued in the UK by The Copyright Licensing Agency and in the USA
by The Copyright Clearance Center. Any opinions expressed in the chapters are those
of the authors. Whilst Emerald makes every effort to ensure the quality and accuracy of
its content, Emerald makes no representation implied or otherwise, as to the chapters’
suitability and application and disclaims any warranties, express or implied, to their use.
ISBN: 978-1-78190-503-6
ISSN: 2048-0458 (Series)
CONTENTS
LIST OF CONTRIBUTORS ix
INTRODUCTION xiii
VOCABULARY/COMPREHENSION-BASED MODELS
OF READING CLINICS
Evan Ortlieb, Wolfram Verlaan and Earl H. Cheek, Jr. 117
v
vi CONTENTS
ix
x LIST OF CONTRIBUTORS
As the second volume in the book series, Literacy Research, Practice and
Evaluation, this text was envisioned to disseminate salient information
about literacy clinics. From historical perspectives to cutting-edge practices,
this compilation fills a void in existing literature as it relates to best clinical
practices. Advancing the mission of literacy clinics requires their relevancy
to be widely recognized by literacy professionals; this volume serves to
springboard clinical practices back into the limelight.
Volume II – Advanced Literacy Practices: From the Clinic to the Classroom
has been scripted to inform literacy professionals about the multitude of
benefits and services provided by thoughtfully designed literacy clinics,
functioning to serve youth experiencing difficulties in reading and writing,
teacher education programs, universities, and nearby communities. This
text includes four sections: (1) foundational elements of literacy clinics,
(2) reading and writing elements, (3) technological elements, and (4) com-
plementary elements, inclusive of attention devoted to subgroups of the
population. By addressing concerns from the conception of the literacy clinic
to the day-to-day ongoings of clinic operations, readers garner complete
perspectives on how to create and/or improve their clinic and in turn, provide
efficient, real-world teaching and learning experiences.
Particular focus is bestowed to various reading and writing components.
The varied foci of literacy clinics highlight that there are numerous ways to
promote literacy in clinical settings; all have the common goal of improving
literacy skills and abilities for transfer to school experiences and beyond.
Techniques that can be applied in multiple settings (clinic, classroom, or
home) and utilized independently are highlighted throughout the volume.
With current shifts toward common learning standards and new literacies,
it is timely to focus on the many literacy proficiencies of students (print,
digital, interdisciplinary) as they serve as the backbone to efficiently learn,
communicate, apply, and create knowledge. Various assessment practices
are also mentioned to provide readers with information on how to improve
upon current abilities and levels of literacy proficiency, track progress over
time, and provide evaluation feedback to families.
Diverse student populations require that teachers establish rapport and
explore their students’ unique characteristics, including their interests,
xiii
xiv INTRODUCTION
B. P. Laster
ABSTRACT
A busload of middle schoolers and their parents tentatively stepped off of the bus at the
university. Most had never been out of their urban neighborhood; they were coming to
the university to attend the reading clinic, and they were excited, hesitant, and curious.
The adults who greeted them (mostly classroom teachers enrolled in a graduate degree
program to become reading specialists) had many goals for these students who struggled
with reading or writing. Yet, as it turned out, the teachers had as much to learn from
the children and their parents as the children and parents had to learn from the
teachers.
Since Dr. Grace Fernald at UCLA established the first continuing reading
clinic in 1921, reading clinics, whether based in universities, in schools, or on
virtual platforms, have always been sites of intensive assistance to struggling
readers. The reading clinic has evolved to become a site drawn from the
community or communities rather than being separate from them. It is a
place that is free from mandated assessments, adopted curricula, or a
specific set of materials. A reading clinic is a place for active, reflective
learning for all participants. In many instances, current engagement with
less-than-proficient readers is a secondary purpose of reading clinics, as a
focus on concentrated teacher development is the principal objective. In
clinic, teachers learn targeted approaches to assisting students (Freppon,
1999) that have an impact on countless students beyond the reading clinic. A
third goal of many reading clinics has been to provide bountiful laboratories
for literacy research.
This chapter will provide a brief historical picture of all three of these
strands. Of particular interest is the last purpose: the importance of reading
clinics as centers for research about teacher learning and about literacy
learners’ development. As I will present a historical perspective of research
A Historical View of Student Learning and Teacher Development 5
Early reading clinics were led by some of the pioneer researchers in the field
of literacy. At the University of Chicago were William S. Gray and Helen
M. Robinson; Iowa State University’s reading clinic was run by Samuel
Orton; and Johns Hopkins University had a clinic led by Mary Dougherty
(Laster, 2000). There was a proliferation of reading clinics during the 1960s
and 1970s. The Educational Development Laboratories, Inc. published a
directory of reading clinics in 1960; according to Kolson and Kaluger (1963)
that contained a list of 234 clinics that served more than just one public or
private school. Since reading clinics had multiple titles – Reading Institute,
6 B. P. LASTER
1900 2012
2000–Present
Reading Specialists as Literacy Coaches
2000–Present
Disentangling from the Mandates
2005–Present
Infusing 21st century literacies
Through the many versions of reading clinics across the decades, one
consistent purpose has been to provide a refuge and a source of help for
struggling readers. As we look at the history of reading clinics, we see an
evolution of the missions and visions of the reading clinic for these children
or adolescents. Furthermore, the missions/visions of clinics involve other
essential stakeholders: teachers, literacy specialists or coaches, and
caregivers/parents/extended family.
In the 1920s, the first university-based reading clinic opened at UCLA.
The focus was on remedial readers. The skeletal template of reading clinic
that Dr. Fernald set up there has persisted for more than 90 years. By
offering an exemplary practicum for aspiring reading teachers or reading
specialists while providing direct service to students, the reading clinic has
become a place where new techniques and research emerges. Furthermore, it
was, also, the site for the development of the Fernald Technique (Fernald,
1943), which is a whole word memory technique for word recognition.
Research within reading clinics continues to provide leadership in theory
and policy, assessment and instruction, and other components and contexts
of literacy instruction.
Early reading clinics were a step forward from a time when students who did
not progress were labeled as dumb or lazy. So, as reading clinics took on the
essence of medical clinics, they tried to solve the puzzle of readers who had
deficits and tried to ‘‘cure’’ them. A variety of theories of why some students
struggle with reading dominated the decades of 1920–1960 and the flavor of
those discussions permeated the walls of the reading clinics. Orton (1928, as
cited in McCormick & Braithwaite, 2008) popularized the idea that lack of
cerebral dominance is the cause of reading delay. Delacato (1959) built on the
notion that neurological problems are the basis for reading problems and had
children crawling, throwing balls, etc. In the 1940s, much attention was given
to the idea that visual problems are the primary cause of reading difficulties
(McCormick & Braithwaite, 2008). Except for a very small minority of
readers, research demonstrated, though, that visual correction or vision
therapy does not ameliorate their challenges. Emotional disturbance was
proposed as a cause of reading failure. Others later explained that emotional
distress is sometimes the result of reading problems rather than a cause
8 B. P. LASTER
(McCormick & Braithwaite, 2008). Since the 1950s, though, more and more
practitioners, theorists, and researchers have articulated that there are multiple
causes of children’s delay in becoming proficient readers. In fact, it is now
widely accepted that the causes of delayed reading may vary from child to
child. Furthermore, many practitioners note the progression of reading
proficiency in stages of development (Kucer, 2009).
the 1990s onward, the clinics were more in the main flow of research, theory,
and praxis in literacy. Big waves of change in the field of literacy, or in the
philosophy of education generally, moved through reading clinics. When
there was a swing in the main discussions of the field of literacy or
educational contexts in general, ripples circulated into reading clinics.
Several examples of this are given below.
Dr. Jack Cassidy, former director of several reading clinics (Cassidy &
Hanes, 1992), has for multiple years published annual list of trends in
literacy education (1999, December/2000, January). This yearly list is a
metaphor for how reading clinics are both affected by the political,
economic, and research forces in the larger society and how the reading
clinic – as a site of research and practice – influences the larger world of
literacy education.
For example, the texts used for literacy instruction are tangible reminders
of how reading clinics have both responded to and influenced the field of
literacy instruction. The artifacts found in reading clinic book or resource
rooms exemplified the current research and beliefs of literacy professionals.
Many clinic directors spent the 1980s and the early 1990s cleaning out
reading clinic closets filled with tachistoscopes, controlled readers, and
commercial skills-based kits – which assisted teachers looking at word level,
sentence level, and skill level processes of reading. In dramatic contrast,
Carr, who was clinic director at Central Missouri University, summarized
how authentic children’s literature was the mainstay of instruction at her
clinic (Carr, 2003). Freppon also pointed out that many clinics, such as the
University of Cincinnati’s Literacy Center, provide a literature-based
approach (Freppon, 1999).
Basal readers were – early on – focused on skill development and
controlled vocabulary; later they were anthologies of literature (Pearson,
2000). Some years, non-fiction has gotten more focus in literacy instruction,
other years digital texts are ‘‘what’s hot.’’ Not surprisingly, the book closets
or resource rooms of the reading clinics have changed along with the times.
Many now contain leveled readers, themed text sets of trade books, and
IPads, as reading clinic directors forage into the field to find a variety of
texts and approaches that reflect the latest best practices.
The conversations during the 1980s and 1990s about how best to teach
beginning reading in clinic and classroom offer another example. Dr. Jeanne
Chall, who directed the Harvard Reading Laboratory from 1966 until 1991,
supported the teaching of phonics in explicit and systematic ways for
beginning readers. Clymer’s (1963) article about the limitations of phonics
generalizations turned the focus of clinics toward the work of Goodman
10 B. P. LASTER
(1965). Goodman coined the term ‘‘miscues’’ to describe deviations from the
text; miscues clarify for the teacher how readers make sense of the text.
Many reading clinics began to use miscue analysis as a central method of
assessing students’ reading processes. On the other hand, Chall (1967)
continued to promote the explicit teaching of phonic generalizations and
this had an impact on some clinics. In most cases, the reading clinics –
crucibles of experience – were a moderating force as the controversy raged
about how best to teach beginning reading. Considering the clinic as a
laboratory to observe close examination of student progress, the reading
clinic gives teachers and researchers a chance to experiment with multiple
variables, each of which, or a combination of which, may create positive
learning impacts for students.
We now turn to four major themes, which have influenced reading clinics
during the last two decades and continue to dominate. These themes have
had important consequences for struggling readers in their classrooms and
communities, as well as in the clinics: (1) literacy assessment that informs
instruction, (2) the impact of mandates, (3) teacher reflection, and (4)
twenty-first century literacies.
FOCUS ON ASSESSMENTS
(which is used to document a tutor’s growth over time and to provide useful
feedback to a tutor) when they worked together at the reading clinic at the
University of North Texas.
Over several years, a group of reading clinic directors examined what
teachers learned in reading clinic that they transferred to their classrooms.
They collaborated to develop a national electronic survey in 2005 and an
interview protocol in 2006 to examine the issue of transfer of practice from
the reading clinic to literacy professionals’ roles in schools. The team of
researchers developed the survey questions focused on teacher practices
after they left reading clinic in the areas of assessment, instruction, coaching,
and leadership (Freppon et al., 2007). The request for respondents went out
to 500 practicing reading teachers/reading specialists/educators across 10
different sites. The subjects who completed the survey (n=150) spanned 10
sites (NY-2 sites, RI, MD, TX, NM, IL, UT, OK-2 sites). Because of the
nature of the survey, all participants were able to answer anonymously, and
even the e-mail solicitations for participants did not come from the directors
of their local program. One of the key findings of this research was that
teachers did transfer from clinic to classroom techniques for assessing
learners’ strengths and needs that were critical and purposeful; they used
assessments to inform their day-to-day instruction.
Since 2000 the reading clinic has become an oasis in a desert shielded away
from high stakes testing and mandated curricula legislated by politicians
(Cobb, Sargent, & Chitamba, 2012). For parents/guardians who bring their
children or adolescents to reading clinic, they find professionals who are
discussing the specific strengths and needs of their child.
For teachers, the reading clinic is a place where they can learn, practice,
and grow in their competencies as practitioners also away from the pressures
of mandated assessments, pay-for-performance, and high stakes observa-
tions by administrators. McCormick and Braithwaite (2008) state that one
of the purposes of clinical education is to help teachers be aware of
immoderate swings that have plagued literacy education and prompt
teachers to seek ‘‘research, rather than fads, as their guide’’ (p. 158). In
reading clinic, teachers choose assessments based on the profile of the
literacy learner (Carr, 2003; Deeney et al., 2011). They choose instruction
12 B. P. LASTER
REFLECTIVE PRACTITIONERS
y through careful analysis of data from both informal and formal assessments which
inform teaching strategies; from standardized assessments to use of retellings, think
alouds, running records or miscue analysis; and from multiple choice assessments to
elaborate, thoughtful, and research rubrics y through careful analysis of videotaping
and transcriptions, tutors can develop constructive means for instruction and measures
for further assessment where they can chart and examine shifts, changes, and progress.
Where the clinic was once an isolated tutoring situation, we now draw on many
resources at the university, within the community, and include the parents in the entire
instructional process (Hill, 2000, p. 1).
Going deeper into the topic of reflection, Laster, Hill, and Freppon
(1997) looked at the critical incidents (Tripp, 1993) that change the
14 B. P. LASTER
communication;
critical evaluation of information;
flexibility/adaptability to changes in the technological and social
environment;
A Historical View of Student Learning and Teacher Development 15
LOOKING AHEAD
REFERENCES
Allington, R. L. (2012). What really matters for struggling readers: Designing research based
programs. Boston, MA. Pearson Education.
Altwerger, B. (Ed.). (2005). Reading for profit: How the bottom line leaves kids behind.
Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.
Alvermann, D. E. (2008). Why bother theorizing adolescents’ online literacies for classroom
practice and research? Journal of Adolescent & Adult Literacy, 52(1), 8–19.
Alvermann, D. E., & Hagood, M. C. (2000). Critical media literacy: Research, theory, and
practice in ‘‘new times.’’ The Journal of Educational Research, 93(3), 193–205.
Alvermann, D. E., Huddleston, A., & Hagood, M. C. (2004). What could professional wrestling
and school literacy practices possibly have in common? Journal of Adolescent & Adult
Literacy, 47(1), 532–540.
Bader, L. A., & Wiesedanger, K. D. (1986, March). University-based reading clinics: Practices
and procedures. The Reading Teacher, 39, 698–703.
Bates, G. W. (1984). Profile of university-based reading clinics: Results of a U.S. survey. Journal
of Reading, 27, 524–529.
Bear, D. R., Invernizzi, M., Templeton, S., & Johnson, F. (1996, 2000, 2004, 2008). Words their
way: Word study for phonics, vocabulary and spelling instruction. Englewood, NJ:
Prentice Hall.
18 B. P. LASTER
Blachowicz, C., Fisher, P., McAvoy, E., Owens, E., Anderson, S., Ivy, S., & Harper, K. (1999).
Reading specialist reflect: The value of one-to-one experiences in clinical training. In
P. Mosenthal & D. Evensen (Eds.), Reconsidering the role of the reading clinic in a new
age of literacy (pp. 101–131). Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.
Bloom, B. S. (Ed.). (1956). Taxonomy of educational objectives: The classification of educational
goals. Cognitive domain. New York, NY: McKay.
Cambourne, B. (2009). Revisiting the concept of ‘‘natural learning.’’ In J. V. Hoffman &
Y. M. Goodman (Eds.), Changing literacies for changing times: An historical perspective
on the future of reading research, public policy, and classroom practices (pp. 125–145).
New York, NY: Routledge.
Carr, K. C. (2003). Today’s reading clinic: How relevant is the graduate reading practicum? The
Reading Teacher, 57, 256–268.
Cassidy, J. (1999, December/2000, January). What’s hot, what’s not in literacy. Reading Today,
1–28.
Cassidy, J., & Hanes, M. L. (1992). Rethinking the college-based reading clinic: Past traditions
and new alternatives. In N. D. Padak, T. B. Rasinki & J. Logan (Eds.), Yearbook of the
College Reading Association (pp. 51–56). Newark, DE: College Reading Associaton.
Chall, J. (1967). Learning to read: The great debate. New York, NY: McGraw-Hill.
Clymer, T. (1963). Some current reading research at the University of Minnesota. Journal of
Teacher Education, 14(3), 334–336.
Cobb, J., & Allen, J. (November, 2000). Social interactions of highly effective non-educator tutors
using the coaching model with teachers working with pre-service tutors.Scottsdale, AZ:
National Reading Conference.
Cobb, J., Sargent, S., & Patchen, D. (2012). Navigating mandates: Teachers face ‘‘troubled
seas’’. Language and Literacy, 14(3), 1–20.
Coburn, C. E., Pearson, P. D., & Woulfin, S. (2011). Reading policy in the era of accountability.
In M. L. Kamil, P. D. Pearson, E. B. Moje & P. P. Afflerbach (Eds.), Handbook of
reading research (Vol. IV, pp. 561–593). New York, NY: Routledge.
Cook, V. (2004). Accomodating brocolli in the cemetary: Or why can’t anybody spell?. New York,
NY: Touchstone Books.
Deeney, T. (2008). Coordinating supplemental reading instruction. Intervention in School and
Clinic, 43(4), 218–225.
Deeney, T., Dozier, C., Smit, J., Davis, S., Laster, B., Applegate, M., y Milby, T. (2011). Clinic
experiences that promote transfer to school contexts: What matters in clinical teacher
preparation 60th Yearbook of the Literacy Research Association Oak Creek, WI: Literacy
Research Association
Delacato, C. H. (1959). The treatment and prevention of reading problems: The neuro-
psychological approach. Springfield, IL: Thomas.
Dozier, C. (2006). Responsive literacy coaching: Tools for creating and sustaining purposeful
change. Portland, ME: Stenhouse.
Dubert, L. A., & Laster, B. (2011). Technology in practice: Educators trained in reading clinic/
literacy labs. Journal of Reading Education, 36(2), 23–29.
Dunston, P. J. (2007). Instructional practices, struggling readers, and a university-based reading
clinic. Journal of Adolescent and Adult Literacy, 50, 328–336. doi: 10.1598/JAAL.50.5.1
Fernald, G. M. (1943). Remedial techniques in basic school subjects. New York, NY: McGraw-
Hill.
Freire, P. (1985). The politics of education: Culture, power, and liberation. South Hadley, MA:
Bergin & Garvey.
A Historical View of Student Learning and Teacher Development 19
Freppon, P. (1999). From reading clinic to literacy center: A perspective on development and
issues in reading specialists’ education. In P. Mosenthal & D. Evensen (Eds.),
Reconsidering the role of the reading clinic in a new age of literacy (pp. 197–211).
Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.
Freppon, P., Laster, B., Deeney, T., Dozier, C., Cobb, J., Sargent, S., y Patchen, C. (2007).
From clinic to mandates: The praxis of teaching reading after reading clinic/literacy lab.
Austin, TX: National Reading Conference.
Garrett, S. D., Pearce, D. L., Salazar, L. P., & Pate, R. S. (2007). University-based reading
clinics: Where are we now? College Reading Association Yearbook, 28, 198–212.
Goodman, K. S. (1965). A linguistic study of cues and miscues in reading. Elementary English,
42, 639–643.
Hill, M.H. (2000, December). Critical incidents that cause the shift from teacher-centeredness to
student-centeredness. Scottsdale, AZ: National Reading Conference.
Individuals with Disabilities Education Improvement Act, Pub. L. 108–466 (IDEA) (2004).
Retrieved from http://idea.ed.gov/
International Reading Association. (2010). Response to Intervention: Guiding principles for
educators from the International Reading Association. Newark, DE: International
Reading Association.
Irvin, J. L., & Lynch-Brown, C. (1988, February). A national survey of U.S. university reading
clinics: Clientele, functions, and tests. Journal of Reading, 31, 436–442.
Johns, J. L. (1992, October). From traditional reading clinics to wellness center. DeKalb, IL:
Northern Illinois University.
Johns, J. L. (2010). Basic reading inventory (10th ed.). Dubuque, IA: Kendall-Hunt.
Kibby, M. W., & Barr, R. (1999). The education of reading clinicians. In D. Evensen &
P. Mosenthal (Eds.), Reconsidering the role of the reading clinic in a new age of literacy
(pp. 3–40). Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.
Kolson, C. J., & Kaluger, G. (1963). Clinical aspects of remedial reading. Springfield, IL:
Charles C. Thomas Publisher.
Kucer, S. B. (2009). Dimensions of literacy: A conceptual base for teaching reading and writing in
school settings (3rd ed.). New York, NY: Routledge.
Laster, B. (2000, November). 50+ years of research from reading clinics. Scottsdale, AZ:
National Reading Conference.
Laster, B. (2011). Accessible methodologies across 15 clinical sites: Linking reading clinics/literacy
labs and teacher practice. Jacksonville, FL: Literacy Research Association Conference.
Laster, B., Hill, M., & Freppon, P. (1997, December). Changing professional practice: What
teacher learn from critical incidents in reading clinic/practicum about assessment,
instruction, collegiality, and family literacy. Scottsdale, AZ: National Reading Conference.
Leslie, L., & Caldwell, J. S. (2001). Qualitative reading inventory-5. Boston, MA: Allyn &
Bacon.
Lewis, C., & Fabos, B. (2005). Instant messaging, literacies, and social identities. Reading
Research Quarterly, 40(4), 470–501.
Lipson, M., & Wixson, K. (2010). Successful approaches to RTI: Collaborative practices for
improving K-12 literacy. Newark, DE: International Reading Association.
Marzano, R. J. (2002). A Comparison of selected methods of scoring classroom assessments.
Applied Measurement in Education, 15(3), 249–268.
McCormick, S., & Braithwaite, J. (2008). Fifty years of remedial and clinical reading in the
United States: A historical overview. In M. J. Fresch (Ed.), An essential history of current
reading practices (pp. 157–185). Newark, DE: International Reading Association.
20 B. P. LASTER
Michel, P., & Dougherty, C. (1999). Reading clinic: Past, present, and future. In D. H. Evensen
& P. B. Mosenthal (Eds.), Reconsidering the role of the reading clinic in a new age of
literacy (pp. 365–384). Stanford, CT: Jai Press.
Miller, K. P., & Grant, R. A. (1995). From clinic to classroom: Becoming a reflective
practitioner. Literacy Issues and Practices, 12, 46–52.
Morrell, E. (2008). Critical literacy and urban youth: Pedagogies of access, dissent, and liberation.
New York, NY: Routledge.
National Council of Teachers of English. (2008). The NCTE definition of 21st century literacies.
Retrieved from http://www.ncte.org/positions/statements/21stcentdefinition
National Joint Committee on Learning Disabilities. (2005). Responsiveness to intervention and
learning disabilities. Retrieved from http://www.ldonline.org/about/partners/njcld/
Ortlieb, E. (2012). The past, present, and future of reading diagnosis and remediation. Journal
of Language Teaching and Research, 3(3), 395–400.
Pearson, P. D. (2000). Reading in the 20th century. In T. Good (Ed.), American education:
Yesterday, today, and tomorrow. Yearbook of the national society for the study of
education (pp. 152–208). Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
Rosemary, C.A., Freppon, P., & Kunnican-Welsch, K.; with Grogan, P., Feist-Willis, J.,
Zimmerman, B., Camp bell, L., Cobb, J., Hill, M., Walker, B., Ward, M. (2002).
Improving literacy teaching through structured collaborative inquiry in classroom and
university clinical settings. In D. Schaller, C. Fairbanks, J. Worthy, B. Maloch, &
J. Hoffman (Eds), 51st Yearbook of the National Reading Conference (pp. 368–382). Oak
Creek, WI: National Reading Conference.
Teale, W. H., & Hester, J. (1997). The status of reading clinics in the United States: A pilot study.
Chicago, IL: University of Illinois at Chicago.
Tobin, K. (1987). The role of wait time in higher cognitive level learning. Review of Educational
Research, 57(1), 69–95.
Tripp, D. (1993). Critical incidents in teaching: Developing professional judgment. New York,
NY: Routledge.
U.S. Department of Education (2012). Twenty-five years of progress in educating children with
disabilities through IDEA. Retrieved from http://www2.ed.gov/policy/speced/leg/idea/
history.html
Wilson, G. P., Wiltz, N. W., & Lang, D. (2005). The impact of reading mastery on children’s
reading strategies. In B. Altwerger (Ed.), Reading for profit: How the bottom line leaves
kids behind (pp. 172–183). Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.
Zalud, G.B. (1993). A national survey of university reading clinics. In Research, issues, and
practices: Annual curriculum and instruction research symposium conference proceedings.
Vermillion, SD: South Dakota University. ED363607.
Zigmond, N., & Kloo, A. (2012). The role of the special educator: A balancing act. In
R. M. Bean & A. S. Dagen (Eds.), Best practices of literacy leaders: Keys to school
improvement (pp. 86–102). New York, NY: Guilford.
CREATING A UNIVERSITY-BASED
LITERACY CENTER
ABSTRACT
committee’s solidarity and diligent work led to the design of the Center’s
infrastructure. Collaboration was hallmark among the stakeholders. The
state’s approved reading endorsement standards were infused into language/
literacy courses taught by faculty in three departments. Extensive meetings
were held to align the priorities of various programs in each department
with the Literacy Center schedule.
These variations and diverging agendas did not deter the groups’ mission.
The Literacy Committee was committed to respecting the autonomy of
programs within each department while finding common ground and
purpose. Communication and collaboration among faculty subsequently
yielded fruitful results. Challenging issues were negotiated: Curriculum
objectives were uniform and accreditation assessments were strategically
embedded into the courses aligned with the Literacy Center’s structure. All
the while, the committee’s attention was primarily, appropriately, and
essentially directed to the needs of students who would eventually seek
learning support from the Literacy Center.
The Leadership and Planning Team started working on the policy manual
after the Center was officially approved and the infrastructure was
established in 2010. The mission, vision, and goals identified by the
committee formed the guiding framework for the policy manual. The Center
for Literacy and Learning was designed to ‘‘serve as a collaborative model
for preparing practicing teachers to effectively assist P-12 learners in the
improvement of their literacy through the use of research-based practices’’
(Strieker, Coffey, Delacruz, Holbein, & Eaton, 2011, p. 3).
The mission of the Center for Literacy and Learning states that ‘‘The
Center promotes the acquisition and use of literacy strategies, fosters
independent learning, and motivates learners to value all forms of literacy
and lifelong learning.’’ The guiding policy of the Center ‘‘focuses on meeting
the needs of diverse populations and learners with special needs by
providing service to the community at large and to the education
community from both P-12 schools and the university setting’’ (p. 3).
As the Center Director, Associate Dean, and Leadership and Planning
Team began drafting the manual, Action Plans (Strieker, Coffey, Harrington,
Heckert, Hubbard, & Robbins, 2011) became the focus of each biweekly
Creating a University-Based Literacy Center 25
planning meeting. These Action Plans featured goals that focused on the vision
and mission of the Center. They provided the critical intersection for the
strategic plan in the original proposal, the manual, and program evaluation.
These Action Plans, which revolved around teacher preparation, research, and
service, included columns for (1) critical questions, (2) decision-makers, (3)
actions and member(s) responsible, (4) projected timelines, and (5) outcomes.
The first goal was to open the Literacy Center in an age-appropriate space
that was well supervised. Critical questions were generated by the
Leadership and Planning Team:
1. What are the procedures for enrolling new students?
2. What procedures will be used for parent orientation and participation?
3. How will the advisory board be established?
The fourth goal of the Center was to develop a system for recruiting P-12
students to attend the Center when it opened in 2011. The Center Director
spoke at the Annual Conference on Literature for Children and Young
Adults to announce opportunities in the Center. This message was
reinforced with flyers and a Facebook page to utilize social media. Over
1000 flyers were distributed to area school districts and schools. Members of
the Leadership and Planning Team visited with principals in area schools
26 DEBRA COFFEY ET AL.
INSTRUCTIONAL PLANNING
The original outline and focus of the individualized student literacy plans for
one-on-one instruction in the Literacy Center were designed in the summer of
2011. The original Individualized Student Reading Plan (Strieker, 2011) was
very fluid and addressed the following research-based reading, writing, and
motivation strategies and components: (1) the dimensions of reading,
(2) student reading levels, (3) word study, (4) reading strategies, (5) engaging
texts, (6) reading broadly at the independent level, (7) writing, (8) motivational
strategies, (9) social interaction/group work, and (10) ongoing assessment and
progress monitoring (Houge et al., 2008).
The original plan gave graduate students an overview of instructional
components that was readily accessible during the sessions. This planning
template was strongly grounded in the role of reading engagement and
motivation on reading outcomes and other research-based diagnostic,
reading, and writing strategies (Graves, Juel, Graves, & Dewitz, 2011;
Wigfield et al., 2008). Graduate students engaged in extensive reflection after
each session of individualized instruction. This helped them to enhance their
lesson planning and meet individual needs more readily. See Appendix A to
review the original Individualized Student Reading Plan.
28 DEBRA COFFEY ET AL.
STANDARDS
The first phase of the actual session consisted of word work or vocabulary
instruction using a specific and engaging strategy. The teachers listed a
specific vocabulary strategy, the words and terms that would be covered,
and the procedures for carrying out this phase of the lesson. The procedures
for lessons were written by the teachers and included enough detail for
anyone to teach the lesson. The reading faculty stressed that vocabulary
instruction and word work should be reinforced throughout the lesson and
not taught in isolation (Johnston et al., 2006; Marzano, & Pickering, 2005).
During the lesson, the teachers specifically stated a pre-reading strategy that
would promote interest in the text, and they listed the procedures for this
strategy. To prepare for the actual reading of the text, the teachers created
four chunks of texts and pre-determined stopping points to ask comprehen-
sion questions at every level of comprehension for each chunk. Then they
designed the procedure for recording information on a graphic organizer.
The teachers determined what graphic organizer would be appropriate and
useful for the stated outcome and the skill focus determined in the planning
phase for each session. In an authentic guided reading session, the students
do all of the reading aloud while the teachers listen, prompt, or record
miscues.
During the sessions for individualized instruction in the Literacy Center,
this was not always possible. Many times the teachers and the P-12 students
would take turns reading aloud, which gave the teachers opportunities to
model what good readers do (Florida Council on Reading Research, 2012;
Fountas & Pinnell, 1996, 2001; Graves et al., 2011; Harvey & Goudvis,
2000; International Reading Association, 2002; Ruddell, 2006).
32 DEBRA COFFEY ET AL.
Due to the varying ages and literacy abilities of the tutees, the teachers used
an engaging writing strategy and prompt or allowed the students to
illustrate some aspect of the reading after the lesson. The teachers were
encouraged by the reading faculty to be very creative and engaging when
selecting a writing strategy and prompt. Summarization in any subject is
valid and necessary; however, it is often overused and boring to students.
Thus, the teachers were asked to reflect on their own motivation to write
and determine what affected their levels of motivation before determining a
writing strategy and prompt. In determining an appropriate and engaging
writing prompt and strategy for each session, the teachers were encouraged
to ask themselves, ‘‘Would I want to complete this writing activity?’’
In workshops and peer editing during class sessions, the teachers were
often surprised that their writing strategies and prompts were not engaging,
nor would they want to personally complete the writing activity or be
inspired to grade them. This realization led the teachers to think critically
and to conduct research to discover compelling and motivational writing
strategies to incorporate after the lesson in each tutoring session. The
writing strategy and prompt were also designed to informally measure and
assess the outcome of the lesson, thus allowing the teacher and student to
come full circle in the individualized instructional process (Cunningham &
Cunningham, 2010; Graves et al., 2011; McCarrier et al., 2000).
reflected on the lesson and planned the next steps for the next session
(Graves et al., 2011; Gunning, 2010; Houge et al., 2008; Trelease, 2006;
Walker, 2012).
CONCLUSION
REFERENCES
Ambruster, B. B., Lehr, F., & Osborn, J. (2001). Put reading first: The research building blocks
for teaching children to read. Washington, DC: Partnership for Reading.
Carr, K. C. (2003). Today’s reading clinic: How relevant is the graduate reading practicum. The
Reading Teacher, 57(3), 256–268.
Cunningham, P. M., & Cunningham, J. W. (2010). What really matters in writing: Research-
based practices across the elementary curriculum. Boston, MA: Pearson.
Dunston, P. (2007). Instructional practices, struggling readers, and university-based reading
clinic. Journal of Adolescent & Adult Literacy, 50(5), 328–336.
Florida Council on Reading Research. (2012). Glossary of reading terms. Retrieved from http://
www.fcrr.org/curriculum/glossary/glossaryOfReading.pdf
Fountas, I. C., & Pinnell, G. S. (2001). Guiding readers and writers grades 3–6: Teaching
comprehension, genre, and content literacy. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.
Fountas, I. C., & Pinnell, G. S. (1996). Guiding reading: Good first teaching for all children.
Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.
Gambrell, L., Marinak, B. (2009).Reading motivation: What the research says. Retrieved from
http://www.readingrockets.org/article/29624/
Graves, M. F., Juel, C., Graves, B., & Dewitz, P. (2011). Teaching reading in the 21st century:
Motivating all learners (5th ed.). Boston, MA: Pearson.
Gunning, T. G. (2010). Assessing and correcting reading and writing difficulties (4th ed.). Boston,
MA: Allyn & Bacon.
Guthrie, J. T., & Wigfield, A. (1997). Reading engagement: Motivating readers through
integrated instruction. Newark, DE: International Reading Association.
Harvey, S., & Goudvis, A. (2000). Strategies that work: Teaching comprehension to enhance
understanding. York, ME: Stenhouse.
Holbein, M., & Harkins, D. M. (2010). An investigation of teacher talk during the
administration of an informal reading inventory. Association of Literacy Educators and
Researchers Yearbook, 31, 237–249.
Houge, T. T., Geir, C., & Peyton, D. (2008). Targeting adolescents’ literacy skills using one-to-
one instruction with research-based practices. Journal of Adolescent and Adult Literacy,
51(8), 640–650. doi: 10.1598/JAAL.51.8.3
Hubbard, D. (2011). Individualized student literacy plan. Unpublished student programming
Template. Kennesaw State University, Kennesaw, GA.
International Reading Association. (2002). Evidence-based reading instruction: Putting the
National Reading Panel Report into practice. Newark, DE: International Reading
Association.
Johnston, F., Bear, D. R., & Invernizzi, M. (2006). Words their way: Word sorts for derivational
relations spellers. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson.
Johnson, M. (2006). Preparing reading specialists to become competent travelers in urban
settings. Urban Education, 41(4), 402–426.
Leslie, L., & Caldwell, J. S. (2011). Qualitative reading inventory-5 (5th ed.). Boston, MA:
Pearson.
MacGinitie, W. H., MacGinitie, R. K., Maria, K., Dryer, L. G., & Hughes, K. E. (2002). Gates
MacGinitie reading test (4th ed.). Boston, MA: Riverside Publishing.
Marzano, R. J., & Pickering, D. J. (2005). Building academic vocabulary teacher’s manual.
Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.
Creating a University-Based Literacy Center 35
McCarrier, A., Pinnell, G. S., & Fountas, I. (2000). Interactive writing: How language and
literacy come together, K-2. Portsmouth, NH: Heineman.
McKenna, M. C., & Walpole, S. (2007). Assistive technology in the reading clinic: Its emerging
potential. Reading Research Quarterly, 42(1), 140–145.
Pitcher, S. M., Albright, L. K., DeLaney, C. J., Walker, N., Seunarinesingh, K., Mogge, S., y
Dunston, P. J. (2007). Assessing adolescents’ motivation to read. Journal of Adolescent
and Adult Literacy, 50(5), 378–396.
Rosner, S. L., & Cooper, F. H. (1982). The Temple University Reading Clinic. Journal of
Reading Disabilities, 15(5), 294–298.
Ruddell, R. B. (2006). Teaching children to read and write: Becoming an effective literacy teacher
(4th ed.). Boston, MA: Pearson.
Strieker, T. (2011). Individualized Student Reading Plan. Unpublished student programming
Template. Kennesaw, GA: Kennesaw State University.
Strieker, T., Coffey, D., Delacruz, S., Holbein, M., & Eaton, A. (2011). Opening new doors:
Center for Literacy and Learning policy manual. Kennesaw, GA: Bagwell College of
Education, Kennesaw State University.
Strieker, T., Coffey, D., Harrington, D., Heckert, J., Hubbard, D., & Robbins, D. (2011).
Action plans. Archives of the Center for Literacy and Learning. Kennesaw, GA:
Kennesaw State University.
Strieker, T., Wallace, F., Coffey, D., Delacruz, S., Holbein, M., & Eaton, A. (2010). Proposal
for the Center for Literacy and Learning. Bagwell College of Education, Kennesaw State
University (Approved, June 2010).
Trelease, J. (2006). The read-aloud handbook (6th ed.). New York, NY: Penguin Books.
Vygotsky, L. (1962). Thought and language. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Walker, B. J. (2012). Diagnostic teaching of reading: Techniques for instruction and assessment
(7th ed.). Boston, MA: Pearson.
Weiderholt, J. L., & Bryant, B. R. (2001). Gray Oral Reading Test-4 (4th ed.). Boston, MA:
Pearson.
Wigfield, A., Guthrie, J. T., Perencevich, K. C., Taboada, A., Klauda, S. L., McCrae, A., &
Barbosa, P. (2008). Role of reading engagement in mediating effects of reading
comprehension instruction on reading outcomes. Psychology in the Schools, 45, 432–435.
doi: 10.1002/pits.20307
36 DEBRA COFFEY ET AL.
APPENDIX A
Date: _________________________
Student Goal(s):________________________________________________
Dimension of Reading
Word Study
Reading Strategy
Text
Creating a University-Based Literacy Center 37
Writing
Motivational Strategies
Assessments (Attach)
APPENDIX B
Individualized Student
Literacy Plan
SS5H5: The student will explain how the Great Depression and New Deal
affected the lives of millions of Americans.
Student Goals and Outcome: The student will determine the characters and
setting of a given text.
Appendix B. (Continued )
Lesson Outline Procedures for Teaching
Appendix B. (Continued )
Lesson Outline Procedures for Teaching
Tammy Ryan
ABSTRACT
The education of teachers in the United States needs to be turned upside down. To
prepare effective teachers for 21st century classrooms, teacher education must shift away
from a norm which emphasizes academic preparation and course work loosely linked to
school-based experiences. Rather, it must move to programs that are fully grounded in
clinical practice and interwoven with academic content and professional courses
(National Council for Accreditation of Teacher Education, 2010, p. ii).
schools (Bates, 1984). Twenty-two years later in a similar study, 44% of the
32 institutions surveyed reported having on-campus reading clinics, 31%
reported having off-campus clinics, and 25% reported having both on- and
off-campus clinics (Bosse, 2006). Similarly, of the 25 institutions surveyed in
Ohio, 40% offered on-campus clinics and 60% offered off-campus clinics
(Bevans, 2004).
Off-campus clinical-based programs benefit teacher education programs
and the community. These clinics support and provide important services to
local area schools and community-based programs. With accountability
issues looming, many after-school community-based programs offer acti-
vities that support the school district’s curricular requirements. Such
activities often include test-taking preparation, grade-level reading and math
reviews, and extensive homework support. A few of these programs even
apply for and receive funding through Supplemental Educational Services to
offer tutoring services to children attending schools not making annual
yearly progress after three consecutive years (Bosse, 2006). Importantly, off-
campus clinics conducted in such settings provide unique support to a
community-based program, to the literacy experiences of K-8 students, while
providing invaluable experiences to prospective teachers to wrestle with the
many complexities affecting teaching and learning.
This chapter describes how teacher preparation programs design effective
off-campus clinical programs. Information provided is applicable to clinical
practicums, capstone experiences, and to individual course assignments at
the undergraduate and graduate levels. The chapter begins with a discussion
on the foundational components involved in designing a high-quality off-
campus clinical-based program. The chapter then moves to describe a
university-based model that uses an off-campus clinical-based experience
before offering a discussion and conclusion.
Engaging Families
Acquiring Funding
UNIVERSITY-BASED MODEL
Jacksonville University, a small, private, liberal arts campus, offers an
off-campus clinical-based experience as part of its Master’s in Elementary
Education degree program and reading endorsement certification
requirements.
Prospective teachers complete the clinical experience during a reading
methods course. The course is offered during the sophomore year and
focuses on the foundations of reading instruction and application of
research-based instructional practices in the areas of oral language, phono-
logical awareness, phonics, fluency, vocabulary, and comprehension. Pros-
pective teachers register for the course, which is taught on-campus twice a
week and once a week at the off-campus site located three miles from
campus. The course is the first course in a sequence of four courses that lead
54 TAMMY RYAN
books from the local or university library to design read aloud lessons
aligned to weekly reading component topics. In addition, many of the
prospective teachers purchase other materials at retail stores to creatively
engage K-8 students in literacy activities that involve art and movement.
Similar to Ranke and McDermott’s (2009) study, the prospective teachers
need to move instruction beyond scripted text to hands-on experiences to
engage students. For example, one prospective teacher purchased
sidewalk chalk to engage students in drawing story responses on the
basketball court. Another prospective teacher purchased a beach ball and
wrote ‘‘who, when, what, why, and where’’ on the ball’s colored stripes
to scaffold student’s comprehension development. Students tossed the
ball to one another and answered the question their right thumb
touched. Yet another prospective teacher purchased balls and had
students bounce the balls on alphabet letters written in chalk on the
sidewalk to spell words. Because the site had limited space, students
stored books, games, dry erase boards, and other materials in car trunks
between sessions.
These off-campus clinical-based experiences provide unique opportu-
nities for prospective teachers to practice pedagogical approaches and to
evaluate various instructional techniques used to motivate and enhance
struggling reader’s literacy development. During the process, prospective
teachers learn to design and implement lessons that integrate the reading
components to foster listening, speaking, reading, and writing abilities.
Consequently, in class, discussion are in-depth, vibrant, and purposeful as
prospective teachers demonstrate stronger connections to course material
because they filter learning through the eyes of the K-8 students they build
relationships with across the semester. For example, a prospective teacher
stated on the course evaluation, ‘‘Vocabulary is more effective when
taught through real experiences and not through drills.’’ Another student
commented, ‘‘When I was interested and motivated, students fed off my
energy.’’ Yet another student stated, ‘‘I learned that self-esteem is key in
helping students with reading. I learned that students become easily
discouraged and need tremendous amounts of encouragement and
support.’’
CONCLUSION
REFERENCES
Barnes, C., Deeney, T., Dubert, L., Freepon, P., Gurvitz, D., Laster, B., y Patchen, C.
(2008, December). Reading clinics and reading labs: The state of the art 2008. Alternative
session presented at the 58th annual meeting of the National Reading Conference,
Orlando, FL, USA.
Bates, G. W. (1984). Profiles of university-based reading clinics: Results of a U.S. survey.
Journal of Reading, 27, 524–529.
Bevans, J. G. (2004). A study to determine the status and features of reading clinics that serve
elementary students in teacher education institutions in the state of Ohio. Dissertation
Abstracts International, 65(07), 535A(UMI. No. 3141758).
Bosse, S. (2006). The role of the university reading clinic in reading instruction, practice, and
theory. Dissertation Abstracts International, (UMI. No 3221686).
60 TAMMY RYAN
Catapano, S., & Huisman, S. (2010). Preparing teachers for urban schools: Evaluation of a
community-based model. Penn GSE Perspectives on Urban Education, 7(1), 80–90.
Deeney, T., Dozier, C., Laster, B., Angell, V., Barnes, C., Carter, C., y Freppon, P. (2005,
December). A national look at teacher preparation in reading clinics/literacy labs.
Alternative session presented at the 55th annual meeting of the National Reading
Conference, Miami, FL, USA.
Deeney, T., Dozier, C., Laster, B., Applegate, M., Cobb, J., Dubert, L., y Swanson, M. (2010,
December). Transfer and transformation: What reading clinic/literacy lab graduates’
current practices and contexts mean for clinic/lab instruction. Alternative session
presented at the 60th annual meeting of the Literacy Research Association (formerly
National Reading Conference), Fort Worth, TX, USA.
International Reading Association. (2003). Prepared to make a difference: An executive
summary of the National Commission on Excellence in Elementary Teacher Preparation
for Reading Instruction. Newark, DE: International Reading Association.
International Reading Association. (2007). Teaching reading well: A synthesis of the
International Reading Association’s research on teacher preparation for reading
instruction. Newark, DE: International Reading Association.
Irvin, J. L., & Lynch-Brown, C. (1988). A national survey of U.S university reading clinics:
Clientele, functions, and tests. Journal of Reading, 31(5), 436–442.
Jensen, D. A., & Tuten, J. A. (2007). From reading clinic to reading community. Reading
Horizons Journal, 47(4), 295–313.
Levine, A. (2006). Education school teachers. New York, NY: The Education Schools Project.
Medcalf, N., Bessette, K., & Gibbs, D. (2009). Everybody wins: A school-higher education
partnership for reading improvements. In J. C. Richards & C. A. Lassonde (Eds.),
Literacy tutoring that works (pp. 96–107). Newark, DE: International Reading
Association.
National Council for Accreditation of Teacher Education. (2010). Transforming teacher
education through clinical practice: A national strategy to prepare effective teachers.
Washington, DC: National Council for the Accreditation of Teacher Education.
National Research Council. (2010). Preparing teachers: Building evidence for sound policy.
Washington, DC: National Research Council.
Noel, J. (2011). School-community-based urban teacher education as a voice for the
community. In A. Cohan & A. Honigsfeld (Eds.), Breaking the mold of preservice
and inservice teacher education: Innovative and successful practices for the 21st century
(pp. 189–198). New York, NY: Rowman & Littlefield Education.
Ortlieb, E. (2012). The past, present, and future of reading diagnosis and remediation. Journal
of Language, Teaching, and Research, 3(3), 395–400.
Ranke, N., & McDermott, M. (2009). Teaching and learning about literacy through arts
infusion: Successes, challenges, and lessons learned in an after-school program. In
J. C. Richards & C. A. Lassonde (Eds.), Literacy tutoring that works (pp. 108–118).
Newark, DE: International Reading Association.
Risko, V., Roller, C., Bean, R., Collins Block, C., Anders, P., & Flood, J. (2008). A critical
analysis of research on reading teacher education. Reading Research Quarterly, 43,
252–288.
Rogers, T., Marshall, E., & Tyson, C. (2006). Dialogic narratives of literacy, teaching, and
schooling: Preparing literacy teachers for diverse settings. Reading Research Quarterly,
41, 202–2004.
Designing an Off-Campus Literacy Clinic 61
Roskos, K., Boehlem, S., & Walker, B. J. (2000). Learning the art of instructional conversation:
The influence of self-assessment on teachers’ instructional discourse in a reading clinic.
The Elementary School Journal, 100, 229–253.
Roskos, K., Vukelich, C., & Risko, V. J. (2001). Reflection and learning to teach reading: A
critical review of literacy and general education studies. Journal of Literacy Research, 39,
595–635.
Ryan, T. (2012). Digital teachers reshaping literacy experiences. Kappa Delta Pi Record, 48(2),
92–94.
Smith, T. M., & Ingersoll, R. M. (2004). What are the effects of induction and mentoring on
beginning teacher turnover? American Educational Research Journal, 41(3), 681–714.
Zeichner, K. (2010). Rethinking the connections between campus courses and field placement
experiences in college- and university-based teacher education. Journal of Teacher
Education, 61(1–2), 89–99.
Zeichner, K., & McDonald, M. (2011). Practice-based teaching and community field
experiences for prospective teachers. In A. Cohan & A. Honigsfeld (Eds.), Breaking
the mold of preservice and inservice teacher education: Innovative and successful practices
for the 21st century. New York, NY: Rowman & Littlefield Education.
COACHING FOR SUCCESS:
UCF ENRICHMENT PROGRAMS
IN LITERACY
ABSTRACT
Purpose – The chapter provides the reader with an overview of the UCF
Enrichment Programs in Literacy that includes a year-round reading
clinic with undergraduate and graduate students serving as clinicians and
a summer Digital Storytelling Camp. The focus of the chapter is on the
development and evolution of these programs, with an emphasis on the
role of coaching in the clinic process.
Methodology/approach – The authors describe how they used Bean’s
Levels of Coaching Complexity (2004), adapting it to their clinical setting,
to meet the current high demand for reading coaches in schools, and to
strengthen their reading program courses and practicum experiences.
Practical implications – In addition to providing a comprehensive
overview of the UCF Enrichment Programs in Literacy, this chapter
includes the nuts and bolts of how the authors ‘‘coach for success’’ in the
reading clinic. This involves coaching for success during data collection, in
the analysis and decision-making process, in the delivery of tutoring, and
beyond the clinic setting. Along with the tutoring process, specific
A good coach will make his players see what they can be rather than what they are.
Ara Parasheghia, Former Football Player and College Coach
Coaching is used in a variety of settings and takes many forms, but more
than likely the term coaching conjures up the image of an athletic coach.
Most of us can make connections to this concept. Coaches utilize a variety
of approaches including motivational talks, seminars, workshops, clinics,
and supervised practice in order to train an individual or group of people to
do a specific task and/or achieve a particular goal. Critical to successful
coaching is the process of monitoring and providing feedback. Applying this
to education would seem to be a natural fit, yet the reality is it can be
problematic because not all teachers are equipped with the knowledge and
skills to serve as a coach.
The International Reading Association (2006) purports that literacy
coaching that is (1) grounded in theory and reflection, (2) based on student
needs, and (3) ongoing and intensive can yield improvement in students’
reading skills. Not surprisingly then, the demand for literacy coaches
in recent years has dramatically increased. Without specific guidelines
for the selection and training of coaches, the faculty at the University of
Central Florida (UCF) have redesigned specifically the graduate practicum
experience to meet the needs of schools and prepare teachers for the role of
a reading coach. So what knowledge and skills are required of a reading
coach and how can we embed these in our preparation programs?
Coaching for Success: UCF Enrichment Programs in Literacy 65
Create an environment that Hold data conferences with Observe clinicians working
promotes conversations and clinicians to analyze student with students (both
encourages self-reflection work, interpret assessment assessment and instruction).
(focus is on goal setting data, and determine IRA Standard 2, 3.2, 3.3
based on clinician needs) – instructional focus for clinic
Self-Assessment of – Data Conference Sheet
Proficiency in Reading IRA Standard 3.2, 3.3
Diagnosis (adapted from
Shearer & Homan, 1996).
IRA Standard 6.1
Develop and deliver course Provide suggestions for Have clinicians self-reflect on
content based on clinician instruction and feedback observation, meet with
needs and course objectives on lessons (lessons and clinician to debrief on
(this includes providing resources). Tutoring Form observation, and provide
materials and resources). IRA Standard 2, 3.3 feedback – Observation
IRA Standard 2, 3.1 Form IRA Standard 6.1
Provide a forum (the clinic) Provide professional Have clinicians give Family
for clinicians to apply development to clinicians Literacy Workshop during
knowledge of teaching and based on student needs (this clinic. IRA Standard 6.1, 6.2
assessing reading and may include lesson study).
writing under supervision
and scaffolding. IRA
Standard 2, 3
Assist clinicians with Assist with parent
assessment (this includes communication of student
selection and needs and instructional
implementation of decisions – Parent Update
assessments) – Diagnostic and Parent Summary IRA
Toolkit IRA Standard Standard 3.3, 3.4
3.1, 3.2
Facilitate and encourage Scaffold technical writing of
collaboration of content for case study report. IRA
Family Literacy Workshop Standard 3.4
– Family Literacy Workshop
Assignment IRA Standard
6.1, 6.2
Provide a forum (course) for
clinicians to deliver Family
Literacy Workshop to
receive feedback – Family
Literacy Workshop
Assignment IRA Standard
6.1, 6.2
Coaching for Success: UCF Enrichment Programs in Literacy 69
Total Score:
select an assessment for each area of reading indicated on the data conference
Form (Table 3: RED 6846 Reading Practicum Data Conference Sheet: Using
Assessment to Inform Instruction). The data collection process begins on a
designated date before the first reading clinic session on which parents bring
the participating clinic students to campus for assessment. While each
clinician will primarily refer to their Diagnostic Tool Kit for assessment
selection, we do provide additional assessments and access to informal
reading inventories in the reading clinic office, to which clinicians have full
access and use. Throughout the data collection process, we observe, circulate,
and debrief with students to ensure that they are completing their data
conference form and beginning to develop an authentic literacy profile.
Coaching for Success: UCF Enrichment Programs in Literacy 71
Each of the described processes in the coaching of the data collection process
reflects elements of Level 1 from Bean’s Levels of Coaching Complexity. Thus,
in this informal coaching approach, clinicians are provided with a setting for
reading assessment, in which they can apply course content and meet course
goals, engage in conversations with peers and instructors to extend their
learning, and reflect on their own knowledge of reading assessment.
Motivation: interests Wide range of interests: sports, Least favorite thing is spelling and/or
Personal interest survey anything science, Legos, etc. writing because doesn’t feel confident
Motivation: attitude Likes to receive books as gifts, Does not like to read aloud or answer
Elementary reading attitude start a new book, and read on a questions about reading for fear of
Survey variety of nonfiction topics messing up or being laughed at by
classmates. Needs to build confidence!
Standardized test Chronological age: 9 years, Average on oral vocabulary While vocabulary is average for age, based
5 months on the PPVT, his growth from last year
Peabody picture vocabulary Stanine 6 and 61st percentile. Age is only 7 months. He needs to do more
test (PPVT) (tests oral equivalent 9 years, 11 months. wide reading. He tends to only read on
vocabulary) Last year, also received stanine of specific nonfiction subjects. Needs to be
6, 66 percentile, and age exposed to other vocabulary
equivalence of 9 years,
4 months)
Comprehension: Reading Grade 1 Can successfully read Grade 2 (level) should be used for
Level QRI, DRA, or other Fluency – independent independently and comprehend instruction due to comprehension
Comprehension – independent first grade passages questions, retelling, fluency, and
predictions
Qualitative reading Grade 2 Grade 2 passages are the level that Shows frustration on implicit questions
inventory (QRI) Fluency – instructional is best (answers that are implied or inferred).
Comprehension – instructional Needs to work on inferences
Retelling – 45% Needs to improve fluency
Correct predictions – 66%
Grade 3
Fluency – instructional
Comprehension – instructional
MICHELLE KELLEY AND TAYLAR WENZEL
Retelling – 55%
Correct predictions – 83%
Fluency Word reading fluency Level 3.9 Feeling more confident and Often misses words completely or
(grade 3, 9th month) 54 WCPM learning from errors made the completely substitutes other words,
Easy curriculum based Passage reading fluency Level 4.1 day before which changes meaning of the passage.
measurement (easy (Grade 4, 1st month) 74 Sometimes, skips whole lines of text and
CBM) WCPM does not realize he has not read it
Words correct per minute
(WCPM)
Spelling Spelling stage: Within word Independent-level features: Frustration-level features:
pattern – middle
10/25 Power score Initial and final consonants, short Other vowels, inflected endings, syllable
40/62 Feature points vowels, digraphs, blends, junctures, unaccented final syllables,
Elementary spelling Total 50/87 common long vowels harder suffixes, bases and roots
inventory
Phonemic awareness/phonics Scored nearly perfect on basic Knows words that follow basic Observed behavior – having trouble with
Phonics survey (letter/ phonics/letter recognition/ phonetic words and have one multiple syllable words, chunking and
sound recognition) sounds short or one long vowel recognizing common prefixes and
suffixes
Observations of reading Relates information to prior Inserts or deletes words when reading and
Observation checklist of knowledge and commonly has trouble decoding longer words.
student’s expository shares what else he knows on Commonly loses place while reading. If
reading subject reading. He reads every asked for name of text feature, cannot
bit of page, including captions recall, but can point to it if name is given
and titles
Book preference test Opens books, reads front cover, Only chose nonfiction text and graphic
flips through books and reads novels to read. Each chapter book he
parts and checks out different judged solely by its cover and never read
Coaching for Success: UCF Enrichment Programs in Literacy
index, glossary
Organizational features (table of Correctly explains purpose of:
contents, index, glossary)
74
Table 3. (Continued )
Student’s Name: Tom Student’s Age/Grade: 9/Grade 4 Gender: M
Identifies 3/3, knows purpose 2/3, Title, heading/subheading, italics, Cannot apply knowledge when reading:
applies 2/3 caption, sidebar, photograph, pronunciation guide, bullets,
drawing, inset, cross section/ photograph, labeled diagram, chart/
cutaway, diagram, map, graph, table, and index
timeline, table of contents,
glossary
Graphic features (photograph, Can correctly apply when reading:
drawing, inset, cross section/ Identifies 8/10, knows purpose 8/
cutaway, diagram, labeled 10, applies 7/10
Title, heading/subheading, diagram, map, graph, time line,
bold print, italics, chart/table)
caption, sidebar, table of
contents, glossary,
drawing, inset, cross
section/cutaway,
diagram, map, graph,
and time line
Possible Focus for Future Instruction (based on data): He needs lots of word work on vowel combinations (oi, ea, ee, oo) and blends so that he
can feel confident while reading. He overly relies on sight words and needs to work on word families. He has a hard time knowing how to
sound out words and would benefit from lessons on chunking words and breaking words into syllables or manageable parts. He needs a lot of
help on spelling and sentence construction. He could benefit by working to have better tracking skills because he commonly deletes or adds
words when reading and loses his place or skips a whole line and doesn’t realize he has skipped a line. He could also benefit from a lesson on
book choice so that he is not picking out books that are too hard and giving up, or the same genre of books over and over. He needs more help
on fluency and can benefit from reading into a microphone and taping his readings and then listening to them as well as reading out loud at
home or doing repeated readings with poetry. In addition, he needs to practice making inferences and retelling to improve on his
comprehension.
MICHELLE KELLEY AND TAYLAR WENZEL
Coaching for Success: UCF Enrichment Programs in Literacy 75
because it is assessment which drives instruction and informs the teacher about what
skills a student lacks
–Pre-Service Teacher Reflection
and provide them with specific feedback via a tutoring form they complete
per session (Fig. 4). In contrast, our graduate students complete a weekly
report using their expertise to develop an effective lesson format for their
students based on assessment data and motivational factors.
78 MICHELLE KELLEY AND TAYLAR WENZEL
The clinic is housed in the UCF Teaching Academy where we have access
to classroom space and lounge areas for tutoring (see Fig. 5). Additionally,
we have three individual clinic rooms that have mirrored glass and video
cameras, which allow us to observe tutoring sessions without causing any
distractions from our presence (since they are unable to see us). Television
monitors via video feed allow us to choose our viewing method (through the
mirrored window or on TV) and let us listen in on the tutoring session. At
this point in the coaching process, our involvement becomes more formal,
aligned with Level 3 of Bean’s Coaching Complexity Model. To assist us in
the observation process and to model a true coaching experience, we have
developed an observational protocol (Table 4). Prior to observing students,
we have them identify what they want us to pay attention to, and whether
they are assessing or delivering instruction. During the lesson we take
related notes and after the lesson they are asked to self-reflect on the
X Instruction
Goal of session: I want to improve the overall delivery of a lesson on making connections to a text
when reading, specifically I want them to go deeper with their connections.
Students were engaged in the book because Choose a book on their independent
they were interested in the topic reading level so we can focus on the
strategy instead of decoding
Students understood the lesson content. We Connect their connections to higher level
continued to practice after the observation questions. Ex- Asking, why does it make
and it became easier for them you think of that? Why is that connection
important to under standing the text?
Model my own connections to the text to
show them how to go deeper
Overall: What I have learned about teaching and/or assessing readingy. I have learned you must
remember the purpose of the lesson when choosing a text to use. One of my students spent so
much time decoding it was nearly impossible for him to make connections while reading.
Normally for guided reading I would use an instructional text but to teach them the strategy I
needed to have them in an easier text. Text level must be considered. I have also learned I need to
spend more time questioning and probing my students to encourage a deeper connection rather
than being satisfied with a surface connection. I also need to model my use of the strategy so they
can see how I use it. My own connections were weak and could have been better explained. I will
continue to use this strategy with my clinical students.
Dr. Kelley’s reflections: Excellent job stating the learning goal and I thought your examples were
helpful. I do believe that you could have asked them what they knew already about making
connections (accessing their background knowledge to build upon). I agree with your analysis,
the text was too difficult and decoding efforts interfered with their ability to make meaningful
connections. I would’ve asked them, ‘‘How does that connection help you to remember the text
or understand the text better?’’ to get them to go deeper.
observation, highlighting what went well and what they might do differently
if given the opportunity. Additionally, they are asked to contextualize their
experience to what they have learned about assessing and teaching reading.
When they have completed their self-reflection, they meet with us, sharing
their thoughts and learning. We add our observations, including providing
positive and constructive feedback.
80 MICHELLE KELLEY AND TAYLAR WENZEL
When he is finished reading, ask him some specific questions. As a guide, here are some
questions that you may use:
What is the problem in the story?
How are they working to solve the problem?
What are some character traits of the main character?
Can you summarize what has happened in the story so far?
What do you predict will happen next?
If you should have any questions, please feel free to contact me at _______________. Have a
wonderful and safe weekend! Mrs. Vaughn
Coaching for Success: UCF Enrichment Programs in Literacy 81
Fig. 6. (Continued)
which may include feeding them a specific strategy or resource to assist them
in the tutoring process. Additionally, we may recommend further assess-
ment based on preliminary findings or inconsistent student performance
during instruction.
Coaching for Success: UCF Enrichment Programs in Literacy 83
CONCLUSION
After only three years of development, we now consider the student
requirements in the UCF Enrichment Programs in Literacy to be one of the
most powerful instructional and experiential components of our graduate
and undergraduate reading education curricula. By serving as clinicians, our
students have authentic teaching opportunities in a supported environment
where they can engage in problem solving with faculty, peers, and children’s
families.
Beyond a standard field experience, student clinicians receive feedback
and coaching in a unique setting and through a deliberate model that has
proven to extend their skills in reading assessment, diagnosis, and
instructional delivery for three consecutive years based on the postadminis-
tration of the Self-Assessment of Proficiency in Reading Diagnosis. The clinic
Coaching for Success: UCF Enrichment Programs in Literacy 85
REFERENCES
Bean, R. M. (2004). Promoting effective literacy instruction: The challenge for literacy coaches.
The California Reader, 37(3), 58–63.
International Reading Association. (2006). Standards for middle and high school literacy
coaches. Newark, DE: International Reading Association (IRA).
International Reading Association (in press). An update: Roles and responsibilities of reading
specialists/literacy coaches. Newark, DE: International Reading Association (IRA).
International Reading Association (IRA). (2004). The role and qualifications of the reading
coach in the United States (Position statement). Retrieved from http://www.reading.org/
downloads/positions/ps1065_reading_coach.pdf. Newark, DE: International Reading
Association (IRA).
86 MICHELLE KELLEY AND TAYLAR WENZEL
ABSTRACT
Luke is a kinetic learner who excels at all things physical, and normally summer is a
series of soccer, basketball and swimming camps and trips y. Initially he was upset
about the news [that he would be attending the reading clinic] but knows he needs to be a
better reader, and now we get to the point of my note: I’m just amazed at how much he
likes it! I can’t say that he has been converted instantly to a consumer of thick novels, but
he has left the program almost every day talking about a new trick or technique he can
use to enhance his reading. The program appears to have been targeted perfectly to his
individual level, his issues, and his subject matter interests. I’m so relieved that he has
enjoyed it, and I think we both know that he will be much more prepared for sixth grade
than he would have been otherwise. (Post-program parent letter)
Mr. Wallace’s letter echoes what I often hear from parents of children in
our reading clinic. Parents are doing everything they can to help. Children
are frustrated and reluctant to attend ‘‘summer’’ school, which seems like a
punishment. These are children who work diligently and put much effort
into their work, but who are, in the end, only minimally successful and they
don’t understand why.
While their academic difficulties may be obvious, affective factors that are
not always as visible are powerful influences. Whether teachers explicitly tell
them that they are not trying, other children tease them for stumbling over
words, or parents subtly imply their disappointment, struggling readers get
messages about themselves that they internalize. Even if teachers do not pick
up on the subtle ways in which they are not quite ‘‘getting it,’’ these students
quietly suffer, believing that they are not as smart as their classmates.
Creating an Optimal Learning Environment for Struggling Readers 89
SELF-DETERMINATION THEORY
more than three decades and has evolved to explain much about human
behavior. Self-determination (SD) can be described as a state in which an
individual operates from a stance of awareness, reflection, and control (Deci
& Ryan, 2000). Self-determined individuals are confident and have a strong
inner sense of themselves. They possess a level of control over their own lives
that enables them to make decisions and act in ways that are in accord with
their personal values. This state engenders in the individual a sense of
satisfaction and fulfillment that leads to well-being. In studies across a
variety of domains and cultures, SD has been associated with general well-
being, challenge-seeking, adaptability, persistence, and creativity (Deci &
Ryan, 2000; Ryan & Deci, 2006; Ryan, Huta, & Deci, 2008; Vallerand,
Pelletier, & Koestner, 2008). When SD is undermined or thwarted, the result
can be dysfunction and maladaptive behavior. These findings extend to
children and to educational settings, highlighting the value of applying SDT
to school environments.
A fundamental assumption of SDT is that humans are innately inclined to
strive for well-being. The theory posits that we naturally attempt to integrate
our life experiences in ways that help us to grow emotionally and
psychologically and to develop a strong sense of ourselves. A strong sense of
self enables us to act confidently and competently in accord with our own
knowledge, beliefs, and values. This strong inner core then enables us to
continuously integrate new experiences as we face challenges and strive toward
our potential. Critically important, the theory also holds that individuals
operate within a social context that greatly influences actions. It is the constant
interplay between the innate human striving for well-being and factors in the
environment that determines whether or not an individual will become self-
determined. The following discussion highlights aspects of SDT that have
direct applicability to school contexts. Of particular importance are (1) the
external regulation of behavior, (2) basic psychological needs, (3) influences on
intrinsic motivation, and (4) teachers’ autonomy support.
Basic Needs
The second relevant subtheory of SDT is basic needs theory. SDT asserts that
there exist in human beings three universal, psychological needs – autonomy,
competence, and relatedness – and that these needs are essential to the
development of SD. A social context that supports these needs facilitates SD.
Autonomy
The first need, autonomy, refers to individuals’ perceptions that their actions
are within their own control. Sometimes an autonomous person chooses
Creating an Optimal Learning Environment for Struggling Readers 93
actions strictly for personally valuable, intrinsic reasons, but in any culture
or social situation, an individual’s actions will be influenced by external
factors as well. A tenth grader might prefer to watch TV, but she instead
opts to read with the family in order to provide a positive role model for her
younger sister. This scenario shows how an individual may participate in
activities for reasons that are externally oriented, yet still feel autonomous.
To be autonomous does not mean being oblivious to external factors while
pursuing personal satisfaction. Autonomy means being able to endorse
one’s own actions whether their source is externally- or internally-derived
(Ryan & Deci, 2006).
Competence
The second universal psychological need identified in SDT is competence.
Individuals must possess the skills and knowledge necessary for success, but
they must also perceive themselves to be capable. Perceptions of their own
competence will determine whether individuals will even attempt a task. A
strong sense of self-competence also enables an individual to manage novel
or challenging situations. A long line of research supports the conclusion
that perceptions of competence exert powerful influence on an individual’s
motivation (Schunk & Pajares, 2009).
Relatedness
Relatedness is the need to have social relationships that are perceived as
nurturing and supportive. When the environment supports relatedness,
individuals develop trust and feel safe to take risks. Relatedness is
particularly important with regard to the internalization process. It is
through the example, enthusiasm, or encouragement of trusted significant
others in the environment that individuals begin to identify and integrate
external regulations.
Taken together, the three needs provide a particularly useful framework for
examining a classroom environment. An environment that supports indivi-
duals’ basic needs for autonomy, competence, and relatedness is one that will
facilitate internalization and intrinsic motivation. Conversely, if the environ-
ment does not support these needs, the development of SD will be derailed.
Over the last 40 years, many studies have explored factors that influence
motivation. The subtheory of SDT called Cognitive Evaluation Theory
94 ROSE MARIE CODLING
READING MOTIVATION
Literature on reading motivation was scant until the mid 1990s, but a robust
body of research now provides helpful insights about motivation related
specifically to reading. Much of this work coincides with SDT research and
96 ROSE MARIE CODLING
many of the findings are compatible with the tenets of SDT. For example,
reading researchers have established that individuals have many motivations
for reading and that these motivations take many forms (Guthrie et al.,
2007; Wigfield & Guthrie, 1997). These researchers have identified intrin-
sically oriented motivations such as curiosity, interest, self-efficacy, prefer-
ence for challenge, social factors, and knowledge seeking. They have also
identified extrinsically oriented motivations such as public recognition,
competition, reward, and compliance.
Several studies have confirmed the positive influence of intrinsic
motivation on reading achievement. Turner (1995) found that among first
graders, open tasks (authentic, moderately challenging tasks that provided
meaningful opportunities to apply strategies) were associated with higher
motivation demonstrated by increased engagement, strategy use, and
persistence when faced with challenge. Similarly, Gambrell, Palmer,
Codling, and Mazzoni (1996) established that elementary students’ reading
motivation was influenced by opportunities for challenge and choice. The
social nature of reading was a constant theme in this study. Additionally,
when children who were identified by their teachers as unmotivated were
asked by researchers about what they like to read, they often gave detailed
descriptions of things they were reading outside of school. Meece and Miller
(1999) found that when third- and fifth-grade teachers focused on increasing
social interaction and providing choices and challenging tasks, the
classroom became learning-oriented versus performance oriented.
Concept Oriented Reading Instruction (CORI) is an example of how
research findings on motivation and reading have been effectively applied to
classroom settings. CORI integrates science and literacy instruction through
conceptual themes and is characterized by instructional support (explicit
reading strategy instruction and hands-on activities) and motivation support
(opportunities for self-directed learning and social interaction). A range of
CORI studies has consistently found high correlations between intrinsic
motivation and reading amount, curiosity, comprehension, reading engage-
ment, strategy learning, and strategy use (Guthrie et al., 1996; Guthrie,
Wigfield, & VonSecker, 2000; Wang & Guthrie, 2004).
Many recent studies have confirmed and extended our understanding of the
positive relationship between intrinsic motivation and reading achievement,
and despite differing philosophical orientations of reading researchers, many
of their findings are consistent with the findings of SDT (Becker, McElvany, &
Kortenbruck, 2010; Logan, Medford, & Hughes, 2011; Mason, Meadan,
Hedin, & Cramer, 2012; Paige, 2011; Park, 2011). Reading motivation
research, notably conducted in authentic classrooms, confirms the feasibility of
Creating an Optimal Learning Environment for Struggling Readers 97
Based on the excellent explanatory power of SDT and the research on intrinsic
motivation and reading, we have a strong foundation for creating a
productive, motivating literacy program in our reading clinic. The next
section highlights aspects of our program that are founded on this theory and
research base.
The University of Maryland Reading Clinic is the practicum for master’s
degree candidates pursuing reading specialist certification. Our program
consists of 33 credits in reading and related areas. Most of our candidates
are part-time students and full-time classroom teachers and they take one
course at a time. Once they complete the prerequisites, the final clinic
sequence involves a fall semester course on advanced diagnostic assessment
followed by the spring semester course on advanced instructional practices.
Candidates are then prepared for the reading clinic that takes place in the
summer. The clinic is a 6-week teaching experience and is the equivalent of 6
credit hours. Children attend the program three mornings per week. This
leaves afternoons for the teachers to reflect together on the day and plan
subsequent lessons. We also have whole group seminars where candidates
present individual student cases for discussion.
During the 6-week summer clinic, teachers coteach groups of 12 children.
The overarching goal of our program is to help students become more
strategic, motivated, and reflective (Lipson & Wixson, 2008). This means
that we focus on both the cognitive aspects of their literacy difficulties and
the motivation issues that accompany them. Our instructional program is
designed around students’ individual needs, which are identified during a
diagnostic screening. We provide explicit instruction in research-based
literacy strategies and students learn about the utility of strategies as we
facilitate their independent application to authentic reading contexts.
Carefully assessing students’ reading levels to ensure that they have access
to appropriate materials, we create an environment that is designed to
optimize their learning.
Each aspect of the program is carefully considered to determine how it
meets students’ needs for autonomy, competence, and relatedness. When it
comes to instruction, for example, SDT would suggest that instructional
98 ROSE MARIE CODLING
We convey to students that their feelings and beliefs matter. They quickly
begin to feel comfortable, knowing that this setting is highly supportive and
accepting.
Jonathan is 10. His older brothers did not attend the clinic because they have no
problems with reading. They call him retarded. When they have conversations at home,
Jonathan doesn’t always understand what they are talking about. So the next day he
comes to the clinic where he feels safe to ask what words mean.
What is cannibalism?
Creating an Optimal Learning Environment for Struggling Readers 99
Huh?
Access
Reading materials used in the clinic include print sources of all kinds,
including books, magazines, newspapers, and the internet. A variety of
genres is always available in the classroom and we make sure to have a wide
range of interesting narrative and informational text that will appeal to
diverse students. We have a large collection of commercial instructional
texts that are used for guided reading and strategy instruction that we make
available after lessons.
We provide books with a wide range of difficulty levels to ensure not just
physical access, but meaningful engagement as well. We find that in their
regular classrooms, our students seldom (sometimes never) have materials in
their hands that they can actually read on their own. From the time they
started formal schooling, they have always been faced with materials that
are just too difficult. The result of this is that students have not experienced
productive free reading time. We address this issue by carefully assessing
students’ reading levels so that we can provide them with appropriate
materials. As we teach students how to choose books for free reading, we
are cautious about popular strategies that identify books as too hard, too
easy and just right. We prefer to have students think about books as
providing a fruitful independent reading experience. This means they should
achieve 99% accuracy and good comprehension without any assistance. We
don’t consider that ‘‘too easy.’’ Rather, we are seeking their independent
reading level. When students gain access to appropriate books, we observe
perceptions of competence soar as they realize that they can read and that
they can get better.
Interest
We know that interest has a positive effect on reading achievement and
reading motivation and so we try to ensure access to materials that will
interest students. Interest is often described as situational (initial fleeting
engagement) and individual (a stable, maintained disposition) (Hidi &
Renninger, 2006). Situational interest is easily sparked by novelty or
curiosity but it is not necessarily long-lasting. Teachers continually attempt
to spark situational interest by sharing their own reading, reading aloud,
and introducing good books. We are encouraged by research finding that in
a supportive environment, repeated positive short-term experiences transi-
tioned into more stable, longer term interest or motivation (Guay, Megeau,
& Vallerand, 2003; Guthrie et al., 2007; Guthrie, Hoa, Wigfield, Tonks, &
Perencevich, 2006; Hidi & Renninger, 2006).
Creating an Optimal Learning Environment for Struggling Readers 101
Choice
Choice is often associated with autonomy as it is presumed that when
autonomous, individuals are always free to make their own personal
decisions. A natural implication would be to increase choices in order to
enhance autonomy. It is true that there is wide support that choice enhances
intrinsic motivation, but all choices are not created equal and having choices
does not necessarily mean one is autonomous (Guthrie et al., 2007; Katz &
Assor, 2006; Patall, Cooper, & Robinson, 2008; Ryan & Deci, 2006;
Stefanou, Perencevich, DiCintio, & Turner, 2004). One can be autonomous
without any choices or nonautonomous when faced with several mean-
ingless choices. Assor, Kaplan, and Roth (2002) supported this notion
finding that personal relevance may be more important than choice in
motivation.
In our reading clinic, children are free to choose the materials they wish to
read during independent reading times. However, we find that students
often do not know how to select an appropriate book. We explicitly teach
them a strategy for selecting books and provide guided practice until
students are picking appropriate books. Teachers may place books used
during guided reading lessons into bins for quick access to books for
rereading. We find that many students enjoy rereading these books because
the first reading affords them an extra level of support. For children who do
not know what they like to read, teachers might label a large plastic bag with
each child’s name and place suggested books inside. At instruction times,
when teachers need more control over the difficulty level of the materials,
they may offer the students a choice of three different books for the lesson.
Again, the choices reflect students’ personal interests as much as possible
but if students respond negatively to the choices, teachers acknowledge and
note the child’s perspective for subsequent lessons. Choice extends to
learning activities as well. Opportunities for choice are never random or
102 ROSE MARIE CODLING
haphazard but are carefully crafted by the teacher and informed by the
teacher’s goals.
In sum then, we consider the important concepts of access, interest, and
choice together in planning reading opportunities. This ensures that
students will read varied materials that will be both interesting and
appropriate and they will have opportunities to be meaningfully engaged
with the materials.
Our motivation plan is based on the simple assumption that children must
read. They must read to get better at reading, to gain knowledge and to
learn to think. The self-determined reader knows this. The self-determined
reader reads. We are explicit in discussing this idea with students. We
encourage them to think of things at which they excel and consider how
practice has made them better. We model good reading habits constantly.
We want them to recognize the importance and pleasure of reading so that
they will begin to internalize the motivation to read.
There is considerable evidence that expected tangible extrinsic rewards will
undermine intrinsic motivation for interesting activities. Additionally, verbal
feedback that is affirming and informational enhances students’ intrinsic
motivation (Deci et al., 1999b). Therefore, a hallmark of our reading clinic is a
motivation plan that is consistent with these findings, excites students, and
facilitates their motivation to read. The plan is an example of how theory and
research can meaningfully inform practice. Each aspect of the plan has been
carefully thought-out to ensure that it is research-based and that it supports
students’ needs for autonomy, competence, and relatedness. We shun the use
of tangible external inducements to encourage reading and we use positive,
informational verbal feedback freely to encourage reading, strategy applica-
tion, and persistence.
Each summer begins with teachers brainstorming a theme that unifies the
classes. We determine five theme-related levels through which all students
will progress. The levels reflect a natural increasing progression from Level 1
to Level 5. For example, for the camp theme, the levels were camper,
counsellor-in-training, junior counsellor, counsellor, and reading ranger.
When students arrive on the first day, the teachers enthusiastically describe
the theme to the students and distribute reading logs in folders that are
returned each Monday. The teachers model for students how to fill out the
reading log. Students record the number of minutes they read each day and
Creating an Optimal Learning Environment for Struggling Readers 103
when the logs are collected, the total number of minutes for the class is
calculated by a teacher. The teacher announces to students that they have
met the class goal and all students move to the next level. On the last day of
the program, students return their final log and move to the highest level of
the theme. On that day, we have a celebration where students receive a
certificate of congratulations for their summer reading and they are invited
to select two new books that they may take home and keep.
Our expectation, based on SDT, is that the students’ motivation at first
may be nonautonomous. As we expound on the enjoyment and value of
reading and we continually model this through read-aloud and our own
personal reading, SDT predicts that students will begin to internalize the
motivation to read because they see the value in reading. We hope that
through successful, pleasurable reading experiences, their motivation will
become integrated or intrinsic. Three points about the motivation plan
deserve explication:
1. The number of minutes for the goal is discussed and determined by the
class when the plan is introduced. We strive to determine the goal
collaboratively so that it is more intrinsically oriented. We ensure that the
goal is not competitive or contingent on performance. Flexibility and
student input are paramount. The students discuss all the activities that
consume their time and offer each other ideas for finding time to read.
They agree on a number that seems reasonable for a class goal, which
usually works out to be approximately 20 minutes per day for each child.
2. Reading logs are kept private. In this way, students are never singled out
or chastised for not contributing to the class goal. There are many
reasons why students do not read, most of which are out of our control.
When we identify students who are not recording minutes on their log or
not returning it, we have individual conversations with them. Through-
out the program, we reiterate the importance of reading practice. We
encourage these students to reflect on why they aren’t reading, what they
could do differently, and what we could do to support them in their home
reading. We also use positive verbal feedback in the group setting to
specifically point out instances where students’ reading practice is
strengthening their reading or helping them use reading strategies. This
dialogue is designed to help all readers, but especially the nonreaders,
begin to internalize the motivation to practice reading. We might send
another log home or send books home that we know the student can
manage. These small steps often pay off simply because there are no
books at home or no adult home in the evenings to help with hard words.
104 ROSE MARIE CODLING
3. On occasion, a group will not quite meet the goal. This generally happens
when one or two students aren’t returning a log. Since the students
seldom ask about the exact number of minutes read by the class, we can
sometimes report to them this way: ‘‘Wow, you did some serious reading
this week. Everybody move to the next level!’’ We leave out the fact that
the numbers fell short. Some will object to this tactic, arguing that
students should not benefit when they do not put forth effort or that
students should understand the connection between their effort and
eventual outcomes. While it is true that we want students to be
responsible and accountable, we have a clear rationale for this practice.
Our goal is to encourage the students to read. We do everything we can
to facilitate that end, but there are certain factors over which we have no
control. There is no point in letting the group ‘‘fail’’ particularly when
most of them are reading more than they typically do, which is what we
want. In the end, we are especially pleased to give nonreaders two new
books because they are usually the ones who need them most. We have
accomplished what we set out to do. We have encouraged all the children
to read more and we have given new books to every child, increasing the
chances that all students will internalize the motivation to read.
Explicit Instruction
She was definitely able to decode some words and she read every night and she kept
a positive attitude throughout the whole thing. And she’d say, ‘‘Look mom, I can
read.’’ And she was learning some decoding strategies, but she also learned some
Creating an Optimal Learning Environment for Struggling Readers 105
self-confidence. She was having some problems and kept saying she was dumb and I
really think it helped her self-esteem and confidence. (Post-program parent interview)
Fig. 1. Eric’s Response to the Journal Prompt How Will This Strategy Help You?
106 ROSE MARIE CODLING
So many of them have all these ideas and they can tell you a story, but if you ask them to
write it, they just lock up. So we taught them some strategies for that. Just sitting with
them one-on-one when they were writing was the most helpful, to help them get their
ideas in an organized form on paper. So we did two large writing assignments that lasted
a week y and I think that giving them a bigger assignment, they felt a huge sense of
accomplishment at the end when they get it done. (Clinic teacher post-program
interview)
y unfortunately the way they have the school classroom set up he loses so much y the
minute he walks into that classroom. It’s all about who is better, smarter, whatever, and
it’s so much more competition. And he doesn’t feel good about himself. y and so [in the
reading clinic] he feels as though he is smart, he knows something, he is confident,
and y I think the program is important for doing that for him. (Post-program parent
interview)
Assessment
Fig. 2. Typical Written Closure Example, Written by Students and Discussed at the
End of Each Lesson.
CONCLUSION
A few years ago when I was trying to wade through the motivation literature
in order to write a coherent dissertation, I heard Edward Deci say,
‘‘Teachers often ask how they can motivate their students to read but that’s
the wrong question. If intrinsic motivation comes from within, then the
more appropriate question is: How do I create an environment in which
children will become motivated?’’ This seemingly simple remark set me on a
new path that has become my mantra as a teacher educator and reading
clinic director. A large body of research on intrinsic motivation and reading
Creating an Optimal Learning Environment for Struggling Readers 109
supports the tenets of SDT and this work provides an excellent foundation
for reading clinic and classroom settings where students’ academic and
motivation issues can be addressed in concert. We have learned from this
body of work that self-determined individuals exhibit a wide range of
positive and productive behaviors. We have learned as well that an
environment that supports autonomy, competence, and relatedness facil-
itates intrinsic and integrated forms of motivation.
The autonomy continuum provides an effective lens for thinking about
reading motivations. Particularly helpful is the concept of internalization
that provides a mechanism for the development of autonomous forms of
motivation. In the case of reading, it is especially encouraging to know that
through modeling of literacy behaviors, explanations about the utility and
instrumental value of reading strategies, and encouraging ownership of
learning, teachers can help students internalize the motivation to read. The
autonomy continuum also explains how extrinsic rewards, shame, and
threats of punishment are counter-productive. These controlling practices
take away any opportunity for SD. Further, these practices send powerful
messages to children that coercion is necessary because reading and learning
are inherently unnatural or unpleasant.
This chapter has outlined ways in which intrinsic motivation can be both
evident and facilitated in a reading clinic setting. But what about regular
classroom contexts? Is it possible to create an environment in a regular
classroom that supports autonomy, competence, and relatedness? I contend
that it is, though the challenges, particularly with older students, may seem
insurmountable.
Consider that most students have been immersed in a system where they
have never been the architects of their own learning. Even if they wanted to
come on board, they would not know how. Consequently, the teacher must
be the architect of the environment in his or her own classroom to enable
students to become self-determined. Most important in creating an
autonomy-supportive classroom, teachers must consider learning activities
and materials from the students’ perspectives. Guiding questions might
include: Is this an authentic task that students will find relevant to their
lives? Will this task or material be meaningful to my students? How might
students be more involved in creating their learning experiences? On the first
day of fifth grade, for instance, instead of having the classroom rules posted
along with the penalty for breaking the rules, perhaps the teacher guides a
discussion about appropriate behavior and the students produce the rules
themselves. The teacher then subtly entices the students to consider the
notion that when expectations are clear, there should be no need for
110 ROSE MARIE CODLING
REFERENCES
Anderson, R. C., Wilson, P. T., & Fielding, L. G. (1988). Growth in reading and how children
spend their time outside of school. Reading Research Quarterly, 23, 285–303.
Assor, A., Kaplan, H., & Roth, G. (2002). Choice is good, but relevance is excellent:
Autonomy-enhancing and suppressing teacher behaviours predicting students’ engage-
ment in schoolwork. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 72, 261–278.
Becker, M., McElvany, N., & Kortenbruck, M. (2010). Intrinsic and extrinsic reading
motivation as predictors of reading literacy: A longitudinal study. Journal of Educational
Psychology, 102, 773–785.
Cameron, J., & Pierce, W. D. (1994). Reinforcement, reward, and intrinsic motivation: A meta-
analysis. Review of Educational Research, 64, 363–423.
Cunningham, A. E., & Stanovich, K. E. (2003). Reading matters: How reading engagement
influences cognition. In J. Flood, D. Lapp, J. R. Squire & J. Jensen (Eds.), Handbook of
research on teaching the English language arts (2nd ed., pp. 666–675). New York, NY:
Routledge.
Deci, E. L., Koestner, R., & Ryan, R. M. (1999a). The undermining effect is a reality after all-
Extrinsic rewards, task interest, and self-determination: Reply to Eisenberger, Pierce,
and Cameron (1999) and Lepper, Henderlong, and Gingras (1999). Psychological
Bulletin, 125, 692–700.
Deci, E. L., Koestner, R., & Ryan, R. M. (1999b). A meta-analytic review of experiments
examining the effects of extrinsic rewards on intrinsic motivation. Psychological Bulletin,
125, 627–668.
Deci, E. L., Koestner, R., & Ryan, R. M. (2001). Extrinsic rewards and intrinsic motivation in
education: Reconsidered once again. Review of Educational Research, 71, 1–27.
Deci, E. L., & Ryan, R. M. (2000). The ‘‘what’’ and ‘‘why’’ of goal pursuits: Human needs and
the self-determination of behavior. Psychological Inquiry, 11, 227–268.
Eisenberger, R., & Cameron, J. (1996). Detrimental effects of reward: Reality or myth?
American Psychologist, 51, 1153–1166.
Eliot, A. J., McGregor, H. A., & Thrash, T. M. (2002). The need for competence. In E. L. Deci
& R. M. Ryan (Eds.), Handbook of self-determination research (pp. 361–387). Rochester,
NY: University of Rochester Press.
Fawson, P. C., & Moore, S. A. (1999). Reading incentive programs: Beliefs and practices.
Reading Psychology, 20, 325–340.
Gambrell, L. B., Palmer, B. M., Codling, R. M., & Mazzoni, S. A. (1996). Assessing motivation
to read. The Reading Teacher, 49, 518–533.
Guay, F., Mageau, G. A., & Vallerand, R. J. (2003). On the hierarchical structure of self-
determined motivation: A test of top-down, bottom-up, reciprocal, and horizontal
effects. Personality & Social Psychology Bulletin, 29, 992–1004.
Guthrie, J. T., Hoa, A. L. W., Wigfield, A., Tonks, S. M., Humenick, N. M., & Littles, E.
(2007). Reading motivation and reading comprehension growth in the later elementary
years. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 32, 282–313.
Guthrie, J. T., Hoa, L. W., Wigfield, A., Tonks, S. M., & Perencevich, K. C. (2006). From spark
to fire: Can situational reading interest lead to long-term reading motivation? Reading
Research and Instruction, 45, 91–117.
Guthrie, J. T., Van Meter, P., McCann, A. D., Wigfield, A., Bennett, L., Poundstone, C. C., y
Mitchell, A. M. (1996). Growth of literacy engagement: Changes in motivations and
112 ROSE MARIE CODLING
Reeve, J., & Jang, H. (2006). What teachers say and do to support students’ autonomy during a
learning activity. Journal of Educational Psychology, 98, 209–218.
Reeve, J., Jang, H., Carrell, D., Jeon, S., & Barch, J. (2004). Enhancing students’ engagement
by increasing teachers’ autonomy support. Motivation and Emotion, 28, 147–169.
Ryan, R. M., & Deci, E. L. (1996). When paradigms clash: Comments on Cameron and Pierce’s
claim that rewards do not undermine intrinsic motivation. Review of Educational
Research, 66, 33–38.
Ryan, R. M., & Deci, E. L. (2000). Intrinsic and extrinsic motivations: Classic definitions and
new directions. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 25, 54–67.
Ryan, R. M., & Deci, E. L. (2006). Self-regulation and the problem of human autonomy: Does
psychology need choice, self-determination, and will? Journal of Personality, 74, 1557–
1585.
Ryan, R. M., Huta, V., & Deci, E. L. (2008). Living well: A self-determination theory
perspective on eudaimonia. Journal of Happiness Studies, 9, 139–170.
Schunk, D. H., & Pajares, F. (2009). Self-efficacy theory. In K. R. Wentzel & A. Wigfield (Eds.),
Handbook of motivation at school (pp. 35–54). New York, NY: Routledge.
Stefanou, C. R., Perencevich, K. C., DiCintio, M., & Turner, J. C. (2004). Supporting
autonomy in the classroom: Ways teachers encourage student decision making and
ownership. Educational Psychologist, 39, 97–110.
Taylor, B. M., Frye, B., & Maruyama, J. (1990). Time spent reading and reading growth.
American Educational Research Journal, 27, 351–362.
Turner, J. C. (1995). The influence of classroom contexts on young children’s motivation for
literacy. Reading Research Quarterly, 30, 410–441.
Turner, J. C., Thorpe, P. K., & Meyer, D. K. (1998). Students’ reports of motivation and
negative affect: A theoretical and empirical analysis. Journal of Educational Psychology,
90, 758–771.
Vallerand, R. J., Pelletier, L. G., & Koestner, R. (2008). Reflections on self-determination
theory. Canadian Psychology, 49, 257–262.
Wang, J. H., & Guthrie, J. T. (2004). Modeling the effects of intrinsic motivation, extrinsic
motivation, amount of reading, and past reading achievement on text comprehension
between U.S. and Chinese students. Reading Research Quarterly, 39, 162–186.
Wigfield, A., & Guthrie, J. T. (1997). Relations of children’s motivation for reading to the
amount and breadth of their reading. Journal of Educational Psychology, 89, 420–432.
PART 2
READING AND WRITING
ELEMENTS
VOCABULARY/COMPREHENSION-
BASED MODELS OF READING
CLINICS
ABSTRACT
Every child, and adult for that matter, has room for reading improvement.
Sometimes, alternative instructional programs are needed to ensure
expeditious academic progress. Classroom instruction does not always
reach every child’s needs and as a result, clinical instructional frameworks
are geared toward the development of student abilities, rather than the
bolstering of content knowledge. As common core curriculums expand into
classrooms nationwide, clinical instruction’s aim to support reading skills
that have not already been mastered within classroom instruction becomes
increasingly important.
Readers flourish when provided with learning environments that are
conducive to developing vocabulary and comprehension competencies. For
instance, difficult vocabulary presents a host of challenges to youth not only
in determining a word’s meaning but also in comprehending the sentence or
text in which it appears. Take the example below:
Jerry erroneously marked ‘true’ on the quiz as he was absent the day prior to the
examination.
A student reading this would not only have to know the meaning of the
word ‘‘erroneously’’ but must also use its meaning to understand the rest of
the sentence. Without other reading skills like context clues, syntactical
knowledge, and inferencing abilities (e.g., Jerry’s absence caused him to miss
the review/material for the quiz), many fourth graders would struggle to
fully understand the sentence. Using a vocabulary and comprehension based
literacy clinic model, reading skills can be augmented through a ‘‘mastery
and then move on’’ approach, where students gain a variety of both word
attack and comprehension strategies with the goal of transferring these
abilities to a full range of subject areas.
For students who struggled to understand the event(s) that led up to
Jerry’s ‘‘error,’’ clinical instructors could facilitate a lesson on looking for
Vocabulary/Comprehension-Based Models of Reading Clinics 119
The act of reading is often referred to as ‘‘making meaning from text,’’ and
although some struggling readers may have difficulty with decoding, it is
typically their struggles with ‘‘meaning-making,’’ or comprehension, that
will require significant intervention. Although perhaps it borders on the
tautological to say that ‘‘one needs to know the meaning of the words one is
reading to know the meaning of what one is reading,’’ there is a significant
correlation between vocabulary knowledge and comprehension ability
(Anderson & Freebody, 1981; Baumann, 2005). To this end, clinical efforts
targeting vocabulary acquisition can play a vital role in overall comprehen-
sion development.
It has been estimated that children learn between 2000 and 3000 words a
year (Beck & McKeown, 1991), with most of these words acquired outside
of explicit instruction. It has been tempting to assume that because many of
these words are acquired naturally, vocabulary instruction is not that
important. These 2000 to 3000 words per year is an estimated average,
however, and although some students certainly acquire that many words per
year or more, it is largely due to intensive exposure to written language via
reading and spoken language in their homes. Nagy and Scott (2000) note:
Students who need help most in the area of vocabulary – those whose home experience
has not given them a substantial foundation in the vocabulary of literate and academic
English – need to acquire words at a pace even faster than that of their peers, but by no
means do they always find this process easy or automatic. (p. 280)
Because some students will enter school with a more limited vocabulary
than that of their peers, these students will benefit from instruction focusing
on vocabulary development.
Acquiring vocabulary knowledge is important for several reasons. First,
students who enter school with a limited vocabulary will not only have more
difficulty acquiring decoding skills, they will also have more difficulty with
comprehension, which can lead to frustration with reading and a lack of
engagement with reading materials. Because wide reading is arguably the
most effective means of increasing vocabulary knowledge, students who are
frustrated or disengaged from reading will likely not acquire words at a rate
necessary for later academic success. Second, vocabulary knowledge leads to
greater vocabulary knowledge because many words in the English language
share root words and/or word parts with other words. This means that a
word is often changed into another part of speech with a similar meaning by
changing or adding a prefix or suffix (e.g., the verb multiply is changed to a
122 EVAN ORTLIEB ET AL.
McKeown, 1991; Nagy & Scott, 2000), it is not clear to what extent
classroom teachers have embraced the need for vocabulary instruction. In
addition, research-based methods for delivering vocabulary instruction are
often not fully utilized in the classroom because, according to Manzo,
Manzo, and Thomas (2009): ‘‘For new and experienced teachers alike, it is
more comfortable to teach in the traditional manner they most likely
experienced as students than it is to acquire a more strategy-based
interactive/intervention teaching style’’ (p. 31). Moreover, research into
vocabulary instruction has made it clear that traditional vocabulary
instruction based on memorizing word lists and definitions is not as
effective as more interactive approaches, especially for struggling readers. In
summarizing an extensive analysis of instructional methodologies, Blacho-
witz and Fisher (2000) recommend that four guidelines should be used to
develop vocabulary instruction:
1. Students should be active in developing their understanding of words and
ways to learn them.
2. Students should personalize word learning.
3. Students should be immersed in words.
4. Students should build on multiple sources of information to learn words
through repeated exposures (p. 504).
It is important, then, that clinical/classroom instruction incorporates
these guiding principles, and we provide some suggestions for their
application. The first principle is largely related to motivating students and
getting them interested in vocabulary words. It is useful, therefore, to
mention six evidence-based guidelines that Brozo and Flynt (2008) suggest
are important for developing motivation (it should be noted that these
guidelines apply not only to vocabulary instruction but also to instruction in
general):
1. Elevating self-efficacy
2. Engendering interest in new learning
3. Connecting outside with inside school literacies
4. Making an abundance of interesting texts available
5. Expanding choices and options
6. Structuring collaboration for motivation.
One method of helping develop student interest in words is to introduce
puns and other jokes that rely on wordplay – as students enter late
elementary and middle school, they begin to appreciate word-based humor,
and this can be motivational for helping create an interest in new
124 EVAN ORTLIEB ET AL.
final resting place. Immersion approaches such as the word wall can be
especially effective if the wider community of the school also participates
(Brett, Rothlein, & Hurley, 1996). The object of this approach is to immerse
the students in an environment where they are surrounded by conditions
created to foster vocabulary development of the words targeted for learning.
It requires considerable planning but has numerous benefits. The object
words are introduced in high frequency into the students’ surroundings with
all of the teachers, administrators, and even the cafeteria staff making an
effort to use the words so that they become a part of the students’ total
school experience (Manzo, Manzo, & Thomas, 2006). In their article titled,
Rationale for Systematic Vocabulary Development: Antidote for State
Mandates, Manzo, Manzo, and Thomas present the following goals for
this type of immersion:
Object words are introduced into the very air that children breathe, with
the expectation that this will do the following things:
Increase the frequency of appearance of otherwise low-frequency terms;
Raise the probability that a student will get a fuller picture of the scope
and contexts influencing a word’s often variable meanings;
Minimize the social–emotional downside and heighten the semantic
sentiments that some words seem to conjure; and
Generally raise word consciousness and induce playful self-teaching, the
sometimes overlooked object of all intentional and incidental instruction
(p. 617).
The authors also suggest that this type of concerted effort on the part of
the adults in the school sends a message to the students that vocabulary is
important and valued, and this spirit of cooperation in building a shared
lexicon creates ties that bind the school community together.
Increasing the number of exposures to words in multiple contexts will aid
in each student’s development of his or her personal lexicon. The number of
exposures required to acquire and/or retain a word is estimated to range
from 5 (Saragi, Nation, & Meister, 1978) to as many as 40 (Beck, Perfetti, &
McKeown, 1982), depending on word complexity and the level of word
knowledge required for mastery. Words in the English language often have
multiple meanings that are contextually dependent, and the more exposures
one has to a word being used in its various contexts, the more likely it is that
the word will become part of one’s vocabulary.
Additionally, the role of oral language in assimilating new vocabulary
should not be underestimated since vocabulary acquisition is linked to the
number and types of words that we hear in our environment (Hart & Risley,
126 EVAN ORTLIEB ET AL.
1995). Hearing and speaking the words that we learn reinforces our
understanding of them and the contexts in which they are used, which
provides a basis for the reading and writing that a student will do later on.
Having students hear a word in context before beginning to analyze it helps
to activate prior knowledge of the word that the student may possess. Many
students already recognize a word orally before they can decode it in a text,
especially if it has an irregular spelling. Reading aloud to students is
something that every teacher should do, and speaking to students in a
challenging vocabulary is a way to prepare their brains to assimilate new
words (Hahn, 2002). One of the best preparations a student can have for
standardized tests such as the SAT is to hear great literature read aloud
(Trelease, 2001). Audio recordings of literature being read by professional
readers are an excellent resource and many are available at the public library
for no cost (Verlaan & Ortlieb, 2012).
Almost 70% of the most frequently used words have multiple meanings,
so a context for the word is often necessary in beginning to comprehend how
it is being used. Here a dictionary can be helpful in exploring the various
meanings for frequently used words, but the assignment should entail
exploration, not drudgery. Teachers can use a wide variety of both fiction
and nonfiction texts to show how context gives clues to a word’s meaning,
which can serve to complement and deepen dictionary exploration.
Vocabulary maps are also an effective strategy in that they activate learning
at several levels of the brain. First, the student writes the word in the center
of the page, dividing the rest of the page into three or four sections. In one
section, the student writes the definition of the word; in another, the student
writes the original sentence in which the word appeared; in a third section,
the student draws a picture representing the word (which can be difficult
with more abstract words because students will have to access their
knowledge of symbols); and in the fourth section, the student draws a
picture representing the opposite of or a nondefinition of the word. It is
important to plan written and oral activities in which students have multiple
opportunities to make use of the words on their vocabulary maps. Hearing
new words in combination with studying various contexts in which a word
may appear aid in reinforcing the meaning of new words.
Because nearly 80% of the words that a student will encounter as they
read are comprised of just 2000 word families (Carroll, Davies, & Richman,
1971), with different words created by adding or removing prefixes and
suffixes, a systematic study of prefixes, suffixes, and roots can be very
helpful in maximizing the effects of multiple exposures to words and word
families (Ortlieb, 2012b). This is especially true if one concentrates on the
Vocabulary/Comprehension-Based Models of Reading Clinics 127
most frequently occurring roots and the prefixes and suffixes that have the
least variance in their meaning (Bromley, 2002). In addition, the meanings
of over half of the polysyllabic words in the English language can be
determined by analyzing word parts if students have been given practice in
doing this (Nagy & Scott, 2000). Students should be given explicit
instruction for a short time in the meanings of the more frequently
occurring roots so that they can associate the root with its denotation. Also,
textbooks and vocabulary workbooks often provide examples that show
words created from combinations of roots with prefixes and suffixes. If a
teacher is not using an explicit vocabulary instructional text, such as a
vocabulary workbook, lists of roots and their meanings are available on the
Internet and can be printed, reproduced, and distributed to one’s students.
Many strategies can be employed to reinforce root meanings throughout
the year, but if a teacher is planning on using an explicit instructional text,
such as a vocabulary workbook, the teacher should preview the words that
are going to be learned for either a grading period or even a semester to
identify the most commonly occurring root words and/or the roots of those
words the teacher knows will give students the most difficulty, that is, low
frequency words typically found on standardized tests such as the SAT or in
the more difficult literature. Students can then create a ‘‘root wall,’’ either by
itself or in addition to the standard word wall, and keep a record of this
word wall and/or these more difficult roots in a vocabulary notebook.
Students place new words they find words in their vocabulary study or in
their reading underneath the word wall and/or the appropriate root in their
notebooks. Students can also explain how any prefixes and suffixes attached
to the root give it a particular meaning, and write sample sentences (either
their own or those written by others) that contain the new word they have
found in the section of the vocabulary notebook that contains the root. In
addition, students can find a common synonym that they already know for
the word being learned, and copy it next to the word in their notebooks.
When instructing students to find synonyms, teachers should be careful to
direct students to find those that are meaningful to the individual student;
thus, a student with a more developed vocabulary may have a different
synonym than a student whose vocabulary is less developed. In this manner,
the student’s existing schema is activated and it is more likely that the new
word will be remembered later (Rupley, Logan, & Nichols, 1999).
Although there are a great number and variety of quality instructional
texts specifically addressing vocabulary acquisition, educators are encour-
aged to adapt instructional methods to the needs of the individual students
with whom they are working. Using Blachowicz and Fisher’s four
128 EVAN ORTLIEB ET AL.
Over the last 40 years, reading comprehension has been one of the most
researched areas in the field of reading/literacy studies. It has become widely
accepted that readers make meaning from text by actively enlisting cognitive
processes that facilitate comprehension. These cognitive processes have
come to be viewed as strategies that proficient readers use to comprehend
text. Although these strategies are typically second nature for proficient
readers, struggling readers often do not effectively employ any of these
strategies, thereby causing them difficulty with one or more aspects of the
comprehension process. The good news is that through explicit instruction
and practice, these strategies can be acquired by readers who may not have
been actively employing them. In their review of the research, Duke and
Pearson (2002) recommend that comprehension instruction include devel-
opment of the following six strategies: (a) prediction, (b) think-aloud,
(c) text structure, (d) visual representations of text, (e) summarization, and
(f) questions/questioning. These strategies can be easily modified and crafted
to fit the reading ability level of students in grades K-8 and beyond. An
overview of each strategy and its place within clinical practice follows.
Prediction is often associated with both prereading and during-reading
activities. Before reading begins, prediction activities typically entail either
providing or enhancing background knowledge about the subject matter,
which helps to engage a reader’s schema. The more background knowledge
a reader has about the reading material, the easier it tends to be to
comprehend what is being discussed in the text (Anderson & Pearson, 1984).
Prereading activities frequently include asking students to make predictions
such as (a) what does the title and/or introduction suggest about the topic?,
(b) how might this topic relate to students’ own lives or experiences?,
Vocabulary/Comprehension-Based Models of Reading Clinics 129
(c) what information do they believe the reading material may give them?,
and (d) how might studying this topic be useful? Having students answer
these questions explicitly before a reading assignment provides modeling for
what good readers do, and frequent repetition of this type of questioning
also helps to make it more habitual, with the goal of having it eventually
become second nature. Another activity characterized as employing
prediction (and which can be helpful for both motivating and increasing
the interest of reluctant readers) is the Anticipation-Reaction (A/R) Guide
(Duffelmeyer, 1994; Herbert, 1978). This guide usually takes the form of a
set of multilevel questions (factual, inferential, and/or application-oriented)
or statements about the reading material. These questions or statements are
presented to the students before reading, often to highlight prevailing views
or ideas about the subject matter. The goal of these guides is to help set a
purpose for reading by stimulating student curiosity about the subject.
Prediction is also employed during the reading act, and this during-reading
aspect of prediction is addressed in the following section.
Comprehension is an active process requiring the reader to continuously
engage with the text. Many struggling readers, however, are usually not
accustomed to enlisting a sufficient number of those cognitive functions
while they are reading to allow for successful comprehension. Think-alouds
are strategies designed to model for struggling readers the meta-cognitive
activities (thinking about thinking) that are part of the comprehension
process. Usually modeled first by the clinician, think-alouds often will
encompass several of the specific strategies that are part of the comprehen-
sion process, such as prediction, questioning, and reflection. A think-aloud
is carried out just like it sounds – while clinicians read a piece of text aloud
for the class, they periodically stop to verbally model the questions,
predictions, and visualizations that they are form while they read. As with
the use of explicit prereading questions, the goal of frequent modeling of
think-alouds is to have these metacognitive activities become a natural part
of the student’s reading process. Not only have teacher-led think-alouds
been demonstrated to have a positive impact with struggling readers, think-
alouds have also been shown to benefit comprehension when students are
asked to engage in them, by improving important aspects of the
comprehension process such as summarization (Silven & Vauras, 1992).
Another element that contributes to improved comprehension is under-
standing text structure. Text structure refers to the predictable patterns
found in texts of a particular genre. Familiarity with these patterns has been
shown to facilitate parts of the comprehension process such as recall
(Bartlett, 1932). For instance, beginning readers are often first exposed to
130 EVAN ORTLIEB ET AL.
CONCLUSION
REFERENCES
Anderson, R. C., & Freebody, P. (1981). Vocabulary knowledge. In J. Guthrie (Ed.),
Comprehension and teaching: Research reviews (pp. 77–117). Newark, DE: International
Reading Association.
Anderson, R. C., & Nagy, W. E. (1991). Word meanings. In R. Barr, M. L. Kamil,
P. B. Mosenthal & P. D. Pearson (Eds.), Handbook of reading research (Vol. II, pp. 690–
724). White Plains, NY: Longman.
Anderson, R. C., & Pearson, P. D. (1984). A schema-theoretic view of basic processes in reading
comprehension. In P. D. Pearson, R. Barr, M. L. Kamil & P. Mosenthal (Eds.),
Handbook of reading research (pp. 255–291). New York: Longman.
Armbruster, B., Anderson, T., & Ostertag, J. (1987). Does text structure/summarization
instruction facilitate learning from expository text? Reading Research Quarterly, 22,
331–346.
Bartlett, F. C. (1932). Remembering: A study in experimental and social psychology. New York:
Cambridge University Press.
Baumann, J. F. (2005). Vocabulary-comprehension relationships. In B. Maloch, J. V. Hoffman,
D. L. Schallert, C. M. Fairbanks & J. Worthy (Eds.), Fifty-fourth yearbook of the
National Reading Conference (pp. 117–131). Oak Creek, WI: National Reading
Conference.
Vocabulary/Comprehension-Based Models of Reading Clinics 135
Hart, B., & Risley, T. (1995). Meaningful differences in the everyday experiences of young
American children. Baltimore, MD: Paul H. Brookes Publishing Co., Inc.
Herbert, H. (1978). Teaching reading in the content areas. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.
Hiebert, E. H. (1983). An examination of ability grouping for reading instruction. Reading
Research Quarterly, 18, 231–255.
Manzo, A., Manzo, U., & Thomas, M. (2006). Rationale for systematic vocabulary development:
Antidote for state mandates. Journal of Adolescent and Adult Literacy, 49(7), 610–619.
Manzo, U., Manzo, A., & Thomas, M. (2009). Content area literacy: A framework for reading-
based instruction (. 5th ed.). Hoboken, NJ: Wiley.
McNeil, J., & Donant, L. (1982). Summarization strategy for improving reading comprehen-
sion. In J. A. Niles & L. A. Harris (Eds.), New inquiries in reading research and instruction
(pp. 215–219). Rochester, NY: National Reading Conference.
Nagy, W. E., & Scott, J. A. (2000). Vocabulary processes. In M. L. Kamil, P. Mosenthal,
P. D. Pearson & R. Barr (Eds.), Handbook of reading research (Vol. III, pp. 269–284).
Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
National Center for Educational Statistics (2011). The nation’s report card: Reading 2011.
Washington, DC: U. S. Department of Education. Retrieved from http://nces.ed.gov
OECD. (2010). PISA 2009 results: Executive summary, Retrieved from. http://www.oecd.org/
dataoecd/34/60/46619703.pdf
Ortlieb, E. (2012a). The effects of using Greek and Latin word parts in the second grade within
a struggling school district. The Reading Professor, 34(1), 29–32.
Ortlieb, E. (2012b). The past, present, and future of reading diagnosis and remediation. Journal
of Language Teaching and Research, 3(3), 395–400.
Pearson, P. D., & Fielding, L. (1983). Instructional implications of listening comprehension
research (Read. Ed. Rep. No. 39). Urbana, IL: Center for the Study of Reading,
University of Illinois.
Pressley, M., Levin, J. R., & McDaniel, M. A. (1987). Remembering versus inferring what a
word means: Mnemonic and contextual approaches. In M. G. McKeown & M. E. Curtis
(Eds.), The nature of vocabulary acquisition (pp. 107–127). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Rosenshine, B., Meister, C., & Chapman, S. (1996). Teaching students to generate questions: A
review of the intervention studies. Review of Educational Research, 66, 181–221.
Rupley, W. H., Logan, J. W., & Nichols, W. D. (1999). Vocabulary instruction in a balanced
reading program. The Reading Teacher, 52(4), 336–346.
Saragi, T., Nation, I. S. P., & Meister, G. F. (1978). Vocabulary learning and reading. System,
6, 72–78.
Silven, M., & Vauras, M. (1992). Improving reading through thinking aloud. Learning and
Instruction, 2, 69–88.
Stanovich, K. (1986). Matthew effects in reading: Some consequences of individual differences
in the acquisition of reading. Reading Research Quarterly, 19, 278–303.
Thurlow, M., Gaden, J., Ysseldyke, J., & Algozzine, R. (1984). Student reading during reading class:
The lost activity in reading instruction. Journal of Educational Research, 77(5), 267–272.
Trelease, J. (2001). The read-aloud handbook (5th ed.). New York, NY: Penguin.
Vaughn, S., Moody, S. W., & Schumm, J. S. (1998). Broken promises: Reading instruction in
the resource room. Exceptional Children, 64, 211–225.
Verlaan, W., & Ortlieb, E. (2012). Reading while listening: Improving struggling adolescent
readers’ comprehension through the use of digital-audio recordings. What’s Hot in
Literacy Yearbook, 1, 30–36.
WHEN KIDS CAN’T READ, WHAT A
FOCUS ON FLUENCY CAN DO: THE
READING CLINIC EXPERIENCE AT
KENT STATE UNIVERSITY
ABSTRACT
Purpose – This chapter profiles a summer reading clinic that utilizes
graduate students (clinicians) to provide diagnostic literacy intervention
for students in grades one through six who struggle with reading and
writing. The chapter asserts that struggling readers can become successful
when instruction is designed around research-based principles of teaching
and learning. A description is provided of the instructional routine
employed at the clinic that focuses on fluency and has been shown to assist
students in making significant improvements in their literacy progress.
Methodology/approach – The authors describe how teachers and
intervention specialists work together to provide an effective intervention
to the students that emphasizes a specific guided oral fluency routine
known as the Fluency Development Lesson (FDL). Each step in the FDL
is explained. Prior to instruction, clinicians administered an informal
reading inventory to gain baseline data about the students in the areas of
word recognition, fluency, and comprehension and to subsequently inform
instruction. During the fifth and final week of the program, posttests were
administered. T-Tests indicated that students made significant progress
(p o.001) from pretest to posttest in all areas measured.
Limitations – The authors acknowledge that the study is small in scale,
the intervention period was limited, and the results may have been
influenced by outside factors beyond their control.
Research implications – The study’s primary purpose was to improve the
reading outcomes of the students involved. The reading clinic setting is
ideal for further FDL research including its impact on older students and
the incorporation of digital texts on student performance. Additionally,
readers of the chapter are encouraged to apply the methods and processes
to their own classrooms.
Originality/value – This chapter shows how a summer reading clinic
strives to apply research-based, common sense factors that matter most in
teaching struggling students to read in intervention and classroom
settings. Some of the factors such as the importance of instructional
routine, time-on-task, text selection, targeted teaching, and instructional
talk are considered key to the successful implementation of the FDL and
the clinical experience.
School has not always come easily for Andy Bauer. Following first grade,
Andy was recommended for retention because he was significantly behind
his peers in reading achievement. His parents and teachers hoped that Andy
would overcome his reading difficulties and achieve grade level status.
Instead, Andy slipped further behind and became increasingly frustrated.
Andy’s parents then decided to seek additional help for their son.
The Bauer’s turned to a reading clinic, where clinicians – all certified
teachers seeking a master’s degree in reading specialization – provide
diagnostic guided instruction for students in grades one through six who
struggle with reading and writing. Andy cried when he found out that he
had to attend ‘‘summer school.’’ Recently, when he was asked about his
initial reaction, Andy said, ‘‘Well, that was when I didn’t know what it was
When Kids Can’t Read, What a Focus on Fluency Can Do 139
all about. I thought it was going to be like summer school – you know, real
boring with lots of papers and homework. I mean, I guess I didn’t know that
it was like a really fun reading camp.’’ What a contrast the fearful, pre-
reading clinic Andy was from the smiling boy who five weeks later
performed poetry, jokes, and starred in a reader’s theater performance
during the final day of the program.
In Andy’s case, pre- and post-assessments showed that he made progress
in several key areas of literacy development: word recognition (percentage
of words read accurately on grade level text), fluency (words correct per
minute), and comprehension. Equally important, according to his parents,
Andy acquired a more positive attitude about reading than they had
previously observed. At the end of the program, Andy reflected on his own
progress and stated, ‘‘I know how to read better and I even sound like a
good reader now!’’
In this chapter, we argue that struggling readers can become successful
when instruction is designed around principles of research-based teaching
and learning. We describe a summer reading clinic that employs an
instructional routine that focuses on fluency, targeting proficient expressive
reading, repeated interactions with authentic texts, and reading perfor-
mance. The data we report suggest that students who have engaged in this
instructional routine make significant improvements in their reading.
FLUENCY DEFINED
In recent years, considerable focus has been given to the study of fluency, a
departure from the time when Allington (1983) described fluency as a
neglected aspect of the reading curriculum. Advances in our understanding
of the most effective ways to teach reading were consolidated in the work of
the National Reading Panel (NICHD, 2000) that identified five instructional
factors associated with reading success: phonemic awareness, phonics or
decoding, fluency, vocabulary, and comprehension. Of the five, the findings
concerning the importance of fluency instruction attracted the most
unexpected attention (Applegate, Applegate, & Modla, 2009).
Fluency is a developmental process that bridges word recognition and
reading comprehension (Applegate et al., 2009; Pikulski, 2006). When
readers are fluent, they read effortlessly and with good expression. The
accurate reading of connected text marks fluency, where the reader
maintains a conversational rate and appropriate prosody (Torgesen &
Hudson, 2006). In turn, comprehension is enhanced because the reader’s
140 BELINDA ZIMMERMAN ET AL.
attention is focused on what the text means rather than decoding the words
on the page (Samuels, 2002).
Early research into fluency focused primarily on automaticity, concerning
itself with a reader’s ability to internalize word learning so well that it occurs
almost spontaneously (Cattell, 1886). LaBerge and Samuels (1974)
developed a theoretical framework to explain automaticity in reading,
suggesting that reading fluency is based on a reader’s ability to master
foundational subskills (e.g., letter–sound relationships, letter patterns in
words, and the meaning of connected text). They argued that until readers
were able to master these foundational skills to a point of automaticity, they
would be unable to advance to more complex levels of text processing
(comprehension) or benefit fully from comprehension instruction (Will-
ingham, 2007). Wolf and Katzir-Cohen (2001) suggest that fluent readers
were more likely than their nonfluent peers to gain meaning from the printed
word. In this way, the links between fluency and comprehension were
established. The construct implies that as readers gain fluency, they are more
able to attend to the meaning a passage imparts due to the availability of
additional attentional resources. Simply put, once they have gained
automaticity, the reader’s cognitive resources are free to access the meaning
a written text holds.
Prosody or expression in reading is the other component of fluency
(Schreiber, 1987, 1991). Fluency in oral reading is marked by expressive
reading. In order to read with expression, readers have to monitor the
intended meaning of the author and then embed expression into the voice to
reflect that meaning. Large-scale studies have found that elementary readers
who read orally with good expression tend to have good comprehension
when reading silently (Daane, Campbell, Grigg, Goodman, & Oranje, 2005;
Pinnell, Pikulski, Wixson, Campbell, Gough, & Beatty, 1995). Conversely,
students who read orally with poor expression tend to manifest poor
comprehension in their silent reading.
Recent research reports concerning fluency have shown that fluency is a
contributor to reading comprehension and achievement in reading (Miller &
Schwanenflugel, 2006; Rasinski & Hoffman, 2003; Walczyk & Griffith-
Ross, 2007). Additional large-scale studies have demonstrated that fluency
serves as a powerful predictor of comprehension and that a large percentage
of students have not achieved minimally acceptable levels of fluency (Daane
et al., 2005; Pinnell et al., 1995). Similarly, Duke, Pressley, and Hilden
(2004) suggest that difficulties in acquiring reading fluency are a major cause
of reading comprehension problems for struggling readers. Because of
fluency’s importance in reading acquisition and because many elementary
When Kids Can’t Read, What a Focus on Fluency Can Do 141
The clinic embraces the notion that reading is an important, attainable, and
meaningful skill. Students are recommended to the clinic by their classroom
teacher, intervention specialist, or by their parents. A student may be
referred to the clinic for a variety of reasons. Typically, this includes
students who perform poorly on local and state mandated tests of reading
achievement, have poor comprehension, and lack fluency (automaticity and
prosody) when reading. Additionally, students typically exhibit low levels of
word recognition accuracy. On average, students who attend the clinic
perform well below grade level expectations in all three areas of reading
proficiency – word recognition accuracy, fluency, and comprehension
(Zimmerman & Rasinski, 2012).
The clinic is designed to utilize research-based assessments to inform the
instruction of each student and to provide appropriate intervention. The
intervention offered to the students follows an apprenticeship model
emphasizing guided oral fluency routines through participation and practice
in structured literacy activities (Dorn, French, & Jones, 1998). Secondary
goals of the clinic are to enhance the self-efficacy of each student and
increase motivation to read. Research confirms that self-efficacy and
motivation are instrumental factors in becoming a successful reader
(Marinak & Gambrell, 2010). Not surprising, many struggling readers
believe they lack the ability to succeed resulting in reading avoidance and a
tendency to give up quickly when challenges emerge. At the clinic, self-
efficacy and motivation are enhanced by immersing students in a wide range
of reading materials based on interest and choice, allowing students to
achieve success with such materials. Also, the clinic strives to create a safe,
trusting learning environment in which academic risk taking is encouraged
and positive support and feedback are provided to the students.
A visitor to the reading clinic would observe students reading in a variety
of situations. The clinic is held in public school classrooms that have been
transformed into print rich, child-centered environments by the clinicians.
Students are surrounded by anchor charts, books, magazines, and other
materials designed to be at students’ instructional and interest levels.
Teachers work together to design lessons that challenge students to read,
142 BELINDA ZIMMERMAN ET AL.
perform or present their readings in order to feel the sense of success and
achievement that comes from practice. In this way, students engage in
repeated readings of a designated text for an authentic purpose –
performance. Although engaging in the FDL process often results in an
improved reading rate for struggling readers, reading fast or increasing the
speed of reading is not a focus of the FDL.
144 BELINDA ZIMMERMAN ET AL.
Students may also respond to the text in written form, usually creating a
response that connects what they have read with their own experiences,
further reinforcing comprehension. The selected passage and any written
work are sent home for additional practice each day to provide a linkage
between the clinical program experiences and home practice. The next day
the passage is reread and reviewed before a new passage is presented. A full
FDL lesson includes the following:
1. Modeling. The teacher expressively reads a short text (e.g., poem, nursery
rhyme, song, and story segment) aloud to the students. This phrased,
fluent oral reading provides a strong model of what quality reading
sounds like. It also serves as an entertaining and nonthreatening way to
introduce new text and hone students’ listening skills while encouraging
visualization of text meaning.
2. Share text. The text is distributed to the students and a second round of
multiple prosodic readings led by the teacher follows. Students may
follow along silently or chime in using a soft voice.
3. Choral reading. The passage is read chorally several times. Antiphonal
reading (members read different selected or assigned parts) and other
variations are used to create variety and maintain engagement (e.g.,
students may read in their deepest or highest voices, loud or whisper
voices, happy, scared, or surprised voices).
4. Discussion. The teacher and students discuss the nature and content of
the passage (e.g., make predictions and/or inferences, draw conclusions,
create visualizations, identify relevant text-to-self, text-to-text, and text-
to-world connections) as well as the quality of the teacher’s oral reading.
The teacher may wonder aloud to make a teaching point such as, ‘‘Did
you notice how I used plenty of expression when I read to show
excitement since this poem has several exclamation points?’’ or ‘‘Did you
notice how I slowed down and deepened my voice on this part? I was
trying to use my voice to create a feeling of suspense here.’’
5. Paired reading. The students work in pairs or trios. Each student
practices the passage two or three times while his or her partner listens
and provides support and encouragement. The students learn from the
modeling of the teachers how to offer positive feedback when partners
improve.
6. Perform. Individuals or groups of students perform their reading for the
class or other audiences. Particular attention is given to expression, word
accuracy, and fluency. Students may also perform by recording their
readings and sharing the recorded renderings at home with their families
and friends.
When Kids Can’t Read, What a Focus on Fluency Can Do 145
The clinic seeks to situate the FDL and, in effect, all literacy learning within
a model for high quality principled instruction. Key principles that guide our
clinical model are drawn from several of Schmoker’s (2006) ‘‘unfortunate
realities’’ (p.17) of instruction today and Allington’s (2002) principles of
‘‘effective reading instruction’’ (p. 740) as a framework for thinking about
how the clinic instructors work with students throughout the program. These
‘‘unfortunate realities’’ include kids are not reading and writing enough,
students’ needs do not determine the curriculum, and teachers do not have
opportunities to work in teams (Schmoker, 2006). Additionally, Allington’s
research and principles are foundational to the framework employed at the
reading clinic. Using data from a long-term study of first- and fourth-grade
teachers in six states, Allington (2002) identified several research-based,
common sense factors that matter most in teaching students to read in
classroom and intervention settings. Several of these factors such as the
importance of time, text, teaching, and talk are also considered key to the
successful implementation of the FDL and the clinic program experience.
Lower achieving students are reading far less than their high-achieving peers
(Allington, 2006). In fact, students are reading only a fraction of what they
146 BELINDA ZIMMERMAN ET AL.
Assessment results are used to determine the children’s literacy needs and to
inform instruction in the clinic. As a result of previous and current
coursework and their own teaching experiences, the teachers develop a
repertoire of strategies to meet the needs of the learners. As we described
earlier, the FDL is the curriculum cornerstone of the reading instruction
provided at the clinic. We believe that this emphasis on fluency instruction is
crucial since effective fluency instructional methods have great potential to
positively impact all aspects of a student’s reading development (Mathison,
Allington, & Solic, 2006; Rasinski, 2010).
‘‘pool their practical knowledge’’ and ‘‘share the best of what they already
know’’ along with their new learnings (Schmoker, 2006, p. 109). The
development of internal expertise that occurs as a result of the meetings and
team teaching may be the most influential form of professional development
available since learning from one another has been found to be how teachers
learn best (Rosenholtz, 1991). Similarly, Allington (2002) has found that
teachers tend to credit other exemplary colleagues for providing the support
and guidance needed for them to make improvements in their teaching.
The FDL is the core lesson in our reading clinic. Teachers are expected
to implement it daily. The lesson is not intended to be implemented in a
prescriptive manner. Teachers need to make decisions about text choice,
instructional focus, word study activities, and so on. In the collaborative
environment of our reading clinic, teachers have the opportunity to share
their own plans and implementations of the FDL with their colleagues.
Through this collaborative process, FDL implementation becomes more
nuanced and more effective in meeting the needs of students.
Time refers to the actual amount of minutes the children are meaningfully
engaged in reading and writing. In too many instances, Allington (2002)
observed that children spent only about 10–15 minutes of a 90-minute
literacy block on reading and writing. At the clinic, teachers are aware
that to achieve reading proficiency, the students must be given opportunities
to read extensively. Hence, close attention is paid to time-on-task and
teachers are assisted in adjusting their plans to achieve a healthy balance of
reading and writing throughout each lesson. When followed with fidelity,
the 30–45 minute FDL requires that the students are meaningfully and
actively engaged in reading and writing virtually every minute of the lesson
process.
Texts
Rather than utilizing traditional basal series and other packaged curriculum
materials, exemplary teachers are aware that the highest achieving students
148 BELINDA ZIMMERMAN ET AL.
have access to plenty of ‘‘easy texts’’ that they are able to read ‘‘accurately,
fluently, and with strong comprehension’’ when engaged in independent
reading tasks (Allington, 2002, p. 743). With this in mind, the teachers
make sure they have a vast supply of books on hand that the children
can truly read. There are many tubs of books that the teachers may sign out,
the teachers make good use of their local libraries, and they also return
to their own classrooms to borrow books to use at the clinic. For the
implementation of the FDL, reading materials are carefully selected by the
teachers who take into account type of text, text difficulty, and interests
of the students. The use of high-quality children’s literature, poetry, and
informational texts is encouraged and teachers are asked to refrain from the
use of decodable texts since too often the meaning and story structure of
these books are sacrificed in order to overemphasize targeted phonetic
elements.
Teach
Talk
Each step in the FDL process is laced with talk between the teachers and
students. Here, talk refers to the highly personalized, purposeful, instruc-
tional conversations that exemplary teachers use to guide and problem
solve with their students. In the clinic, conversations between teachers and
When Kids Can’t Read, What a Focus on Fluency Can Do 149
be read together. Teachers are required to provide parents with a brief text
from the day’s FDL activities that they give to parents to provide a positive
home-school connection. Teachers update parents daily as to their children’s
progress when they pick them up at the end of each session. The final day at
the clinic is a Reading Festival in which the students perform for parents
and other family members scripts, poems, songs, and other texts that they
have been rehearsing during the FDL throughout the program.
RESEARCH QUESTION
Indeed, research has suggested that as students gain fluency they become
better readers (Heilman, Blair, & Rupley, 2002; Kuhn & Stahl, 2000;
NICHD, 2000; Pikulski & Chard, 2005; Pressley, Gaskins, & Fingeret,
2006). What is less well understood is how gains in reading can be linked to
authentic fluency instruction and how fluency development can be assured
as a result of classroom reading instruction. The remainder of this chapter
highlights one such study that focused on the usefulness of the FDL, an
instructional intervention based on key principles of reading and reading
instruction, as a method to enhance student growth in reading. With student
reading growth as a primary focus, this study sought to answer the following
research question:
To what extent do students exhibit gains in fluency and overall reading
proficiency as a result of core instruction utilizing the FDL?
When Kids Can’t Read, What a Focus on Fluency Can Do 151
METHOD
ASSESSMENT/DATA COLLECTION
The data we collected and our analyses reflect the diagnostic data and
analyses that usually occur in a reading clinic setting. As is typical in a
reading clinic, a reading inventory (Rasinski & Padak, 2005), based on
curriculum-based measurement principles (Deno, 1985) was employed to
quickly determine the literacy strengths and needs of each student and to
establish baseline performance for students in word recognition, fluency,
and comprehension. Students were asked to orally read grade level passages
(grade level defined as their most recent grade level completed). Next,
students provided a retelling of what they had read in order to assess their
comprehension of text. Retellings are assessed by the teacher using a six-
point retelling rubric (Fig. 2).
DATA ANALYSIS
Means for student performance by grade level for word recognition, fluency,
and comprehension are reported in Tables 1–3, respectively. T-Tests indicate
that students made significant progress (p o .001) from pretest to post-test
in each of these dimensions.
In word recognition we found that students at every grade level made
substantial gains in their ability to read words in context (Table 1). Students’
152 BELINDA ZIMMERMAN ET AL.
1 77 92 +15
2 95 97 +2
3 87 93 +6
4 92 97 +4
1 35 49 +14 2.8
2 61 73 +12 2.4
3 69 82 +13 2.6
4 77 108 +31 6.2
When Kids Can’t Read, What a Focus on Fluency Can Do 153
1 2.0 3.0
2 1.5 2.0
3 1.0 2.0
4 0.5 0.8
DISCUSSION
The principles underlying the clinic and the use of a focused instructional
method for FDL offer important implications for literacy learning in the
regular classroom as well as intervention programs such as Title I. The
research suggests several areas where teachers might employ these ideas in
classroom settings. First, exposure to text in an iterative manner matters
(Kuhn, & Stahl, 2000; Rasinski, 2010; Samuels, 1979; Topping, 2006). Often
classroom instruction fails to provide students adequate initial exposure to
text. When students are not provided deep experiences with the text prior to
employing the words or ideas within the text in new ways, they can be placed
at a disadvantage. This disadvantage is exacerbated when fluency and
comprehension are compromised. By providing students multiple experi-
ences with the text before they are asked to work with it independently,
success can be fostered as learning is scaffolded.
After strong initial experiences, students must be offered opportunities to
make sense of the text in ways that are authentic to them. By identifying new
and interesting words, writing about the text or performing readings of the
text, students can inhabit language in ways previously unknown to them.
This close reading facilitates learning as students become more familiar and
proficient with words in context. Comprehension is also enhanced as fluency
grows. Fluency and comprehension are developed in concert with one other,
and growth in one improves growth in the other. Teachers can assure that
this occurs in their classrooms by regularly engaging in authentic and direct
instruction in fluency using methods such as the FDL and including student
performances of short, manageable passages of text. Furthermore, when
students read aloud texts that are provided by the teacher as well as texts of
their own writing in response to those texts, they begin to develop a
familiarly with text as an extension of their own experiences. In other words,
students can began to see that reading matters because it is part of who they
are and what they do.
156 BELINDA ZIMMERMAN ET AL.
REFERENCES
Allington, R. L. (1983). Fluency: The neglected reading goal. The Reading Teacher, 36, 556–561.
Allington, R. L. (2002). What I’ve learned about effective reading instruction from a decade of
studying exemplary elementary classroom teachers. Phi Delta Kappan, 83(10), 740–747.
Allington, R. L. (2006). What really matters for struggling readers: Designing research-based
programs (2nd ed.). New York, NY: Longman.
Allington, R. L., & Baker, K. (1999). Best practices in literary instruction for children with
special needs. In L. B. Gambrell, L. M. Morrow, S. B. Neuman & M. Pressley (Eds.),
Best Practices in Literacy Instruction (pp. 292–310). New York, NY: The Guilford Press.
Allington, R. L., & Johnston, P. H. (2001). What do we know about effective fourth-grade
teachers and their classrooms? In C. Roller (Ed.), Learning to teach reading: Setting the
research agenda (pp. 150–165). Newark, DE: International Reading Association.
Applegate, M. D., Applegate, A. J., & Modla, V. B. (2009). ‘‘She’s my best reader; she just can’t
comprehend’’: Studying the relationship between fluency and comprehension. The
Reading Teacher, 62(6), 512–521.
Cambourne, B. (1988). The whole story: Natural learning and the acquisition of literacy in the
classroom. Auckland: Ashton Scholastic, Ltd.
Cazden, C. B. (1988). Classroom discourse: The language of teaching and learning. Portsmouth,
NH: Heinemann.
Daane, M. C., Campbell, J. R., Grigg, W. S., Goodman, M. J., & Oranje, A. (2005). Fourth-
grade students reading aloud: NAEP 2002 special study of oral reading (NCES
2006–469). U.S. Department of Education. Institute of education sciences, national center
for education statistics. Washington, DC: Government Printing Office.
Deno, S. L. (1985). Curriculum-based measurement: The emerging alternative. Exceptional
Children, 52, 219–232.
Dorn, L. J., French, C., & Jones, T. (1998). Apprenticeship in literacy: Transitions across reading
and writing. York, ME: Stenhouse Publishers.
Duke, N. K., Pressley, M., & Hilden, K. (2004). Difficulties in reading comprehension. In
C. A. Stone, E. R. Silliman, B. J. Ehren & K. Apel (Eds.), Handbook of language and
literacy: Development and disorders (pp. 501–520). New York, NY: The Guilford Press.
Fuchs, L. S., Fuchs, D., Hamlett, C. L., Walz, L., & Germann, G. (1993). Formative evaluation
of academic progress: How much growth can we expect? School Psychology Review, 22,
27–48.
Gallagher, K. (2003). Reading reasons: Motivational mini-lessons for middle and high school.
Portland, ME: Stenhouse.
158 BELINDA ZIMMERMAN ET AL.
Gaskins, R. W. (1988). The missing ingredients: Time on task, direct instruction, and writing.
The Reading Teacher, 41(8), 750–755.
Glickman, C. (2002). Leadership for learning: How to help teachers succeed. Alexandria, VA:
Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.
Hasbrouck, J., & Tindal, G. A. (2006). Oral reading fluency norms: A valuable assessment tool
for reading teachers. The Reading Teacher, 59(7), 636–644.
Heilman, A. W., Blair, T. R., & Rupley, W. H. (2002). Principles and practices of teaching
reading (10th ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Merrill-Prentice Hall.
Kuhn, M. R., & Stahl, S. A. (2000). Fluency: A review of developmental and remedial practices.
CIERA Report #2-008. Ann Arbor, MI: Center for the Improvement of Early Reading
Achievement.
Kuhn, M. R., & Stahl, S. A. (2003). Fluency: A review of developmental and remedial practices.
Journal of Educational Psychology, 95, 3–21.
LaBerge, D., & Samuels, S. J. (1974). Toward a theory of automatic information processing in
reading. Cognitive Psychology, 6, 293–323.
Marinak, B. A., & Gambrell, L. B. (2010). Reading motivation: Exploring the elementary
gender gap. Literacy Research and Instruction, 49(2), 129–141.
Marzano, R. J. (2003). What works in schools: Translating research into action. Alexandria, VA:
Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.
Mathison, D. V., Allington, R. L., & Solic, K. L. (2006). Hijacking fluency and instructionally
informative assessments. In T. Rasinski, C. Blachowicz & K. Lems (Eds.), Fluency
instruction: Research-based best practices (pp. 106–119). New York, NY: The Guilford
Press.
Miller, J., & Schwanenflugel, P. (2006). Prosody of syntactically complex sentences in the oral
reading of young children. Journal of Educational Psychology, 98(4), 839–853.
National Institute of Child Health and Human Development (NICHD). (2000). Report of the
National Reading Panel. Teaching children to read: An evidence-based assessment of the
scientific research literature on reading and its implications for reading instruction. (NIH
Publication No. 00–4769). Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office.
Pikulski, J. J. (2006). Fluency: A developmental and language perspective. In S. J. Samuels & A.
E. Farstrup (Eds.), What research has to say about fluency instruction (pp. 70–93).
Newark, DE: International Reading Association.
Pikulski, J. J., & Chard, D. J. (2005). Fluency: Bridge between decoding and reading
comprehension. The Reading Teacher, 58, 510–519.
Pinnell, G. S., Pikulski, J. J., Wixson, K. K., Campbell, J. R., Gough, P. B., & Beatty, A. (1995).
Listening to children read aloud. Washington, DC: Office of Educational Research and
Improvement, U.S. Department of Education.
Pressley, M. (2002). Reading instruction that works: The case for balanced teaching. New York,
NY: The Guilford Press.
Pressley, M., Gaskins, I. W., & Fingeret, L. (2006). Instruction and development of reading
fluency in struggling readers. In S. J. Samuels & A. E. Farstrup (Eds.), What research has
to say about fluency instruction (pp. 47–69). Newark, DE: International Reading
Association.
Rasinski, T. V. (2010). The fluent reader (2nd ed.). New York, NY: Scholastic.
Rasinski, T. V., & Hoffman, J. V. (2003). Theory and research into practice: Oral reading in the
school literacy curriculum. Reading Research Quarterly, 38, 510–522.
When Kids Can’t Read, What a Focus on Fluency Can Do 159
Rasinski, T. V., Padak, N. D., Linek, W., & Sturtevant, E. (1994). The effects of fluency
development instruction on urban second grade readers. Journal of Educational
Research, 87, 158–164.
Rasinski, T. V., & Padak, N. D. (2005). Three minute reading assessments: Word recognition,
fluency, and comprehension for grades 1–4. New York, NY: Scholastic.
Rasinski, T. V., Padak, N. D., & Stevenson, B. (2012). Teaching fluency (and decoding) through
fast start: An early childhood parental involvement program. In T. Rasinski,
C. Blachowicz & K. Lems (Eds.), Fluency instruction: Research-based best practices
(pp. 231–242). New York, NY: The Guilford Press.
Rosenholtz, S. J. (1991). Teacher’s workplace: The social organization of schools. New York,
NY: Teachers College Press.
Samuels, S. J. (1979). The method of repeated readings. The Reading Teacher, 32, 403–408.
Samuels, S. J. (2002). Reading fluency: Its development and assessment. In A. E. Farstrup &
S. J. Samuels (Eds.), What research has to say about reading instruction (3rd ed.,
pp. 166–183). Newark, DE: International Reading Association.
Schmoker, M. (2006). Results now: How we can achieve unprecedented improvements in teaching
and learning. Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Develop-
ment.
Schreiber, P. A. (1987). Prosody and structure in children’s syntactic processing. In R. Horowitz
& S. J. Samuels (Eds.), Comprehending oral and written language (pp. 243–270). New
York, NY: Academic Press.
Schreiber, P. A. (1991). Understanding prosody’s role in reading acquisition. Theory into
Practice, 30, 158–164.
Surowiecki, J. (2004). The wisdom of crowds. New York, NY: Doubleday.
Stanovich, K. E. (1986). Matthew effects in reading: Some consequences of indivi-
dual differences in the acquisition of literacy. Reading Research Quarterly, 21(4),
360–407.
Therrien, W. J. (2004). Fluency and comprehension gains as a result of repeated reading: A
meta-analysis. Remedial and Special Education, 25, 252–261.
Therrien, W. J., & Kubina, R. M. (2006). Developing reading fluency with repeated reading.
Intervention in School and Clinic, 41, 156–160.
Topping, K. J. (2006). Paired reading: Impact of a tutoring method on reading accuracy,
comprehension, and fluency. In T. Rasinski, C. Blachowicz & K. Lems (Eds.), Fluency
Instruction: Research-based best practices (pp. 173–191). New York, NY: The Guilford
Press.
Torgesen, J. K., & Hudson, R. F. (2006). Reading fluency: Critical issues for struggling readers.
In S. J. Samuels & A. E. Farstrup (Eds.), What research has to say about fluency
instruction (pp. 130–158). Newark, DE: International Reading Association.
Walczyk, J., & Griffith-Ross, D. (2007). How important is reading skill fluency for
comprehension? The Reading Teacher, 60(6), 560–569.
Wells, G., & Chang-Wells, G. L. (1992). Constructing knowledge together: Classrooms as centers
of inquiry and literacy. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.
Willingham, D. (2007). The usefulness of brief instruction in reading comprehension strategies.
American Educator, 30, 39–50.
Wolf, M., & Katzir-Cohen, T. (2001). Reading fluency and its intervention. Scientific Studies of
Reading, 5, 211–239.
160 BELINDA ZIMMERMAN ET AL.
Worthy, J. (2000). Teachers’ and students’ suggestion for motivating middle-school students to
read. In T. Shanahan & F. Rodriguez-Brown (Eds.), Forty-ninth yearbook of the
National Reading Conference (pp. 441–445). Chicago, IL: National Reading Conference.
Zimmerman, B. S., & Rasinski, T. V. (2012). The fluency development lesson: A model of
authentic and effective fluency instruction. In T. Rasinski, C. Blachowicz & K. Lems
(Eds.), Fluency instruction: Research-based best practices (pp. 172–184). New York, NY:
The Guilford Press.
BUILDING WRITING
COMMUNITIES AND
PARTNERING WITH FAMILIES:
MULTIPLE PERSPECTIVES
FROM A WRITING
PRACTICUM
ABSTRACT
Purpose – This chapter outlines a six-week graduate level writing
practicum that fosters collaboration among teachers, elementary school
writers, and families.
Design – Through the voices of teachers, students, and families, the
authors describe a newly developed writing practicum where teachers
engage in the writing process to build communities of writers and develop
partnerships with families.
Practical implications – Teacher educators can use the practices
presented in this chapter as a springboard to create their own school-
based writing practicum.
As Daniel, a second grader, walked upstairs to meet his writing teachers, he could not
wait to tell them about the arrival of his new baby sister, Laila. From the first night of
the practicum, Daniel’s teachers learned how important this new baby was to him. They
were surprised, when five days after giving birth, Daniel’s mom brought Laila to the
practicum site. ‘‘Of course I had to bring her in to visit. Daniel wanted me to introduce
her to his tutors.’’ When the teachers met Laila, they exclaimed, ‘‘Daniel, Laila looks just
like you described her in your writing.’’ That afternoon Daniel shared his writing with
his mom and baby Laila.
INTRODUCTION
‘‘I never really understood how to teach writing. I just kept faking it, hoping
my cooperating teachers [during student teaching] didn’t notice.’’ Instruc-
tors in a master’s degree program for literacy specialists routinely heard
comments similar to this during the capstone practicum course. When asked
what they would like to focus on during final course seminars, graduate
students routinely responded they wanted to learn how to confer with
children, how to inspire children to write, and how to support children’s
writing development. Among graduate students, there was widespread
reluctance and nervousness to teach writing. As a result, program faculty at
the University at Albany created a new writing practicum as part of a larger
redesign of our master’s degree programs. In this newly created practicum,
we sought to create writing experiences that were ‘‘carefully coordinated
with coursework and carefully mentored’’ to prepare responsive teachers
who ‘‘successfully enact complex teaching practices’’ (Zeichner, 2010, p. 95).
Throughout the redesign process, we remained mindful that many graduate
students enroll in the writing course early in their master’s program, with
little teaching experience. In this chapter, we outline the design of this
practicum experience.
Building Writing Communities and Partnering with Families 163
In this new writing practicum, we, as teacher educators, took to heart the
investment of graduate students, elementary students, and their families in
building writing communities in which all members’ position themselves as
meaning makers and inquirers. As teacher educators, we wanted our
responsiveness to foster responsive teaching (Dozier et al., 2006; Dozier &
Rutten, 2005/2006). We applied Vygotsky’s zone of proximal development
(ZPD) not only to support young learners but novice teachers as well. Our job
was to find the ZPD for teachers (Warford, 2011) just as the teacher’s job was to
find the ZPD for writers. To build our community of writers, we invited families
to write and to respond to their children’s work. Through this multilayered
approach, our graduate students experienced ‘‘families, children, and teachers
as makers of collaborative meaning’’ (Kroeger & Lash, 2011, p. 269).
From the first night of class, graduate students wrote in their writer’s
notebook (Fletcher, 1996). As part of this writing process, graduate students
brainstormed with partners and small groups. Graduate students con-
structed writing time lines that reflected their writing histories; wrote about
a school memory that changed them; wrote a short piece revealing
something their colleagues did not know about them; listed their needs as
writers before, during, and after writing; and reflected on their teaching.
After writing, graduate students shared their writing pieces with one
another. As teacher educators, we wrote side by side in our writer’s
notebooks. As writers, we all experienced celebrations and frustrations.
Graduate students noticed and named beautiful language in each other’s
writing pieces (Bomer, 2010). Graduate students also reflected on the
processes involved – what worked for them as writers, what did not, and
which genres they preferred (Dozier, 2006). As teacher educators, we created
this intentional structure to scaffold writing events for graduate students in
the same manner we wanted them to scaffold for their young writers.
reason for dialogue, negotiation, and perspective taking with colleagues and
course instructors (Samaras, 2000). Through these conversations, teachers
noticed and named their practices (Dozier et al., 2006). The three-person
team structure allowed teachers to rely on each other and draw from each
other’s expertise.
Preparing Lessons
Lesson Structure
time, teachers and students identified specific features of the writing they
enjoyed. When family members came to pick up their children, they listened
to their young writers. Families often added details and shared their
insights. Writing and sharing together built writing communities.
CHILDREN’S WRITING
On the first night of the practicum, students wrote What stories do your hands
tell? (Graves & Kittle, 2005). This writing event helped teachers learn about
their students. Students wrote of eating ice cream, throwing baseballs, digging
for worms, finger painting, and pinky promises. During the second session,
tutors used Wendy Ewald’s book (2002), The Best Part of Me, as a mentor
text. The young writers and teachers photographed and wrote about their best
features. Teachers took several photos so children and their families could
choose which one they preferred for their final bound book. Daniel’s photo
choice was a view from the top of his head, ‘‘I love my hair because it is my
third favorite color.’’ Manayah chose to include her eyes only in her
photograph and wrote, ‘‘The best of part of me is my eyes. My eyes are brown.
My eyes are beautiful.’’ On the third night, students wrote Where I’m From
poems using George Ella Lyon’s poem (2001) as a mentor text. To write their
poems students drew from their family foods, special places, family stories,
and family moments. Anthony wrote, ‘‘I am from family dinners on Friday
nights and special foods and plates on holidays. I am from a house with one
dog and thirteen finches. I am from a family that has green grass in their back
yard and takes me to the George Street Park.’’ Eric wrote, ‘‘I am from a baby
cousin who is so cute and screams with excitement when she sees me.’’
Angelica wrote, ‘‘I am from the soft and soothing sound of my backyard, and
the fireplace that smokes on a summer night.’’ Students wrote Someday pieces
on the fourth night based on Eileen Spinelli’s book Someday (2007) to
consider how they would contribute to their communities and the world.
Students wrote about their plans to become police officers, veterinarians, rock
stars, storm chasers, karate professionals, doctors, teachers, and animal
activists. On the fifth night, students wrote a Dedication, created an About the
Author page, and revised earlier writing pieces. Children carefully chose
photos, fonts, colors, and text layouts for their final bound books. They then
rehearsed the writing piece they chose to present to their families. On the sixth
night, families joined us to celebrate their writers in the cafeteria (see Table 2).
168
Table 2. Six-Week Writing Practicum.
Night Writing Event Materials/Mentor Texts Purpose Audience
1 These are the Hands by Resource notes for These To come to know writer’s interests, Child, tutor, and family
Donald Graves and are the Hands generate possible writing topics,
Penny Kittle Paper build relationships with writers
Writing materials
2 The Best Part of Me Copy of mentor text, To celebrate and write about each Child, tutor, family,
by Wendy Ewald, The Best Part of Me learner’s unique qualities other students
photo essay Cameras To select a photograph that
Photo paper represents ‘‘the best part of me’’
Writing materials
Internet resources, (examples
of children’s The Best Part of Me
writing, interactive photo essays)
3 Where I Am From www.georgeellalyon.com To celebrate families Child, tutor, family,
by George Ella Lyon Downloaded materials from and family traditions extended family
Internet To encourage families to write members
Scaffolds for writers (i.e., items and extend student’s writing
from home, family names, through conversations
traditions, family sayings,
family foods)
4 Someday by Copy of mentor text Someday by To envision possibilities for Child, tutor, family
Eileen Spinelli Eileen Spinelli future: How will I contribute
Scaffolds for writers (now/In to the world?
the Future template)
CHERYL DOZIER AND JULIE SMIT
5 Dedication Page Mentor texts (texts with examples To create a Dedication and Classmates, teachers,
About the of dedication pages and About the Author Page for family members,
Author Page About the Author pages suited their bound books extended family
to learners’ interests). members, principals,
Camera-photograph children and their tutors
families
6 Family Presentation Night: Each child chooses one piece of writing to share during the celebration. Students rehearse during Week 5
and right before the presentation (with a microphone). Tutors introduce each child. After the presentations, everyone shares food
brought in by the tutors. Tutors sit with families and children and share their final bound books with family members. For 30
children, the presentation generally lasts 1 hour.
Building Writing Communities and Partnering with Families
169
170 CHERYL DOZIER AND JULIE SMIT
Graduate students found that writing in class each night changed them as
writers and as teachers. For Elizabeth, writing in class ‘‘rekindled my love of
writing and words.’’ Laurie ‘‘remembered my love for writing and
rediscovered the writer in me.’’ Kristine noted that teaching elementary
students allowed her to grow as a writer and a writing teacher, ‘‘When we talk
about seeing the beauty and brilliance in our students’ writing, I begin to see it
in my own. I have a new level of understanding and confidence.’’ While
students shared their nervousness on the first night of class that they would be
writing each evening and then writing side by side with children, in the end,
Beth echoed the comments of many, ‘‘I am part of a writing community.’’
When teachers and students wrote together, they listened carefully,
learned from one another, and celebrated each other’s writing. In doing so,
teachers became more responsive to students and their families. In writing
with her young students, Jessie noted, ‘‘I have come to understand that
writers are going to have good days and bad days and to honor this.’’
Teachers noticed that children engaged more intensively when they were
interested or saw relevance in their writing. Mike wrote, ‘‘The child has to
see relevance. When he’s interested and feels his writing has meaning and
purpose, he writes a lot more, as well as more detail. [He writes more when
he] connects his writing to families and his favorite things.’’
As graduate students reflected on their teaching, they noted the
importance of their language choices. Sasha wrote, ‘‘Certain prompts are
more effective than others. Prompts help generate ideas.’’ Teachers found
that naming their students as writers (Johnston, 2004) was especially
helpful. They also noticed writers engaged more willingly when prompts
were specific, ‘‘As a reader, I can tell how much you love your
grandmother.’’ This, in turn, influenced future teaching. Maria commented,
‘‘I now feel confident to use thoughtful and motivating language and
recognize the doors that open with one tweak of a word.’’
In her reflection, Jane noted the importance of the time spent engaging
with families to build community, ‘‘It was great to learn so much from the
families. They have a lot of great input and were able to give us insight into
our student’s lives.’’ Similarly, Chelsea learned, I used the child’s writing as
a lead into the conversation [with her mother]ybecause it enabled the
conversation to get more in depth as the weeks went on. In her final
reflective essay, Diana wrote about the importance of partnering with
Building Writing Communities and Partnering with Families 171
families, ‘‘The families shared that they really appreciated the fact that we
shared their children’s work with them after each workshop session. They
also mentioned that they appreciated the fact that we asked for their
additional input.’’ Tina commented on the impact collaboration had on
families, ‘‘The families shared how much they enjoyed hearing about their
students work afterwards. One family said they discussed everything over
dinner afterwards. Another family mentioned their child is excited every
Tuesday morning to come to school so she can write with us afterwards.’’
Growing as Writers
Family members identified a range of ways their children grew within the
writing communities. One family noted the ‘‘confidence he gained and self
expression.’’ Another highlighted the child’s increased ‘‘creativity and
willingness to expand.’’ One family mentioned their child ‘‘learned how to
express his ideas in writing.’’ Another commented, ‘‘My child is able to read
and write very well. He has had a great improvement.’’ Several families said
172 CHERYL DOZIER AND JULIE SMIT
their children now ‘‘wrote more’’ at home and in school. One dad remarked
that the practicum ‘‘challenged my son to use his mind.’’ Another mom,
sharing that her daughter was often tentative in school, noted, ‘‘She really
enjoyed the help she was given with putting her thoughts to words.’’
Communicating
While partnering with families was our goal as teacher educators, this was a
tentative space for teachers initially. Teachers worried they would not know
what to say to families or families would react to them negatively. We
instructed teachers to only share positives from the writing sessions when
they met with families. We did not want teachers to orient conversations
around discipline matters.
Teachers communicated with families each evening when family members
picked up the children. To start the conversations, teachers and children
shared the students’ writing from that evening. Families listened and often
added ideas for the writing pieces. This led to learning more from families as
they shared children’s interests, hobbies, and traditions. Teachers
Building Writing Communities and Partnering with Families 173
incorporated these insights into future lessons. In doing so, teachers built
trust with families.
Representing Learners
When teachers planned lessons and interacted with families, we asked them
to consider how they were representing learners and to consider whether
their representations invited trust or pushed families away. For all
interactions, we asked teachers to focus on thoughtfulness, specificity, and
intentionality of language choices.
Given our intensive focus on how we represent learners, we were surprised
and disappointed when teachers wrote initial introductions of the children for
family presentation night. Teachers had worked with the writers for several
sessions, had talked with families each evening, and had numerous writing
samples in front of them. We expected their introductions would be specific
and focused on the children as writers. However, initial introductions were
general and tended to be judgmental, ‘‘She’s sweet. She’s nice. He’s so
intelligent. She’s shy. He’s a talker.’’ Our intensive work noticing and naming
had not transferred. When we learned this, we spent more time focusing on
how to represent learners and move beyond judging them. We asked teachers
to include three points to introduce their students. First, teachers identified
student interests. Second, teachers specifically named a feature students used
as writers. Third, teachers named the writing piece each child would read that
evening. Using these three points, teachers included Jaquan’s interest in
Power Rangers, Emily’s fascination with Justin Bieber, Brandon’s love of
snakes, Kayla’s attention to details, Maria’s love of descriptive words, and
Brian’s intriguing leads. These new introductions assured families we knew
their children, their children’s interests, and their children as writers.
When some families came to pick up their children, they had to rush to
sports practices or rush home to make dinner. This was unnerving for some of
the teachers, given our insistence that they communicate with families. Rather
than blame families for their busy lives, we helped teachers find ways families
preferred to communicate (i.e., emails and phone calls). Other family
members listened to the teachers, yet were quiet. This, too, was daunting for
some teachers. Jessica commented, ‘‘It is just as important to reach out to
families that are quiet because they need to know that we care. I have come a
long way to reach out to families that are not so comfortable talking with
me.’’ As Lisa noted, ‘‘It is our responsibility to listen and learn from families.’’
Graduate students came to see the importance of careful representation of
learners. Marta saw the impact of her specific celebrations with families,
‘‘Families LOVE to hear the positive and strong points about their child. It
really makes all the difference!’’ Laura commented on how attention to
detail mattered for families, ‘‘Ethan’s mother and Pete’s father thanked me
specifically for double-checking on how to correctly spell family members
names for the dedication pages in the final bound books. They both told me
they appreciated the fact that we cared enough to follow through with such
detail.’’
Over the course of the practicum experience, teachers came to realize how
much trust families placed in them, how much the families wanted to talk
about their children, and how honored families were to participate in the
program. Elisa captured the perspectives of her colleagues regarding the
importance of partnering with families, ‘‘We need to connect with families
and be accessible. I think because we made ourselves available to interact
with them after each session, we included them and welcomed them into
their child’s school life. We need to make these bridges with parents – it will
benefit our teaching and influence our lessons and interactions with the
child. I think parents want to know that we care and it is part of our job to
show them that we do. I like that we make a face-to-face connection with
parents – it’s a lot different than just a letter home or a phone call. I also
like that we accepted all family members – grandparents, stepparents, etc.
I think it is important to reach out to all children’s support systems.’’
Family Impressions
At the conclusion of each session when the teachers walked down with the
children to the school entrance, teachers invited children to read their
Building Writing Communities and Partnering with Families 175
TRANSFER
pieces and then talk with writers in honest, genuine, and purposeful ways.
While most tutors could analyze writing pieces and find the hidden gems
in the writing (Bomer, 2010), conferences remained harder. Initial
conferences involved more sharing, ‘‘Read what you’ve written and I’ll
read what I’ve written.’’ Therefore, in future seminars, we asked teachers
to look through writing pieces and rehearse possible language for
conferences with one another. This rehearsal space gave teachers additional
practice and helped teachers become more fluent as they conferred with
young writers. Finding ways to help teachers gain confidence and
competence as they confer remains a work in progress for us.
CONCLUDING THOUGHTS
children shared their bound books with their families. In all, 138 people packed into the
school cafeteria on the Tuesday night before Thanksgiving to listen to 31 children read
their writing.
REFERENCES
Anderson, C. (2000). How’s it going? A practical guide to conferring with student writers.
Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.
Atwell, N. (1998). In the middle: New understandings about writing, reading, and learning (2nd
ed.). Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.
Bomer, K. (2010). Hidden gems: Naming and teaching from the brilliance in every student’s
writing. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.
Bransford, J. D., Derry, S., Berliner, D., & Hammerness, K. (2005). Theories of learning and
their roles in teaching. In L. Darling-Hammond & J. Bransford (Eds.), Preparing
teachers for a changing world: What teachers should learn and be able to do (pp. 40–87).
San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Bransford, J. D., & Schwartz, D. L. (1999). Rethinking transfer: A simple proposal with
multiple implications. In A. Iran-Nejad & P. D. Pearson (Eds.), Review of research in
education (Vol. 24, pp. 61–100). Washington, DC: American Educational Research
Association.
Calkins, L. (2003). Units of study for primary writing: A yearlong curriculum grades K-2.
Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.
Daniel, G. (2011). Family-school partnerships: Towards sustainable pedagogical practice. Asia-
Pacific Journal of Teacher Education, 39(2), 165–176.
Dozier, C. (2006). Responsive literacy coaching. Portland, ME: Stenhouse.
Dozier, C., Johnston, P., & Rogers, R. (2006). Critical literacy/critical teaching: Tools for
preparing responsive teachers. New York, NY: Teachers College Press.
Dozier, C., & Rutten, I. (2005/2006). Responsive teaching toward responsive teachers:
Mediating transfer though intentionality, enactment, and articulation. Journal of
Literacy Research, 37, 459–492.
Elish-Piper, L., Almburg, A. T., Di Domenico, P., Henry, M. P., Morley, S., & Sokolinski, S.
(2012). Parent involvement in reading. Illinois Reading Council Journal, 40(3), 55–60.
Ewald, W. (2002). The best part of me: Children talk about their bodies in pictures and words.
New York, NY: Little Brown Books for Young Readers.
Fletcher, R. (1996). A writer’s notebook. New York, NY: Harper Collins.
Grace, A. M., Jethro, O., & Aina, F. F. (2012). Roles of parents on the academic performance
of pupils in elementary schools. International Journal of Academic Research in Business &
Social Sciences, 2(1), 196–201.
Graves, D. (1994). A fresh look at writing. Porthsmouth, NH: Heinemann.
Graves, D., & Kittle, P. (2005). My quick writes for inside writing. Portsmouth, NH:
Heinemann.
Hornby, G., & Lafaele, R. (2011). Barriers to parental involvement in education: An
explanatory model. Educational Review, 63(1), 37–52.
Johnston, P. (2004). Choice words. Portland, ME: Stenhouse.
Building Writing Communities and Partnering with Families 179
Kroeger, J., & Lash, M. (2011). Asking, listening, and learning: Toward a more thorough
method of inquiry in home-school relations. Teaching and Teacher Education, 27(2),
268–277.
Kyle, D. W., McIntyre, E., Miller, K., & Moore, G. (2002). Reaching out: A K-8 resource for
connecting with families. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.
Lyon, G. E. (2001). Where I’m From. In B. Bigelow, B. Harvey & S. Karp (Eds.), Rethinking
our classrooms: Teaching for equity and justice (Vol. 2, pp. 6–10). Milwaukee, WI:
Rethinking Schools Ltd.
Routman, R. (2005). Writing essentials. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.
Samaras, A. P. (2000). When is a practicum productive? A study of learning to plan. Action in
Teacher Education, 22(2), 100–115.
Spinelli, E. (2007). Someday. New York, NY: Dial.
Warford, M. K. (2011). The zone of proximal teacher development. Teaching and Teacher
Education, 27(2), 252–258.
Zeichner, K. (2010). Rethinking the connections between campus courses and field experiences
in college and university-based teacher education. Journal of Teacher Education, 89(11),
89–99.
PREPARING SPECIAL
EDUCATORS TO TEACH
READING: A PRE-STUDENT
TEACHING PRACTICUM
ABSTRACT
Purpose – To share a model of preparing special educators to teach
reading to students with mild-to-moderate disabilities.
Design/methodology/approach – The authors describe a specific model
for preparing special educators to teach reading.
Findings – Data are provided regarding the effectiveness of this model of
special education teacher preparation based on performance of students
with disabilities who participated in the program.
Research limitations/implications – This research was done as a program
evaluation and may have validity and generalizability limitations.
Practical implications – Other institutions of higher education may gain
insight on how a similar preservice teacher preparation program could be
developed and implemented at their institution.
The summer practicum collaboration between the school districts and the
BYU special education program has existed for decades. But in 1999
the summer program was restructured to provide teacher candidates the
opportunity to explicitly teach reading, math, writing, and social skill
instruction. The practicum lasts six weeks and is held five days a week,
except for holidays (i.e., July 4th). District students attend for three hours a
day, with the teacher candidates in attendance four and one-half hours each
day. Although participating students attend many different schools
throughout the district during the school year, the summer program is held
in only one elementary school in each of the districts. Family members take
responsibility for driving the children to and from school each day. This is
not a special education extended school year (ESY) requirement for students
so the schools are not responsible for providing transportation.
Given the collaborative nature of the summer practicum, both the school
districts and the BYU faculty share responsibility for carrying out the
necessary steps. The school districts identify students for participation.
Using guidelines agreed to by both parties, the districts send invitations to
the students’ parents well in advance of the school year ending. Students
who are invited to participate must (a) have an individualized education
program (IEP) which guarantees that he or she has an identified disability,
(b) be between grades 1 and 5, (c) be recommended by their special
education teacher, and (d) have no major behavior difficulties. The last
criterion was included to ensure that the teacher candidates would have
sufficient opportunities to teach reading and not be encumbered with
dealing with major behavior problems. The districts require parents pay a
nominal fee ($10 per child) that is spent on ice cream, pizza and other
‘‘treats’’ provided to students throughout the practicum. The district
believes that the small financial requirement ensures that the parents are
serious about their child’s enrollment. Over time the demand for the summer
program has increased and currently the districts keep waiting lists.
186 MARY ANNE PRATER ET AL.
University Responsibilities
One of the major responsibilities of the BYU faculty is to ensure that the
teacher candidates are prepared for the summer practicum experience.
Teacher candidates complete 37 credit hours of coursework that is directly
related to the summer practicum prior to the summer term, six credits of
that are literacy courses and two credits of summer practicum preparation
(see Tables 1 and 2). Prior to implementation of the summer practicum,
teacher candidates assess the district students for grouping purposes.
University faculty organizes this event.
The BYU special education program provides one faculty member to oversee
the practicum, two site coordinators (one for each school), and a university
supervisor who assists with teacher candidate evaluation. The university also
identifies and trains eight or nine special education licensed teachers who
supervise and mentor the teacher candidates. A Utah State Office of Education
grant has provided the financial resources to pay the mentor teachers for this
summer work. Curriculum materials (e.g., teacher manuals and student books)
are provided by the university to ensure continuity across the districts and
consistency with what has been taught in the reading courses. Except for the
curriculum materials, the district pays for all supplies used by the district
students (e.g., paper and pencils), while the university or the teacher candidates
pay for supplies consumed by the teacher candidates (e.g., training materials).
Preparing Special Educators to Teach Reading 187
Table 2. All Courses and Practicum Completed by Special Education Teacher Candidates.
Year Fall Winter Spring Summer
Semester Semester Term Term
Each practicum site uses four classrooms; and assigned to each classroom
are one mentor teacher, three teacher candidates, and 15–24 students with
mild-to-moderate disabilities. Each teacher candidate is responsible for
teaching one-third of the students (5–8 students). Also in each school is one
site coordinator and one or more district representatives (see Fig. 1). In
recent years, the number of teacher candidates has equaled 24–26.
On a typical day, students are instructed in reading for 45 minutes, math
45 minutes, writing 35 minutes, spelling/penmanship alternating days 10
minutes, social skills 15 minutes, and art/music/physical education rotations
25 minutes each day. The teacher candidates are responsible for their small
group of students’ instruction with the exception of social skills and art/
music/physical education. Social skill instruction takes place in larger
groups allowing one or two of the other teacher candidates in the same
classroom to engage in DIBELS progress monitoring assessments with
individual students. Art/music/physical education is also held in larger
groups with the candidates rotating instructional responsibility. Those not
teaching provide instructional support to those who are.
190 MARY ANNE PRATER ET AL.
University
Department Chair
Summer Practicum
Coordinator
4 - 5 Mentor 4 - 5 Mentor
Teachers Teachers
12 - 13 Teacher 12 - 13 Teacher
Candidates Candidates
60 - 90 Students 60 - 90 Students
OUTCOMES
Although the teacher candidates teach from the very first day of practicum,
each mentor teacher is responsible for modeling instruction and shaping
their three teacher candidates’ teaching. When the mentor teacher believes
Preparing Special Educators to Teach Reading 191
The BYU summer practicum, like most teacher preparation programs, has
improved over time. One of those improvements has been consistency in the
collection of student outcome data. When the Reading Mastery curriculum
was adopted, the placement tests were used as pre-post measures of the
effectiveness of the six-week experience. When students were assessed before
practicum for grouping purposes, these scores provided a general idea of
192 MARY ANNE PRATER ET AL.
100
80
58.1
60
40
20
0
Pre-test Post-test
their skills and level. Then, on the first day of practicum, the students were
again assessed using the Reading Mastery placement test. This served two
functions: first, to assign the appropriate reading level and curriculum to
each student, and second, to provide pretest data. The placement test was
then administered the last day of the practicum that provided the posttest
data. To simplify the data collection procedures, only the fluency portion of
the placement test was administered.
During 2011, 145 students with disabilities were enrolled in the summer
practicum. Students had completed first through fifth grades. The results of
the pre- and posttest scores are presented in Fig. 2. The ANOVA test
indicated a significant difference (F[3.1] = 1,24.56; p-value o .0001) in
students’ pre- and posttest scores. The difference was significant when
accounting for factors such as teacher candidates and the students. On
average, students’ reading fluency improved by 60.9 correct words per
minutes. At the beginning of the practicum, students read on average 58.1
correct words per minute; six weeks later, at the end of the summer
practicum students averaged 119 correct words per minute.
Although systematic data have not been collected on student satisfaction,
anecdotal comments indicate they generally enjoyed working with the
teacher candidates and having a place to go during the summer to associate
with other children. They seemed to particularly like the oral comprehension
Preparing Special Educators to Teach Reading 193
portion of the lessons where they verbalized what they read and linked it to
daily life. For example, recently one group read a story about forest fires at
the same time that fires were burning in the local mountains. The students
linked what was occurring close to their home to the printed text.
My daughter has benefited so much from this program. Thank you. I have seen her
improve this summer compared to last year when she declined so much it took all year to
recover. The fact that it is essentially free is a huge bonus.
This program has been amazing for my child. Not only has she been able to maintain
skills through the summer, but she has made exciting progress as well. The teachers
created strong connections with my child in a short period of time. She speaks adoringly
of them! Both my child and I will be sorry to see it end.
I think this is a wonderful program that I wish was available to more students. I had
several friends who said they wished their child could have attended. Your activities are
awesome and really helped my child to like school better and have a much better attitude
in general.
I don’t like that it is so far away. We live in y and it was quite the trip every day. Wish
next time it will be closer.
Driving to and from became very difficult for me. I was hoping that the carpool list
would have worked out for me.
The other concern raised was lack of communication between the teacher
candidates and the parents.
I do wish there was more communication home so I would know what she was working
on i.e. level of reading and what math so I could continue at home.
When I ask my son what he has done I typically get very short answers so for me weekly
or biweekly communication with the teacher would be nice so that I can help reinforce
what he is learning at home.
LIMITATIONS
CONCLUSION
candidates perform during student teaching and beyond, as well as how well
students retain their reading skills remain unanswered.
Plans for immediately improving future practicum experiences include the
use of videotaping to help shape teacher candidates’ instructional skills and
using a communication tool between the parents and the teacher candidates.
In addition, teacher candidates will be required to use the DIBELS data that
have been collected weekly to evaluate the progress of the student and based
on these data, candidates will implement appropriate instructional changes.
Data on student and teacher candidate progress, as well as parent
satisfaction will continue to be collected and will help shape and improve
the summer practicum program.
REFERENCES
Archer, A., & Hughes, C. A. (2011). Explicit instruction: Effective and efficient teaching. New
York, NY: Guilford Press.
Boe, E. E., & Shin, S. (2007). Does teacher preparation matter for beginning teachers in either
special or general education? Journal of Special Education, 41, 158–170.
Brownell, M. T., Ross, D. D., Colon, E. P., & McCallum, C. L. (2005). Critical features of
special education teacher preparation: A comparison with general teacher education.
Journal of Special Education, 38, 242–252.
Brownell, M. T., Sindelar, P. T., Kiely, M. T., & Danielson, L. C. (2010). Special education
teacher quality and preparation: Exposing foundations, constructing a new model.
Exceptional Children, 76, 357–377.
Englemann, S., & Bruner, E. (2008). Reading mastery. Columbus, OH: SRA.
Foorman, B. R., & Torgesen, J. (2001). Critical elements of classroom and small-group
instruction promote reading success in all children. Learning Disabilities Research and
Practice, 16, 203–213.
Gersten, R., Fuchs, L. S., Williams, J. P., & Baker, S. (2001). Teaching reading comprehension
strategies to students with learning disabilities: A review of research. Review of
Educational Research, 71, 279–320.
Good, R. H., & Kaminski, R. A. (2002). Dynamic indicators of basic early literacy skills
(DIBELS) (6th ed.). Eugene, OR: Institute for the Development of Educational
Achievement.
Gunn, B., Biglan, A., Smolkowski, K., & Ary, D. (2000). The efficacy of supplemental
instruction in decoding skills for Hispanic and non-Hispanic students in early elementary
school. The Journal of Special Education, 34(2), 90–103.
Jitendra, A. K., Edwards, L. L., Starosta, K., Sacks, G., Jacobson, L. A., & Choutka, C. M.
(2004). Early reading instruction for children with reading difficulties: Meeting the needs
of diverse learners. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 37, 421–439.
Leko, M. M., Brownell, M. T., Sindelar, P. T., & Murphy, K. (2012). Promoting special
education preservice teacher expertise. Focus on Exceptional Children, 44(7), 1–16.
196 MARY ANNE PRATER ET AL.
McDaniel, S. C., Duchaine, E. L., & Jolivette, K. (2010). Struggling readers with emotional and
behavioral disorders and their teachers: Perceptions of corrective reading. Education and
Treatment of Children, 33(4), 585–599.
National Center for Educational Statistics. (2011). Retrieved from http://nces.ed.gov/programs/
coe/tables/table-rd2-1.asp
Prater, M. A., & Sileo, T. W. (2002). School-university partnerships in special education field
experiences: A national descriptive study. Remedial and Special Education, 23(6),
325–335.
Salinger, T., Mueller, L., Song, M., Jin, Y., Zmach, C., Toplitz, M.y Partridgem, M. (2010).
Study of teacher preparation in early reading instruction. National Center for Education
Evaluation and Regional Assistance (ED512150),Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department
of Education.
Schieffer, C., Marchand-Martella, N. E., Martella, R. C., Simonsen, F. L., & Waldron-Soler,
K. M. (2002). An analysis of the Reading Mastery program: Effective components and
research review. Journal of Direct Instruction, 2(2), 87–119.
Smart, S. M., & Reschly, D. J. (2007). TQ research and policy brief: Barriers to the preparation
of highly qualified teachers in reading. Washington, D.C.: National Comprehensive
Center for Teacher Quality.
Spear-Swerling, L. (2009). A literacy tutoring experience for prospective special educators and
struggling second graders. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 42, 431–443.
Spear-Swerling, L., & Brucker, P. O. (2004). Preparing novice teachers to develop basic reading
and spelling skills in children. Annals of Dyslexia, 54(2), 332–364.
Swanson, H. L. (2000). Searching for the best cognitive model for instructing students with
learning disabilities: A component and composite analysis. Educational and Children
Psychology, 17, 101–121.
Swanson, H. L. (2001). Searching for the best model for instructing students with learning
disabilities. Focus on Exceptional Children, 34(2), 4–14.
Torgeson, J. K., Alexander, A. W., Wagner, R. K., Rashotte, C. A., Voeller, K. K. S., &
Conway, T. (2001). Intensive remedial instruction for children with severe reading
disabilities: Immediate and long-term outcomes from two instructional approaches.
Journal of Learning Disabilities, 34, 33–58.
Vaughn, S., Gersten, R., & Chard, D. J. (2000). The underlying message in LD intervention
research: Findings from research synthesis. Exceptional Children, 67(1), 99–114.
Vaughn, S., & Linan-Thompson, S. (2004). Reading: Effective instructional activities for
elementary students. Alexandria, VA: ASCD.
Wanzek, J., Wexler, J., Vaughn, S., & Ciullo, S. (2010). Reading interventions for struggling
readers in the upper elementary grades: A synthesis of 20 years of research. Reading and
Writing, 23(8), 889–912.
TRANSFER AND
TRANSFORMATION OF
KNOWLEDGE AND PRACTICES
FROM LITERACY CLINIC TO
COMMUNITY
ABSTRACT
INTRODUCTION
What does it mean to develop a community of learners within the context of a
literacy clinic? The Cougar Literacy Clinic at Southern Illinois University
Edwardsville was established to meet the literacy learning, teaching, and
research needs of constituents namely children, families, teachers, other
educators, administrators, professors, and community members. The clinic
consists of three courses that are part of the graduate literacy program leading
to K-12 Reading Specialist Certification and approved by the International
Reading Association (IRA). Our literacy clinic includes multiple innovative
practices for assessment; instruction; coaching and consultation; and family,
school, and community literacy connections. The data collected from surveys,
interviews, observations, and debriefing analyses, conferences and discussions
from the children, family members, teachers, and professors indicated that
these practices have been transferred from the clinic to transform the school
Transfer and Transformation of Knowledge and Practices 199
and community. These data were collected before, during, and after
participation in the clinic from spring 2009 to spring 2012. Our clinic
emphasizes cognitive, social, cultural, linguistic, psychological and academic
development of children, teachers, and other constituents. In our program, the
term literacy is defined as the ability to competently read, write, speak, listen,
view, and visually represent, and apply ideas in life’s experiences. This chapter
describes the structure and environment of the Cougar Literacy Clinic, the
theoretical framework, and the transferred and transformed knowledge and
practices that support the constituents as a community of learners.
THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK
that children can become independent thinkers, readers, and writers. This
transformation of knowledge occurs when the constituents learn from each
other and value having mutual decision making and a shared understanding
of the literacy process, learning, and teaching, through a shared theoretical
perspective and instructional dialogue.
SELF-EXTENDING SYSTEMS
One of the ways in which learning is transformed from the clinic to the
schools and community is through developing a self-extending system.
Originally coined by Clay (1991), during the Reading Recovery program,
children use their theories of the world and of oral and written language to
solve problems during reading and writing and develop a self-extending
system of literacy expertise. These theories become an interactive system of
strategies, which enables the child to monitor, cross-check, and problem
solve during their own reading (and writing) and extend the potential of the
child engaging in more difficult activities (Clay, 1991). During clinic,
teachers encourage and support this metacognitive processing in the
children they teach. Just as we support children in constructing their own
learning, teachers can support others to ‘‘acquire reasoning skills that enable
them to construct a self-generating system for making powerful decisions’’
(DeFord, Lyons, Pinnell, 1991, p. 170). According to Dozier (2006), within a
learning community, these self-extending systems are generative whereby
‘‘coaches and teachers collaboratively engage in problem-posing and
problem-solving and seek ways to promote sustained learning for teachers
and students’’ (p. 67). As a result, ‘‘coaches and teachers will notice shifts
over time as teachers transfer their understandings flexibly and competently
into new contexts’’ (Dozier, 2006, p. 67). One of the purposes of our literacy
clinic is to build a learning community that is a self-extending system,
thereby providing opportunities for the constituents to inquire collabora-
tively, to construct shared meaning, and to make decisions regarding
literacy practices (assessment, instruction, family, coaching and consulta-
tion, and school and community literacy connections).
INTERSUBJECTIVITY THEORY
In social learning theory, people learn more from observing others than they
do from the consequences of experiencing things themselves (Bandura,
1977). According to Bandura (1977), humans are capable of observational
learning; without it, each learner would have to experience everything him/
herself in order to learn. Instead learners observe others – their success,
failures, efforts, and style. For example, in the clinic teachers observe other
teachers lessons either directly or through video recording. During and after
the viewing of the lesson, peers discuss the teacher’s actions and children’s
responses, provide feedback, and give specific suggestions. In this manner,
as a community of learners, peers vicariously experience the teaching and
learning interactions between teachers and children with diverse learning
needs, rather than just their own teaching. In addition, during paired
lessons, children interactively learn as they collaboratively work to
accomplish literacy activities.
collaboration with others, were able to transfer the learning from the clinic
and use this learning to transform the thinking and current practices at
home, school, and in the community.
ASSESSMENT
INSTRUCTION
peer resources that align with the initial objectives. The teacher and child
select materials that aligned with objectives, reading, or writing levels and
the child’s interest. During instruction, teachers explain and model
strategies, and provide guided and independent practice. Children learn
how to monitor their reading and writing through metacognitive processes,
then apply strategies to enhance reading comprehension and writing
composition. The teacher and the child evaluate the child’s learning and
the teaching based on the objective criteria. After each tutoring session, the
child shares their learning with the family members and the teacher
reinforces the learning and literacy strategies with the family.
According to the observational and interview data of our graduates,
teachers transferred this knowledge of instruction when they identified
specific objectives, selected appropriate strategies and materials from a
variety of resources, and supported children in developing a self-extending
system in their schools. They transformed other teachers’ and educators’
instructional practices when they collaborated to plan, implement, and
evaluate lessons, based on children’s individual strengths and needs.
During the literacy program, teachers coach each other in using a variety of
literacy practices. They each develop a resource notebook containing
strategies, materials, assessments, and technologies for each of the literacy
processes such as language development, vocabulary, phonics and word
identification, oral reading, comprehension, study skills, and writing
composition. These resources come from professional books, professional
journals, web resources, libraries, previous teaching and learning experi-
ences, other professionals, and self-created resources. During each course,
teachers and professors present and share these practices, which include the
purpose, procedures, specific children’s examples, and adaptations. Tea-
chers share their resources in the notebooks in several ways. For example,
when a colleague wanted support on vocabulary instruction, the pair
discussed several strategies and selected the ‘‘Concept of Definition’’
(Schwartz & Raphael, 1985 as cited in McAndrews, 2008a) strategy to
identify word meanings on the basis of categories, properties, and illustrations
that aligned with the teacher’s instructional objective and children’s needs.
Another example was when a teacher’s school literacy committee identified a
need for improving instruction in writing, the teacher researched and
selected appropriate assessments and resources from the resource notebook
and other sources, and explained and modeled several of them for their
school faculty. The faculty then selected and applied the practices.
Afterward the faculty met to discuss their effectiveness and adaptations.
Teachers also shared strategies from their resource notebook with families
and other educators during phone and face-to-face conferences, family
210 STEPHANIE L. MCANDREWS AND SHADRACK G. MSENGI
nights, and through paper and online newsletters and handouts. Families
and teachers supported their children in using these practices at home and at
school. From presentations and lessons shared, professors also gained
knowledge of additional instructional practices and their effectiveness. This
allowed them to expand their repertoire of strategies, materials, assessments,
and technologies. This process of sharing practices transformed and
empowered teachers, families, and professors to make informed decisions
regarding using these practices in their schools and communities.
The role of the reading specialist/literacy coach is not only to enhance the
literacy development of children but also to demonstrate and facilitate
professional learning and leadership in schools and communities (Interna-
tional Reading Association, 2010). Based on Guskey’s (2000) definition,
professional development includes those processes and activities designed to
enhance the professional knowledge, skills, and attitudes of educators, so
that they might, in turn, improve the learning of students. The knowledge
about reading improves when teachers and professionals participate in
212 STEPHANIE L. MCANDREWS AND SHADRACK G. MSENGI
Family, school, and community literacy connections are vital for supporting
children’s literacy development that reflects children’s background and
interests. Family literacy is a complex concept. According to Morrow
(2012), it ‘‘encompasses the ways families, children and extended family
members use literacy at school and in their community’’ (p. 418). Drawing
from Morrow’s (2012) descriptions of family literacy, family literacy may be
initiated by a family member, school personnel, or community member; it
involves family literacy activities that reflect the ethnic, racial, or cultural
heritage of the families involved; and it involves families participating in
home and school communication, family–teacher conferences, classroom
literacy activities, school-wide family literacy programs, literacy workshops
and community literacy programs. Frequent and positive school-to-home
communication (in the form of phone calls, progress reports, conferences,
personal notes, newsletters, and home visits) helps parents feel more self-
confident, more comfortable with the school, and more likely to become
involved (Epstein, 1994). Epstein (1994) also explains that parents are more
likely to participate in schools if they receive information from teachers
about classroom activities, the progress of their children, and how to work
with their children at home. Data from Msengi’s (2007) study indicates
educators should consider multiple sources of information in order to assist
the child’s reading efforts. ‘‘A better level of sharing needs to be encouraged
between family members, the child, and the child’s teacher regarding their
respective expectations and goals concerning the child’s reading effort and
achievement’’ (Msengi, 2007). Epstein (1994) points out that the involve-
ment of families in schools leads to overlapping spheres of influence between
the home, school, and community. Thinking of the school as an extended
family can help to create a positive school climate, increase their
understanding, and respect for student and family diversity, creating a
more caring school climate (Epstein, 1994).
In our clinic, teachers and families collaborate to support home and
school literacy connections through regular communication, conferences,
214 STEPHANIE L. MCANDREWS AND SHADRACK G. MSENGI
and providing resources. First, the family and teachers from the child’s
school learn about the Cougar Literacy Clinic from references, fliers, or the
university website. Then if interested, they complete the literacy clinic
application forms. These forms provide background information regarding
the child’s physical, social/behavioral, academic, cognitive, and language
development, as well as culture, interests and attitude.
Professors meet with teachers to discuss the family forms and how to
conduct family conferences such as being sure to include the child’s
strengths prior to the child’s needs and providing specific suggestions and
strategies. The teachers contact the family to introduce themselves and to
gain clarification and additional information in the application forms, if
needed. This baseline data provides the information for selection of the
initial assessments.
Ongoing family conferences are vital tools used for regular communica-
tion between teachers, children, family members, professors, and other
educators. They meet before and after assessment, and after every tutoring
session. Following the initial assessment, the tutor, child, and family hold a
conference to discuss the initial assessment results and potential instruc-
tional objectives based on the child’s strengths and needs. The child and
family share learning goals and interests, which helps the teacher to plan
lessons. Then, the teachers provide information about the structure of the
tutoring sessions and respond to any questions that the child or family had.
After each tutoring session, the teacher, child, and family hold a
conference to help make connections between what the child did at home,
at school, and in the clinic. First, the child shares the reading and writing
strategies used and learned during tutoring while the teacher supplemented
success stories about the child’s learning and areas of need with suggested
strategies. Next, the child and teacher explain the homework related to the
lesson’s objectives. Finally, the family share the child’s successes and
concerns at home and school.
At the end of each semester, the teachers meet with their peers and
professors to analyze data and write the literacy development report. The
family, child and teacher meet to celebrate the child’s literacy development
and review the literacy development report. During the celebration of
learning, the child orally reads his/her writing published in the newspaper.
The teacher and child share the literacy development report with the families
and school personnel. The literacy report contains background knowledge,
pre- and post-literacy assessment results and analysis, evaluation of
objectives and strategies taught, and suggestions of strategies for family
and teachers to enhance the child’s literacy development. In addition, the
Transfer and Transformation of Knowledge and Practices 215
family share orally and complete a survey about the overall observation of
the benefits and suggestions regarding the future development of the clinic.
The professors and teachers provide the families with demonstrations,
handouts, articles, websites, and books of suggestions and strategies to use
when encouraging and supporting reading at home and at school. Children,
family, and community members can also check out books and materials
from the clinic library. Families often share information about their child,
family, and school. They regularly ask and respond to questions. During
this bidirectional communication, each participant gains knowledge about
ways of communicating especially as related to instruction, literacy
development, areas of the child’s strengths and needs, and interests. This
shared understanding of the child’s development enables teachers, families
and educators to better support the child in their literacy growth.
CONCLUDING THOUGHTS
The major focus of this chapter was to explain how our literacy clinic
supported the transfer and transformation of knowledge and practice from
the clinical experiences to schools and communities. Our clinical practices
are based not only on theories of self-extending systems, intersubjectivity,
social constructivist, social learning, and socioal cultural but also on
theories of transfer and transformation. We explained how the synergy
between the child, family, teacher, educators, and professors, reflectively
transformed each other’s thinking and learning as they strived to achieve
shared goals. The data from our research has unveiled several elements of
transformation with implications for newly or already established clinics.
Each of the constituents became transformed individuals when they
changed their thinking and perspectives as a result of collaborating with
others. They transformed their thinking about the areas of assessment;
instruction; coaching and consultation; and family, school, and community
connections. First, in the area of assessment, each of the constituents have
learned to confidently identify their own and others strengths and needs, and
provide constructive feedback. Teachers, other educators, and professors
learned to make informed decisions on the section of assessments and
analysis of assessment data. While, in the area of instruction, each of the
constituents have learned to focus on strengths, pose and respond to
thoughtful implicit and explicit questions, and select appropriate materials
and literacy activities. Children learned to monitor their learning and use
reading and writing strategies for authentic purposes. Teachers, other
216 STEPHANIE L. MCANDREWS AND SHADRACK G. MSENGI
REFERENCES
Applegate, M., Deeney, T., Dubert, L., Laster, B., Cobb, J., Dozier, C., y Swanson, M.
(2010, December). Transfer and transformation: What reading clinic/literacy lab
graduates’ current practices and contexts mean for clinic/lab instruction. Paper
presented at Literacy Research Association/National Reading Conference, Ft.
Worth, TX.
Bandura, A. (1977). Social learning theory. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.
Bear, D., Invernizzi, M., Templeton, S., & Johnston, F. (2012). Words their way: Word study for
phonics, vocabulary, and spelling instruction. Boston, MA: Pearson.
Brady, S., Gillis, M., Smith, T., Lavalette, M., Liss-Bronstein, L., Low, E., et al. (2009).
Firstgrade teachers’ knowledge of phonological awareness and code concepts:
Examining gains from an intensive form of professional development and corresponding
teacher attitudes. Reading and Writing: An Interdisciplinary Journal, 22, 425–455.
Bransford, J. D., & Schwartz, D. L. (1999). Rethinking transfer: A simple proposal with
multipleimplications. In A. Iran-Nejad & P. D. Pearson (Eds.), Review of Research in
Transfer and Transformation of Knowledge and Practices 217
Education (Vol. 24, pp. 61–101). Washington DC: American Educational Research
Association.
Brofenbrenner, U. (1979). The ecology of human development: Expereiments by nature and
design. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. In D. Tracey D. & L. Morrow (Eds.)
(2012). Lenses on reading: An introduction to theories and models (2nd ed.). New York,
NY: Guilford Press.
Brophy, J. (2004). Using video in teacher education. San Diego, CA: Elsevier.
Clay, M. M. (1991). Becoming literate: The construction of inner control. Portsmouth, NH:
Heinemann.
Cobb, P. (1988). The tension between theories of learning and instruction in mathematics
education. Educational Psychologist, 2, 87–103. Mathematical Sciences Education Board
(MSEB) and National Research Council.
Common Core State Standards Initiative (2012). Common core states standards. Retrieved from
http://www.corestandards.org
Cooper, D. (2006). Talk about assessment: Strategies and tools to improve learning. Toronto:
Thomson Nelson.
Deeney, T., Dozier, C., Laster, B., Angell, V., Barnes, C., Carter, C., y Freppon, P.
(2005, December). A national look at teacher preparation in reading clinic/literacy labs.
Paper presented at the National Reading Conference, Miami, FL.
Deeney, T., Dozier, C., Laster, B., Applegate, M., Cobb, J., Gauty-Porter, D., y Milby, T.,
(2011). Clinic experiences that promote transfer to school contexts: What matters in
clinical teacher preparation 60th Yearbook of the Literacy Research Association. Chicago,
IL: Literacy Research Association, Inc.
DeFord, D. E., Lyons, C. A., & Pinnell, G. S. (1991). Bridges to literacy learning from reading
recovery. Portsmouth, NH: Heinneman.
Dozier, C. (2006). Responsive literacy coaching: Tools for creating and sustaining purposeful
change. Portland, ME: Stenhouse Publishers.
Epstein, J. L. (1994). Theory to practice: School and family partnerships lead to school
improvement and student success. In C. Fagnano & B. Werber (Eds.), School, family,
and community interactions: A view from the firing lines. Boulder, CO: Westview Press.
Guskey, I. R. (2000). Evaluating professional development. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.
Hartford, J., & MacRuairc, G. (2008). Engaging student teachers in meaningful reflective
practices. Teaching and Teacher Education, 24, 1884–1892.
Harvey, S., & Goudvis, A (2005). The comprehension toolkit. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.
Hensen, K. T. (1996). Teachers as researchers. In J. Sikula (Ed.), Handbook of research on
teacher education (2nd ed., pp. 53–66). New York, NY: Macmillan.
International Reading Association. (2010). Standards for reading professionals. Newark, DE:
International Reading Association (2010).
King, A. (1997). Ask to think-tel why: A model of transactive peer tutoring for scaffolding
higher level complex learning. Educational Psychology, 32(4), 221–235.
Kurz, T. L., Llama, G., & Savenye, W. (2004). Issues and challenges of creating video cases to
be used with preservice teachers. TechTrends, 49(4), 67–73.
Leslie, L., & Caldwell, J. (2010). Qualitative reading inventory-5. New York, NY: Addison
Wesley Longman.
Lyons, C. A., & Beaver, J. (1995). Reducing retention and learning disability placement through
reading recovery: An educationally sound, cost-effective choice. In R. L. Allington &
S. A. Walmsley (Eds.), No quick fix: Rethinking literacy instruction in America’s
elementary schools (pp. 61–77). Newark, DE: International Reading Association.
218 STEPHANIE L. MCANDREWS AND SHADRACK G. MSENGI
Lyons, C. A., Pinnell, G. S., & DeFord, D. E. (1993). Partners in learning. New York, NY:
Teachers College Press.
Matusov, E. (2001). Intersubjectivity as a way of informing teaching design for a community of
learners classroom. Teaching and Teacher Education, 1, 383–402.
McAndrews, S. L. (2008a). Diagnostic literacy assessments and instructional strategies: Literacy
specialist’s resource. Newark, DE: International Reading Association.
McAndrews, S. L. (2008b, December). Critical decision making: Literacy assessment for, as,
and of learning. Paper presented at the National Reading Conference, Orlando, FL.
McAndrews, S. L. (2009, February). Enhancing critical decision making in literacy assessment
and instruction. Paper presented at the International Reading Association Annual
Conference, Phoenix, AZ.
McKenna, M. C., & Walpole, S. (2008). The literacy coaching challenge. New York, NY:
Guilford Press.
Mezirow, J. (2000). Learning as transformation: Critical perspectives on a theory in progress.
San Francisco, CA: Jossey Bass.
Morrow, L. (2012). Literacy development in the early years: Helping children read and write (7th
ed.). Boston, MA: Pearson Education, Inc.
Msengi, S. G. (2007). Family, child, and family perceptions of African American
adultassistance to young readers. The School Community Journal, 17(1), 33–60.
Newhouse, C. P., Lane, J., & Brown, C. (2007). Reflecting on teaching practices using digital
video representation in teacher education. Australian Journal of Teacher Education,
32(3), 1–12.
Rog, L. (2011). Marvelous minilessons for teaching intermediate writing, Grades 4–6. Newark,
DE: International Reading Association.
Roskos, K., & Freppon, P. (1997). Moving beyond recitation: Descriptive observations of
teachers developing instructional conversations in the reading clinic setting. Paper
presented at the annual meeting of the national Reading Conference, Scottsdale, AZ.
Roskos, K., & Rosemary, C. (2001). Teacher learning instrument (TLI). Unpublished
manuscript. John Carroll University.
Schumuck, R. A. (1997). Practical action research for change. Arlington Heights, IL: IRI/
Skylight Training and Publishing, Inc.
Tharp, R., Estrada, P., Dolton, S., & Yamauchi, L. (2000). Teaching transformed: Achieving
excellence, fairness, inclusion, and harmony. Boulder, CO: Westview Press.
Tracey, D., & Morrow, L. (2012). Lenses on reading: An introduction to theories and models
(2nd ed.). New York, NY: Guilford Press.
Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). Mind in Society: The development of higher psychological processes.
Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Walker, B. (2012). Diagnostic teaching of reading: Techniques for instruction and assessment (7th
ed.). Boston, MA: Allyn & Bacon.
PREPARING PRESERVICE
TEACHERS TO DIFFERENTIATE
INSTRUCTION FOR
LINGUISTICALLY DIVERSE
STUDENTS IN URBAN
CLASSROOMS
ABSTRACT
Purpose – To provide educators with an overview of issues and strategies
important for preparing preservice teachers to plan instruction, engage
students, and assess learning in culturally and linguistically diverse
classrooms.
Design/methodology/approach – The chapter reviews sociocultural,
sociolinguistic, and cognitive literature that informs differentiated
instruction for linguistic diversity. It then offers a case study example
of a preservice student teaching seminar where this knowledge was put
into practice.
For these preservice candidates, the social and political context of their teacher
education experience requires learning to adapt instruction to a range of
learners. The ‘‘urban mission’’ of their university nurtures a goal of academic
success embedded in respect for differences across perspectives, values, and
cultures. The teacher education programs at this public university place a
majority of student teaching candidates in local public schools in a nearby
high-need urban district. As evidenced by intractable achievement gaps
between dominant and nondominant cultural groups, students in poorer
districts such as this are not being well served (Artiles, Kozleski, Trent, Osher,
& Ortiz, 2010; Heyman & Vigil, 2008). Teachers need focused scaffolds during
their preservice preparation specifically intended to develop confident and
successful literacy educators who remain teaching in urban classrooms where
they are most needed (Darling-Hammond, Wei, & Johnson, 2009).
National and state educational reforms continue to reshape teachers’ work
especially in high-need schools. At the national level, the 2004 reorganization
of the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) changed the
identification process for students with learning disabilities from a ‘‘dis-
crepancy’’ model (i.e., defining learning disability by gaps between tested
intelligence and achievement) to a model known as Response to Intervention
(RTI). RTI refocuses attention on meeting the instructional needs of
struggling students quickly and within the mainstream classroom through
ongoing assessment and differentiation of instruction. It is now necessary that
mainstream teachers differentiate instruction for all students. As cultural and
linguistic difference is often conflated with learning disabilities, it is important
that preservice teachers have tools they need to understand their students’
abilities (e.g., the cultural and linguistic resources they bring to the classroom)
while also knowing how to respond instructionally to those who struggle. This
is especially needed to serve those who are currently English Language
Learners (ELLs) (Lucas, Villegas, & Freedson-Gonzalez, 2008). This was a
critical expectation for these six candidates due to state-level legislation passed
in 2002 eliminating bilingual education. The result has been placement of large
numbers of ELLs in classrooms where teachers have not been prepared to
address their content and language learning needs (Nieto, 2009).
All of these reform efforts and realities affect the role of classroom
teachers. Therefore, quality preservice education necessitates that candi-
dates are able to focus on the local context as they
222 PATRICIA PAUGH AND MARY BRADY
more prevalent and the student population is more culturally, linguistically, and
ethnically diverse. In an age where student learning is the central focus for
analyzing the success or failure of instruction, the paradigm of ‘‘best practices’’
or ‘‘what works’’ must be tempered to include a focus on the students within the
context of their community, schools, and classrooms. As Klingner and
Edwards argue, finding instruction that ‘‘works’’ needs to include ‘‘what works,
with whom, by whom, and in what context?’’ (p. 108).
To meet the challenge of preparing candidates for context-based, student-
driven instruction, both authors utilized the opportunity to participate,
along with the candidates, in a national pilot of the Elementary English
Language Arts portion of the Teacher Performance Assessment (TPA), a
multiple measure assessment of preservice teaching focused on student
learning (edTPA, 2012). TPA provided an opportunity to explore how
candidates made meaning of their emergent instructional practices at an
important transition point between their course completion and their first
experiences as licensure candidates taking responsibility for teaching in early
elementary classrooms.
students in the class, and information on school conditions that might impact
teaching of the lessons. The lesson planning process requires both content and
language objectives with specific attention to academic language. Candidates
are asked to assemble and reflect upon evidence of students’ learning including
a video segment of their teaching, student work samples, and other unit or
lesson specific assessment instruments. Written responses are integrated into
all tasks and scored using a series of rubrics. The assessment is designed to be
scored by outside evaluators, although in the case framed here, it was scored
by two readers at the university in partial fulfillment of the portfolio
requirement for graduation from the university master’s degree program.
PACT/TPA is described in the literature as providing a reflective view of the
complex act of teaching that is not adequately measured by incidental
classroom observational visits or standardized tests of teacher knowledge
(Chung, 2008; Milanowski, Heneman, & Kimball, 2011). The literature
illuminates unique features of the PACT/TPA that differ from traditional
forms of preservice assessment. The first is an ‘‘educative’’ design focus
(Pecheone, 2012) based on social learning theories such as reflection in action,
situated learning theories, and apprentice-based learning (Chung, 2008).
Another feature is the focus on the complex language demands needed for
teaching the content, an issue especially necessary for the teaching of ELLs
(Bunch, Aguirre, & Tellez, 2009). The political implications of the TPA as a
nationally adopted, standardized assessment system for preservice teachers
remain controversial (see Cochran-Smith, Piazza, & Power, in press). Useful to
this program, however, was its theoretical framing of teacher learning that
centered the practicum as a learning site where local, state, and national issues
pertinent to an urban context were integrally related to each candidate’s
practice. The following section explores how two major theoretical frame-
works can inform candidates in developing and enacting English Language
Arts pedagogy directly focused on the students taught in their practicum
classrooms.
Differentiated Instruction
Preservice teachers can expect that they will be responsible for teaching
ELLs (Lucas & Villegas, 2008). This expectation is certain for the candidates
who are placed in urban schools. Yet, as of 2008, only one in six preservice
teacher education programs required ELL-oriented content (Ballantyne
et al., 2008). Thus, the preservice experience must begin to build specific
knowledge about ELLs and provide specific guidelines attending to their
needs within the mainstream classroom. This knowledge spans both
attitudes and beliefs about ELLs as well as knowledge about the roles of
both first and second language and academic success.
228 PATRICIA PAUGH AND MARY BRADY
Their performances, assessed through the TPA, required that they take on
positions of responsibility for their students’ learning. The TPA framework
anchored their focus on differentiation. The TPA served to mediate the
structure of the semester-long seminar. Before planning their lessons,
candidates completed the Context for Learning Form, by collecting learning
profiles for all students in their classrooms. This process necessitated confer-
encing with the classroom teacher and other specialists in the school, a
recommendation prominent in the literature on differentiation for ELLs. In
the following section, the authors will outline two specific seminar activities
designed to then scaffold candidates in preparing, teaching and later reflecting
on this differentiation during their ELA ‘‘learning segments.’’ First, Mary
Brady will share her lesson planning strategies that incorporated both
Principles of Universal Design for Learning (UDL) and the Sheltered
Instruction Observation Protocol model (SIOP). Next, Pat Paugh will share
highlights from a workshop on academic language where she extended notions
of academic language begun with SIOP to help candidates analyze the
language demands of the content.
initially suggested the use of small groups, but instead, after revising, could
elaborate ‘‘how’’ they were using grouping strategies to support the ELLs’
understanding of the lesson’s language requirements.
Both SIOP and UDL consider assessment as a major component of
differentiation. UDL instructs candidates to design multiple ways to show
student learning, and SIOP guides candidates to ensure fair assessment of
ELLs individually or within a group, using written or oral modes of
expression. But neither model offers differentiated formative assessments
throughout the lesson that gather data on learning of content and language
objectives. To ensure that the candidates could recall and monitor what they
intended to teach throughout the lesson, the practicum instructor built in an
expectation for collecting formative data to determine the level of support
needed for students to demonstrate what they knew and could perform.
Often this took the form of checklists listing what the candidate intended for
students to learn throughout a unit of study. Candidates frequently used
these checklists during small group or independent practice observing
students while they worked. Paula found this helped her focus on each
student’s learning, especially since the cooperating teacher in her placement
did not have a system for tracking the learning of each child:
I made my own graphyI have a big chart for each child and what their scores are. [My
cooperating teacher] doesn’t have that so I made up my own chart and took bits and
pieces that she gave me just to show where the kids were.
identify areas where they needed further support. The workshop was
designed to connect candidates with the focus of the TPA that paralleled
many of the recommendations found in the literature on linguistic diversity.
It asked candidates to attend to the language of instruction that is the
language teachers use to engage students in learning the content and the
language of the discipline that includes vocabulary as well as the forms and
functions associated with learning concepts in the disciplines of particular
subject areas (see Fig. 2).
The SIOP lesson planning process had already addressed how to shelter
the language of instruction; therefore, this later workshop extended the
analysis directly to the disciplinary language found in classroom texts.
Vocabulary instruction, the first dimension, was more familiar from
candidates’ reading methods courses. Therefore, the workshop quickly
reviewed three areas important to vocabulary instruction: high frequency
words, selection-critical (technical) terminology, and multi-meaning words
(those whose everyday meanings differ from more content specific uses –
e.g., ‘‘conflict’’ has both an everyday meaning of ‘‘struggle’’ but a specific
connotation in narrative structure). The bulk of the workshop then
introduced the general forms and functions of language commonly used
in schooling such as narrative, recount, description, explanation, procedure,
The two vignettes shared by the authors in this section provide a quick
view of how the TPA mediated and the practicum seminars responded to the
complex demands placed on urban student teachers. In this chapter’s final
section, candidates’ feedback is reviewed to reflect on the theoretical and
practical frameworks shared above and connect these to the candidates’
ability to enact responsive academically effective ELA instruction.
Differentiation
I did a fantasy and reality lesson because that’s what fell in the [commercial] curriculum
and then the grammar skill which isn’t necessarily [part of] the full lesson but that you
were supposed to doy It was a little bit of a conflict because the way she [cooperating
teacher] teaches is just kind of [what] she has to follow in the book.
We followed the [commercial curriculum] but there was flexibilityywe knew they were
going to have an assessment on ‘‘how to’’ and it came at the end of unit twoy . I was
allowed to take what they needed to be assessed on and I had an idea of how I wanted to
break it up and teach ityit was a clear goalyand I was able to change it [to fit].
Assessment
I have a student with a behavior plan andyliterally instructions were to keep him in the
class so that’s what I expected him to doyjust stay in the classyI didn’t even expect
him to write to be honestybut he responded to the [lesson plans]yso much of his
behavior was because the IEP says to keep him in the classroomyyou’re realizing yes
but I have a job [to teach him]yso I had to combine the IEP goal with my teaching goal.
Cultural Connections
You are setting up so that they [ELLs] can learn without you standing next to them
translating everythingyyou are [focusing on] setting it up for your students to learn, not
[focusing] on how you are teaching, if you see what I mean.
NOTES
1. See for a helpful and concise summary of specific knowledge about language
important for reading and writing development of ELLs.
2. Candidates’ consents were obtained through an approved IRB process.
Pseudonyms have been used to protect confidentiality.
3. Examples and Resources to guide UDL implementation as well as a listing of
the Research Evidence are offered at http://www.udlcenter.org/aboutudl/udlguide
lines
REFERENCES
Artiles, A., Kozleski, E., Trent, S., Osher, D., & Ortiz, A. (2010). Justifying and explaining
disproportionality, 1968–2008: A critique of underlying views of culture. Exceptional
Children, 76(3), 279–299.
240 PATRICIA PAUGH AND MARY BRADY
Ballantyn, K. G., Sanderman, A. R., & Levy, J. (2008). Educating english language learners:
Building teacher capacity. Washington, D.C.: National Clearninghouse for English
Language Acquisition.
Bunch, G., Aguirre, J., & Tellez, K. (2009). Beyond the scores: Using candidate responses on
high stakes performance assessment to inform teacher preparation for English Language
Learners. Issues in Teacher Education, 18(1), 103–128.
Chung, R. (2008). Beyond assessment: Performance assessments in teacher education. Teacher
Education Quarterly, 35(1), 7–28.
Cochran-Smith, M., Piazza, P., & Power, C. (in press). The politics of accountability: Assessing
teacher education in the U.S. The Educational Forum.
Cummins, J. (2007). Pedagogies for the poor: Realigning reading instruction for low-income
students with scientifically based reading research. Educational Researcher, 36(9), 564–
572.
Darling-Hammond, L., Wei, R. C., & Johnson, C. M. (2009). Teacher preparation and teacher
learning: A changing policy landscape. In Gary Sykes (Ed.), The handbook of education
policy research (pp. 613–636). Washington DC: American Education Research
Association.
DeJong, E., & Harper, C. (2005). Preparing mainstream teachers for English-language learners:
Is being a good teacher good enough? Teacher Education Quarterly, 32(2), 101–124.
Derewianka, B. (1990). Exploring how texts work. Newtown, Australia: Primary English
Teaching Association.
edTPA. (2012). General information: How is edTPA constructed and used? Retrieved from http://
edtpa.aacte.org/faq#17
Esparza-Brown, J., & Doolittle, J. (2008). A cultural, linguistic, and ecological framework for
Response to Intervention with English Language Learners. Teaching Exceptional
Children, 40(5), 66–72.
Gersten, R., & Dimino, J. (2008). RTI (Response to Intervention): Rethinking special education
for students with reading difficulties (yet again). Reading Research Quarterly, 41(1),
99–108.
Hall, T., Strangman, N., & Meyer, A. (2009). Differentiated instruction and implications for
UDL implementation. Effective Classroom Practices Report. National Center for
Accessing the General Curriculum. Retrieved from http://aim.cast.org/learn/historyarc
hive/backgroundpapers/differentiated_instruction_udl/
Heyman, E., & Vigil, P. (2008). Creating change in the large urban public schools of the United
States. Forum on Public Policy. Retrieved from http://www.forumonpublicpolicy.com/
summer08papers/archivesummer08/heyman.pdf
Klingner, J., & Edwards, P. (2006). Cultural considerations with response to intervention
models. Reading Research Quarterly, 41(1), 108–117.
Ladson-Billings, G. (1995). But that’s just good teaching! The case for culturally relevant
pedagogy. Theory into Practice, 34(3), 159–165.
Lucas, T., Villegas, A. M., & Freedson-Gonzalez, M. (2008). Linguistically responsive teacher
education: Preparing classroom teachers to teach English Language Learners. Journal of
Teacher Education, 59(4), 361–373.
McGill Franzen, A. (2005). In the press to scale up what’s the risk? Reading Research Quarterly,
40(3), 366–370.
Meskill, C. (2005). Infusing English language learner issues throughout professional educator
curricula: The Training All Teachers project. Teachers College Record, 107(4), 739–756.
Preparing Preservice Teachers to Differentiate Instruction 241
Milanowski, A., Heneman, H., & Kimball, S. (2011). Teaching assessment for teacher human
capital management: Learning from the current state of the art. Working Paper No. 2011
-2. University of Wisconsin Madison. Retrieved from http://www.wisc.edu/publications/
workingPapers/papers.php
Moore Johnson, S. (2004). Finders and Keepers: Helping new teachers survive and thrive in our
schools. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
National Institute of Child Health and Human Development. (2000). Report of the National
Reading Panel. Teaching children to read: An evidence-based assessment of the scientific
research literature on reading and its implications for reading instruction (NIH Publication
No. 00-4769). Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office.
Nieto, D. (2009). A brief history of bilingual education in the United States. Perspectives in
Urban Education, 61(1), 61–72.
Pecheone, R. (2012). Teacher performance assessment consortium (TPAC). Presentation to
Massachusetts Department of Elementary and Secondary Education. July 9, 2012.
Malden, MA.
Pecheone, R., & Chung, R. (2006). Evidence in teacher education: The performance assessment
for California teachers. Journal of Teacher Education, 57(1), 22–36.
Richards, H., Brown, A., & Forde, T. (2007). Addressing diversity in schools: Culturally
responsive pedagogy. Teaching Exceptional Children, 39(3), 64–68.
Santamaria, L. (2009). Culturally responsive differentiated instruction: Narrowing the gaps
between best pedagogical practices benefitting all learners. Teachers College Record,
111(1), 214–247.
Schleppegrell, M. J. (2004). The language of schooling: A functional linguistics perspective.
Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
Short, D., Echevarria, J., & Richards-Tutor, J. (2011). Research on academic literacy
development in sheltered instruction classrooms. Language Teaching Research, 15(3),
363–380.
Snow, C., Burns, M. S., & Griffin, P. (Eds.). (1998). Preventing reading difficulties in young
children. Washington, DC: National Academies Press.
Tomlinson, C. A. (2003). Fulfilling the promise of the differentiated classroom: Strategies and
tools for responsive teaching. Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and
Curriculum Development.
PART 3
TECHNOLOGICAL ELEMENTS
TAKING TECHNOLOGY FROM
CLINIC TO CLASSROOM
ABSTRACT
Purpose – This chapter explores how teachers and learners can use
technology in powerful and agentive ways for literacy development. It
presents information about communication technologies (ICTs) that can
be used to develop student literacy skills in each of the major areas of
literacy learning: emergent to beginning literacy, fluency, vocabulary,
comprehension, and writing. It also addresses how assistive technologies
fit within a literacy development program.
Design/methodology/approach – A brief overview of the breadth of
technologies available for instructional uses and the pedagogical perspec-
tive used is followed with specific ideas for free or inexpensive technologies
that can be used to address literacy development. Additionally, websites for
professional reviews of software are included to help readers learn about
emerging technologies and software applications as they become available.
Practical implications – Specific ideas for instruction that addresses
student literacy development while integrating 21st-century technology
are included. Teachers and teacher educators will find immediately
school (Alvermann, 2008; Lankshear & Knobel, 2011). The digital universe
is also creating literacies that readers and writers must master to be fully
functioning in the 21st century (NCTE, 2008).
PEDAGOGICAL CHOICES
The technology challenges of 21st century have changed ‘‘the focus of the
conversation about the digital divide from questions of technological access
to those of opportunities to participate and to develop the cultural
competencies and social skills needed for full involvement’’ in a
participatory culture (Jenkins, 2006, p. 4). While more students in the
United States have access to computers and the Internet than ever before,
the primary concern of the second digital divide revolves around unequal
access to the kinds of cultural and social capital that are increasingly needed.
The second digital divide refers to whether a person uses technology in
active or transformative ways (Lohnes Watulak, Laster, Liu, & LERN,
2011). Clinics, labs, and schools have an opportunity to play a central role in
ameliorating this second digital divide.
There is great variation in how teachers of reading and writing permeate
their teaching with technology, according to the self-reports of teachers who
graduated from reading clinics/literacy labs from across the United States
(Dubert & Laster, 2011). Some use technology regularly with careful
selection to match the learner needs and curricular goals with an aim to
support students in mastering the complexities of the literacy process. Other
teachers do not always have the skills to integrate technology into their
teaching (Fullan, 2001) or to integrate it in ways that powerfully impact
student literacy learning (Lohnes Watulak et al., 2011). We should consider
how teachers perceive and use instructional technology. In the recommen-
dations that we make below, we encourage student-directed, agentive uses of
technology in clinics and classrooms. We describe how teachers use
technology in a continuum of teacher-centered to student-centered ways,
with the hope that the emerging wave is one of students as agents of their
own learning.
Many reading clinics/literacy labs have assimilated technology to enhance
instruction for struggling readers as technologies have evolved. Because of
the rapidity of change, we all must take a deictic stance toward its
instructional uses (Leu, 2000). In this chapter, we share specific, accessible,
and affordable ways that learning with technology can enhance the
248 LEE ANN TYSSELING AND B. P. LASTER
technologies are congruent with existing theories and research in each of the
literacy development areas.
Children who are in the process of acquiring decoding skills can benefit from
practice using technology. Phonemic awareness, phonics skills, and an initial
stock of sight words (words instantaneously recognized) are presented in a
wide array of software. We will begin with a general warning: The quality
and educational value of software for beginning literacy skills is very uneven
and sometimes limited. Because it is relatively easy to build software and
apps for this literacy need, many are constructed without a robust
understanding of instructional principles for beginning literacy. Also, we
cannot offer a comprehensive review of available software. Instead, we will
highlight examples of software that can serve as models for evaluation of
future software releases.
A Vignette
Here is an illustration of how LEA has come into the digital age. Recently,
Martin (a pseudonym), a six-year-old in one of our reading clinics,
overcame significant resistance to reading through LEA based on his
favorite action hero: Spiderman. This young man, mature beyond the
typical 1st grader in interests, frequently refused to read the guided reading
level A–D books that were in his instructional reading level. He was
sometimes willing to read nonfiction books at that level, but much preferred
spelling and writing activities to ‘‘eyes on the page.’’ We began attempting to
use his passion for Spiderman to increase the amount of time he was willing
to read connected text. Marvel Comics (www.marvelcomics.com) has a
create-your-own comic page in the website. We used this to create a comic
with blank speech bubbles for which Martin was to ‘‘write’’ text. He dictated
the content of the speech bubbles to his teacher who recorded Martin’s text
on sticky notes. Once all the speech bubbles were drafted, Martin reviewed
them and dictated appropriate revisions. The teacher then carefully printed
the text into the comic strip. This became Martin’s reading material for
several sessions. It is possible to allow students to work within the Marvel
Comics website itself to create their own comics, but to save time, we created
the comic. We also found it somewhat limited in characters and settings, so
for our second lesson, the teacher used a collection of Spiderman images
collected from a variety of websites. The teacher did not arrange them in a
story sequence, rather just printed a large number of images with Spiderman
252 LEE ANN TYSSELING AND B. P. LASTER
and Martin’s favorite villain. Martin then composed a story, selected images
he wanted to use to illustrate the text, and combined all into his own original
Spiderman reader. Many of the elementary school-aged boys in our
classrooms have frightening familiarity with and passionate interests in
video games (including games that are rated well above their age), television,
movie, and comic book/graphic novel characters and plots. For our
emergent readers, whatever their age, allowing them to use these images and
plots in a LEA lesson may feel unfamiliar and even somewhat inappropriate
to teachers, but with the approval of the parents, the modification can make
a huge difference in their motivation and reading development. An
alternative to photos of real places and events is to use building blocks,
toys, or claymation to create a narrative based on students’ playtime
interests (see Stormtroopers365 project http://www.flickr.com/photos/
st3f4n/sets/72157616350171741/for ideas to start such a project).
is that authors get feedback from readers. Authors return to the StoryBird
site regularly to see the most recent reviews. We have been surprised by how
quickly reviews are made and with the kindness of the comments by the
reviewers. This site allows teachers to create classroom accounts so
that students do not need email addresses to create and share their own
stories.
FLUENCY
There have been many commercial software programs released that are
designed to improve reading fluency. Most are based on repeated reading of
short texts. These can be used effectively but have two weak points: they
rarely take into account student choice of reading material and they offer
limited opportunities for agency or engagement. We suggest other digital
resources that can be used the address issues of fluency.
Ebooks can be used effectively for fluency development. In selecting an
ebook, we look for the following characteristics: Professional quality of oral
reading of the text, the option to turn off the oral reading, the option to
have single words pronounced, and convenient opportunities to reread the
book with or without the audio available. An additional desirable feature is
the ability to record the reader’s speech, a feature available in Scholastic’s
Wiggle Works series. A site that we have found to be particularly well-
designed is TumbleBooks. The basic subscription for an entire school is quite
reasonable and many public libraries have subscribed to the service.
TumbleBooks includes professional readings of a wide variety of books as
well as activities to accompany them. Some TumbleBooks also have a ‘‘word
helper,’’ that offers online help with highlighted words. This assistance takes
the form of pronunciation and a little word analysis work. However,
younger readers would need to have some guidance in how to utilize the
word analysis support. Readers do have the option to turn off the narration
and read the book on their own. There are also books available in Spanish,
French, Chinese, and Russian. TumbleBooks also offers a dual language
format in which the reader can see/hear both the English and an alternative
language edition of the book. Most libraries offer a wide selection of
audio books in audio tape, CD, and digital formats. Learning Ally (www.
learningally.org) a subscription service ($99 per year for parents and
students) provides opportunities for readers to hear professionally narrated
text that models fluent reading. We will also discuss the uses of audio books
for comprehension development later in this chapter.
254 LEE ANN TYSSELING AND B. P. LASTER
VOCABULARY DEVELOPMENT
In addition to needing to master a large set of sight words, all readers, but
especially readers and writers who struggle, must build their vocabulary
knowledge (Graves, 2008; Snow, Lawrence, & White, 2009; Stahl & Nagy,
2006). Of particular importance for students is grasping the meaning of
words necessary for understanding content area materials and abstract
ideas. Technology is a blessing for those students who have to accelerate
their vocabulary knowledge. There is a wide array of online reference
resources to assist them; increasingly, there are embedded pronunciations
and definitions in ebooks and other digital texts too.
including encyclopedias and images. Although there are other free websites
that place words in semantic networks, none of the others move and grow
the way that Visual Thesaurus does. Students will click on words and links
for long periods of time, increasing their understanding of the fit of a target
vocabulary word in their semantic network of known vocabulary words as
well as exploring new connections. Students often explore an individual
word for 10–15 minutes. This amount of focused attention on the meaning
of a word is hard to replicate with other reference resources. A second
advantage to Visual Thesaurus is that users may add Spanish, French,
German, Dutch, and Italian words to the word map.
Wordnik (www.wordnik.com) offers a smorgasbord of information to help
learners understand words in many ways. These include definitions from
a number of online dictionaries; etymologies; text examples from contem-
porary media; Flicker images (an online photography sharing site); elaborate
lists of related words, including synonyms, equivalents, antonyms, and words
typically used in the same context; tweets; and sound effects. School firewalls
may block the Twitter feed. Teachers should warn families and students that
the Twitter feed sometimes contains offensive words or references. However,
the other resources provided make the site one that is most valuable to
learners. Older students appreciate seeing the examples of words being used in
contemporary media. The images are a particularly interesting resource, as
they are pulled into the Wordnik site by the tags that photographers have
added to the images they post on Flicker. However, not all the tags actually
result in words that help elaborate the meaning of a word. For example, if you
are looking up the word pinnacle in Wordnik, typically the feed will include
photos of parks that include the name pinnacle and images shot with a
pinnacle lens on a camera. An excellent activity is to have students sort the
images by those that help them understand the meaning of the word that they
are looking up and those that are nonexamples.
Embedded Dictionaries
adolescents and include easy access to online dictionaries. With all online
reading it is easy to right-click on a word to access definitions. Teachers may
also choose to use these features in combination with Vocabulary Self-
Collection Strategy (Ruddell & Shearer, 2002) or other word study routines.
Games
There are numerous games that provide extended practice with vocabulary
words; teachers can use these for reinforcement and motivation. There are
also games that promote word consciousness. Teachers are advised to
evaluate the games for the support they offer learners and use them in
conjunction with deeper instruction in vocabulary. We recommend that you
select games with the following characteristics: help features that scaffold
struggling readers, feedback on errors that provide instruction, and
automatic spaced repetition so that missed words are reviewed. A few that
contain the features described above include MissionUS (a vocabulary
emphasis game based on the Revolutionary War, www.mission-us.org),
Vocabulary.com (www.vocabulary.com), Freerice (www.freerice.org), Roo-
tonym (www.merriam-webster.com/game/uclick/rootonym.htm), a wide
range of games at www.vocabulary.co.il, and Words with Friends
(www.wordswithfriends.com/).
COMPREHENSION DEVELOPMENT
It is important to provide engaging opportunities with digital texts for
struggling readers. As Leu et al. (2009) have noted, struggling readers are
the least likely to be provided with opportunities for interesting online work.
Too often they end up assigned to drill and practice activities in brief,
uninteresting texts. Comprehension development for struggling readers
requires more than quizzes and points. Our recommendations are that
teachers look to digital resources to support the instruction they provide for
comprehension development and find materials that will advance their
curricular objectives and motivate students. Even though there are many
intriguing opportunities provided by the Internet that typically motivate and
engage struggling readers, teachers need to play an active role in instruction
and scaffolding their use.
WebQuests, Internet Research Projects, and ePals (www.epals.com)
provide opportunities for struggling readers to practice the real life skills
they need currently and in their futures. ePals is a free site that allows
258 LEE ANN TYSSELING AND B. P. LASTER
WRITING
Creative Writing
Report Writing
supported details, well crafted conclusions, and the strong links between
comprehension, thinking, and writing.
Digital Storytelling
Like digital LEA, Digital storytelling also exemplifies the strong connection
between reading and writing with student-created texts. Both approaches
encourage divergent thinking and are highly motivating. We use the term
Digital storytelling to mean student-generated stories from many different
digital components, including video, audio, and multiple texts. It is ideal for
older students who can independently navigate many sites and multiple
ICTs. Use of iMovie or Windows Movie Maker are intuitive for many
students; teachers just have to step back and guide students. Here are a few
suggestions: (1) Provide lots of room for creativity but at the beginning ask
students to write a one paragraph description of their project along with a
schedule for completing the project. Teachers should hold students
accountable by having them submit segments every week or two weeks.
Some students will need more supervision than others. (2) As a motivator,
explain that their finished projects will be shown to the class (or to the entire
school or even the whole community). (3) Encourage collaboration among
students so that they can be leaders or improve their weaker skills in
technology or in storytelling. (4) Have students think of what makes a movie
so effective (or so poorly done). (5) When they get stuck, help them focus on
the story that they are telling. The Center for Digital Storytelling
(www.storycenter.org) is a helpful site. Examples of digital storytelling can
be found also at these sites:
http://digitalstorytelling.coe.uh.edu/places.html
http://mcli.maricopa.edu/storytelling/examples
ASSISTIVE TECHNOLOGIES
Assistive technologies, those for students with severe reading difficulties,
have been used effectively in clinics and classrooms. For example, students
with limited speech ability benefit from augmentative communication:
electronic and nonelectronic devices – such as special keyboards that they
can point to or use – that provide a means for expressive and receptive
communication. Students with vision limitations use magnifiers, Braille and
speech output devices, or large print monitors. Assistive technologies have
262 LEE ANN TYSSELING AND B. P. LASTER
been used in reading clinics (McKenna & Walpole, 2007) so that reading
teachers learn the potential of these technologies.
BEYOND INSTRUCTION
CONCLUSION
The use of technology for enhancing student literacy proficiencies (Coiro &
Dobler, 2007; Dalton & Strangman, 2006; Squire, 2008) is very promising.
In the reconfigured landscape of struggling readers, particularly the
perspective of students’ identities related to literacy (Kucan & Palincsar,
2011), digital literacies can be instrumental in advancing literacy learners
who have been less-than-successful. We agree with the National Council of
Teachers of English’s (NCTE) definition of 21st century literacies (2008)
which states that students must develop competence with the tools of
technology and create, analyze, and evaluate multimedia texts in order to be
successful readers and writers in the 21st century. The ability to move
among different texts, contexts and technologies, is a necessary skill for
success in our society, which is ‘‘based increasingly on the effective use of
information and communication’’ (Leu, Kinzer, Coiro, & Cammack, 2004,
p. 1581).
Taking Technology from Clinic to Classroom 263
REFERENCES
Allen, R. V. (1968). How a language experience program works. In E. C. Vilscek (Ed.), A decade
of innovations: Approaches to beginning reading (pp. 1–8). Newark, NJ: International
Reading Association.
Alvermann, D. E. (2008). Why bother theorizing adolescents’ online literacies for classroom
practice and research? Journal of Adolescent & Adult Literacy, 52(1), 8–19.
Coiro, J., & Dobler, E. (2007). Exploring the online reading comprehension strategies used by
sixth grade skilled readers to search for and locate information on the internet. Reading
Research Quarterly, 42(2), 214–257.
Dalton, B., & Strangman, N. (2006). Improving struggling readers’ comprehension through
scaffolded hypertexts and other computer-based literacy programs. In M. C. McKenna,
L. D. Labbo, R. D. Kieffer & D. Reinking (Eds.), International handbook of literacy and
technology (Vol. II, pp. 75–92). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
Dubert, L. A., & Laster, B. P. (2011). Technology in practice: Educators trained inreading
clinic/literacy labs. Journal of Reading Education, 36(2), 23–29.
Freire, P. (2000). Pedagogy of the oppressed. New York, NY: Continuum.
Fullan, M. (2001). Leading in a culture of change. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Graves, M. F. (2008). Instruction on individual words: One size does not fit all. In
A. E. Farstrup & S. J. Samuels (Eds.), What research has to say about vocabulary
instruction (pp. 56–79). Newark, DE: International Reading Association.
Greenleaf, C. L., & Hinchman, K. (2009). Reimagining our inexperienced adolescent readers:
From struggling, striving, marginalized, and reluctant to thriving. Journal of Adolescent
& Adult Literacy, 53(1), 4–13.
Hartman, D. K. (1995). Eight readers reading: The intertextual links of proficient readers
reading multiple passages. Reading Research Quarterly, 30(3), 520–561.
Henry, L.A. (2007). Exploring new literacies pedagogy and online reading comprehension among
middle school students and teachers: Issues of social equity or social exclusion? (University
of Connecticut). ProQuest Dissertations and Theses. Retrieved from http://search.pro
quest.com/docview/304864619?accountid=9649.(304864619)
Jenkins, H. (2006). Confronting the challenges of participatory culture: Media education for the
21st century. Retrieved from http://digitallearning.macfound.org/
Kucan, L., & Palincsar, A. (2011). Locating struggling readers in a reconfigured landscape. In
M. L. Kamil, P. D. Pearson, E. B. Moje & P. P. Afflerbach (Eds.), Handbook of reading
research (Vol. IV, pp. 341–358). New York, NY: Routledge.
Labbo, L. D., & Ryan, T (2010). Traversing the ‘‘literacies’’ landscape: A semiotic perspective
on early literacy acquisition and digital literacies instruction. In E. A. Baker (Ed.), The
new literacies: Multiple perspectives on research and practice (pp. 88–105). New York,
NY: Guilford Press.
Lankshear, C., & Knobel, M. (2011). New literacies: Everyday practices and classroomlearning
(3rd ed.). Maidenhead: Open University Press.
Larson, L. C. (2010). Digital readers: The next chapter in e-book reading andresponse. The
Reading Teacher, 64(1), 15–22.
Leu, D. J. (2000). Literacy and technology: Deictic consequences for literacy educationin an
information age. In M. L. Kamil, P. Mosenthal, P. D. Pearson & R. Barr (Eds.),
Handbook of reading research (Vol. III, pp. 743–770). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
264 LEE ANN TYSSELING AND B. P. LASTER
Leu, D. J., Jr., Kinzer, C. K., Coiro, J., & Cammack, D. (2004). Toward a theory of new
literacies emerging from the Internet and other information and communication
technolgies. In R. B. Ruddell & N. Unrau (Eds.), Theoretical models and processes of
reading (5th ed., pp. 1568–1611). Newark, DE: International Reading Association.
Leu, D. J., McVerry, J. G., O’Bryne, W. I., Zawilinski, L., Castek, J., & Hartman, D. K. (2009).
The new literacies of online reading comprehension and the irony of nochild left behind:
Students who require our assistance the most, actually receiveit the least. In
L. M. Morrow, R. Rueda & D. Lapp (Eds.), Handbook ofresearch on literacy and
diversity (pp. 173–194). New York, NY: Guilford Press.
Lohnes Watulak, S., Laster, B. P., Liu, X., & LERN. (2011, December). Technology stalled:
Exploring the new digital divide in one urban school. Journal of Language and Literacy
Education, 7(2), 1–21. Retrieved from http://www.coe.uga.edu/jolle/2011_2/watulak_
laster_liu.pdf
McKenna, M. C., & Walpole, S. (2007). Assistive technology in the reading clinic: Its emerging
potential. Reading Research Quarterly, 42(1), 140–145.
National Council of Teachers of English. (2008). The NCTE definition of 21st century literacies.
Retrieved from http://www.ncte.org/positions/statements/21stcentdefinition
Olson, B., & Wise, R. K. (2006). Computer-based remediation for reading and related
phonological disabilities. In M. C. McKenna, L. D. Labbo, R. D. Kieffer & D. Reinking
(Eds.), International handbook of literacy and technology (Vol. II, pp. 57–74). Mahwah,
NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Pitcher, S. M. (2009). The great poetry race. The Reading Teacher, 62(7), 613–616.
Ruddell, M., & Shearer, B. A. (2002). ‘‘Extraordinary,’’ ‘‘Tremendous,’’ ‘‘Exhilarating,’’
‘‘Magnificent’’: Middle school at-risk students become avid word learners with the
vocabulary self-collection strategy (VSS). Journal of Adolescent & Adult Literacy, 45(5),
352–363.
Snow, C. E., Lawrence, J. F., & White, C. (2009). Generating knowledge of academic language
among urban middle school students. Journal of Research on Educational Effectiveness,
2(4), 325–344.
Squire, K. (2008). Video-game literacy: A literacy of expertise. In J. Coiro, M. Knobel,
C. Lankshear & D. J. Leu (Eds.), The handbook of research on new literacies (pp. 635–
669). New York, NY: Erlbaum Associates/Taylor & Francis Group.
Stahl, S. A., & Nagy, W. E. (2006). Teaching word meanings. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum Associates.
Tarasiuk, T. J. (2010). Combining traditional and contemporary texts: Moving my English class
to the computer lab. Journal of Adolescent & Adult Literacy, 53(7), 543–552.
Unite for Literacy. (2012). Retrieved from http://uniteforliteracy.com/
Zickuhr, K., & Smith, A. (2012, April 13). Digital differences. Pew Internet & American Life
Project. Retrieved from http://pewinternet.org/Reports/2012/Digital-differences.aspx
PROVIDING A ‘‘POCKET TUTOR’’:
ENHANCING METACOGNITION
THROUGH PODCASTED
COMPREHENSION PROMPTS
ABSTRACT
a viable resource for engaging these readers. Not only are they listening to
text at their instructional level, they are also being provided with
metacognitive comprehension prompts.
INTRODUCTION
Fifth-grader Casey’s mom has just picked him up from school. His mom
hands him an iPod, earphones, and a book. He turns on the iPod, navigates
to the right section, flips open the book, and reads along with a recording of
the chapter. Fourth-grader Mary is sitting at the family’s kitchen table,
while her mom is getting dinner ready. Mary is reading a book, following
along as she listens to a recording of the chapter on an iPod. The books that
Casey and Mary are reading were selected for them based on their particular
interests, and are estimated to be at their instructional level – third-grade
level for both Casey and Mary. Importantly, the read-alouds that they are
listening to are not simply read-alouds. These read-alouds are embedded
with prompts to construct and respond to the meaning of the text. The
books and iPods were loaned to the children by the University Reading
Clinic, where they both attend tutorial sessions once a week.
The teachers in our University Reading Clinic have often lamented that
the one and a half hours they have with their struggling readers each week is
just not enough. They comment that between meetings their struggling
readers have sometimes forgotten what they worked on the session before
and that they have to spend valuable time revisiting the previous week’s
intervention lesson. However, by taking advantage of new technologies we
have been able to bridge this gap through the creation of a ‘‘Pocket Tutor.’’
A Pocket Tutor is an iPod ‘‘loaded’’ with podcasts of tutorial read-alouds,
in which a tutor models, in think-aloud style, essential comprehension
prompts: strategies for constructing the meaning of instructional-level text.
Research has shown that students’ comprehension is vastly improved if the
process of metacognition is made transparent (Duffy, Roehler, &
Herrmann, 1988). Unlike reading independent-level text, reading at the
instructional level requires the reader to actively engage with the text before,
during, and after reading (Fisher, Lapp, & Frey, 2011; Manzo & Casale,
1985; Manzo & Manzo, 1990; Pressley & Afflerbach, 1995). This active
Providing a ‘‘Pocket Tutor’’ 267
THE PROJECT
The project was implemented for three semesters from spring 2011 to spring
2012. When children first received their iPod, it was preloaded with a
comprehension prompt enhanced read-aloud of the first chapter or short
section of a book that was selected for them based on their instructional
reading level, general interests, and the readability level of the text. The
children were encouraged to use the iPod to listen to the read-aloud several
times throughout the week. When the children returned to the clinic for their
next session, a new ‘‘episode’’ read-aloud of the book was added. Each week
the graduate students who were providing the clinic intervention asked the
children to respond to journal prompts regarding their previous podcast
episode. At the end of the semester, the children were postassessed on their
reading level and think-aloud ability.
Participants
Books were selected based on topic, readability level and the instructional
reading levels of the students. All books were fictional chapter books. To verify
the readability of the books, the Flesch–Kincaid Grade Level readability test
(Kincaid, Fishburne, Rogers, & Chissom, 1975) and the Fry (1990) Read-
ability formula were used (see Table 2). The readability levels of passages from
the beginning, middle, and end of the books were found and averaged. During
the first sessions with the students, the University Reading Clinic tutors
conducted an interest inventory and an informal reading inventory in order to
match students to high interest texts at their instructional level.
At each developmental level, there are certain strategies that are important.
For example, at earlier levels it is important to prompt oneself to attend to
270
Average
the pictures, and use these to aid in the construction of meaning. Later, it is
important to prompt oneself to attend to the more complex language
structures, and sometimes reread when the written language is different
from typical spoken language, and also to attend to vocabulary that might
be unfamiliar, and to visualize while reading. At all levels with struggling
readers, it is also important to use prompts that sustain engagement and
motivation to read. A useful prompt to include at the beginning of an
episode is, ‘‘I think you’ll like it!’’ and after each pause to synthesize, in a
positive tone of voice and add, ‘‘Going on!’’ The strategies targeted with the
Pocket Tutor Comprehension Prompts are schema activation, clarifying
vocabulary, comprehension monitoring, comprehension fix-up, visualiza-
tion, synthesis, paraphrasing, and summarization. The tutor repeatedly
models the prompts using the same phrases, so that students may remember
and internalize them. Here is a sample from the story, Basketball (or
Something Like It):
The podcast continues from 5:04 minutes to 18:00 minutes. If you would
like to listen to this entire podcast, you can do so online at http://
ebowers.podomatic.com/
Once a book was selected, it was divided into sections according to the
number of weeks the students would be attending the University Reading
Clinic, which in most cases resulted in sections of one to two chapters. The
Pocket Tutor project was allotted nine weeks of the twelve-week regular
semester intervention sessions. Each section of each book was recorded
using GarageBandt (only available on Apple Macintosh computers;
Audacityt could be used as an alternate program) and saved as an MP3
(.mp3) file on the researchers personal computer.
Four of the five books used in the project have 8 podcasts (The Chocolate
Touch has 12) and they range in playing length from an average of 7 minutes
to 28 minutes. The pocket tutor strategically modeled the Pocket Tutor
Comprehension Prompts by thinking aloud before, during, and after the
reading (see Table 3 for prompt language) when creating the podcasts. The
recorded read-alouds with incorporated comprehension prompts were
intended to heighten the reader’s engagement and demonstrate intentional
and flexible use of level-appropriate strategies for actively constructing
meaning from print (Manzo et al., 2009).
274
Table 3. Pocket Tutor Comprehension Prompts.
Purpose Comprehension Prompt 2–3 4–5 6
Content set ‘‘This is _____ reading with you, and we’re reading O O O
_____’’
Engagement ‘‘I think you’ll like it!’’ O O O
Attention to pictures ‘‘There’s a picture here [describe]’’ O O O
Attention to difficult ‘‘What was that? [re-read] That must be _________’’ O O O
vocabulary
Attention to difficult syntax ‘‘What was that? [re-read, emphasizing enunciation O O O
to clarify meaning]’’
Continuous comprehension [at logical sections – each ½ page to 1 ½ page] ‘‘So O O O
monitoring now I knowy [clarifying information based on
new knowledge]’’
Focus on translation ‘‘So now I know [translation – put in own words]’’ O O O
Focus on characters by ‘‘So now I know [character wants/thinks/feels/is O O O
name going to/etc.]’’
Focus on plot essentials ‘‘So now I know [what has happened/might O O O
happen/etc.]’’
Focus on basic inference ‘‘So now I know [between the lines inferences]’’ O O O
End of section ‘‘So now I know [short summary]; what I don’t know O O O
comprehension review is [short prediction, phrased as a question]’’
and prediction
The MP3 files were then submitted to iTunes by a graduate student who
used her personal iTunes account. Because the participants were in the
University Reading Clinic weekly, the podcasts were loaded onto the iPods
by the graduate student to avoid placing this task on the parents. However,
the podcasts could also be made available online and updated weekly or the
entire podcast could be made available at once and the students could read
at their own pace. In addition podcasts may be published as an iTunes RSS
feed, to which parents and/or students may subscribe through their own
iTunes account using their personal iPod.
We did, however, ask the University Reading Clinic tutors to write down the
responses their students gave each week to the Pocket Tutor journal
prompts to monitor the participants’ progress and to generate feedback.
Initially, the journal included basic questions about the use of the iPod and
podcast – how many times, where, and when they listened to the podcast,
what they liked/disliked, and what problems they encountered. As the
project developed, we revised the journals to include information about the
embedded comprehension prompts and to produce more substantial
feedback. The journal questions were revised two times, at the beginning
of each of the following semesters. The revised questions encouraged the
students to develop metacognition about the comprehension prompts. For
276 ERICA BOWERS ET AL.
example, they were asked why they thought the tutor stopped to think-aloud
during the story, how the tutor’s thoughts helped them understand the
story, and if they started using the phrases that were repeatedly mentioned
by the tutor (see appendix for a sample journal).
WHAT WE LEARNED
Implementing the Pocket Tutor project has been both challenging and
rewarding. Over the past three semesters, we have gained substantial
knowledge about creating a podcast, copyright rules, and text selection.
Below, we highlight a few of the hurdles we overcame while developing our
project.
with a copy of the book were able to listen to the podcasts. This was a
second reason for uploading the podcasts ourselves each week. It ensured
that the recording was only shared with a child that had a text. Another way
to maintain copyright would be to only provide those students who are
provided a book with a link to the MP3 recording.
CONCLUSION
Teachers have often lamented that the neediest students do the least amount
of reading at home. In addition, struggling readers need the comprehension
process to be made apparent to them if they are to increase their capacity for
constructing meaning from text. The theory of mental modeling (Manzo &
Manzo, 2002) proposes that (1) in instructional-level reading, the successful
reader uses strategy phrases (often questions) and fix-up strategies
intentionally and flexibly in order to reconstruct the author’s meanings;
that (2) these strategy phrases can be taught by demonstration in ‘‘read-
alouds’’ accompanied by ‘‘thinking aloud’’; and that (3) students’ repeated
experiences with teacher modeling of strategy phrases leads to their
278 ERICA BOWERS ET AL.
was the extent to which the children may have begun to internalize the
comprehension prompts and to use these when reading other materials.
These questions could be incorporated into next levels of investigation.
Additionally, it would be important to learn the effectiveness of prompted
read-alouds of nonfiction material.
For now, the children who participated in the clinic for the past three
semesters spent more time outside the ‘‘classroom’’ engaged in successful
instructional-level reading. As one student said in response to the journal
question, ‘‘Is it better, the same, or not as good as reading a book by
yourself?’’ Casey (grade 5, 11/3/2011) said, ‘‘I think it is better because it
stops and makes me understand what I’m reading.’’
REFERENCES
Considine, D., Horton, J., & Moorman, G. (2009). Teaching and reading the millennial
generation through media literacy. Journal of Adolescent & Adult Literacy, 52(6),
471–481.
Dole, J. A., Duffy, G. G., Roehler, L. R., & Pearson, P. D. (1991). Moving from the old to the
new: Research on reading comprehension instruction. Review of Educational Research,
61(2), 239–264.
Duffy, G. G., Roehler, L. R., & Herrmann, B. A. (1988). Modeling mental processes helps poor
readers become strategic readers. The Reading Teacher, 41(8), 762–767.
Fisher, D., Lapp, D., & Frey, N. (2011). Comprehension: The cooperation of many forces. In
D. Lapp & D. Fisher (Eds.), Handbook of research on teaching the English language arts
(3rd ed., pp. 258–263). New York, NY: Taylor & Francis.
Fry, E. (1990). A readability formula for short passages. Journal of Reading, 33(8), 594–597.
Gambrell, L. (2007). Promoting pleasure reading: The role of models, mentors, and motivators.
Reading Today, 25(1), 16.
Garner, R., & Krauss, K. (1982). Good and poor comprehender differences in knowing and
regulating reading behaviors. Educational Research Quarterly, 6, 5–12.
Guthrie, J. T., Van Meter, P., McCann, A. D., Wigfield, A., Bennett, L., Poundstone, C. C., y
Mitchell, A. M. (1996). Growth of literacy engagement: Changesin motivations and
strategies during concept-oriented reading instruction. Reading Research Quarterly,
31(3), 306–332.
Guthrie, J. T., & Wigfield, A. (2000). Engagement and motivation in reading. In M. L. Kamil,
P. B. Mosenthal, P. D. Pearson & R. Barr (Eds.), Handbook of reading research (Vol. III,
pp. 403–422). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
Kincaid, J. P., Fishburne, R. P., Jr., Rogers, R. L., & Chissom, B. S. (1975). Derivation of new
readability formulas (Automated Readability Index, Fog Count and Flesch Reading Ease
Formula) for Navy enlisted personnel. Research Branch Report 8-75. Millington, TN:
Naval Technical Training, U.S. Naval Air Station, Memphis, TN.
Kucan, L., & Beck, I. L. (1997). Thinking aloud and reading comprehension research: Inquiry,
instruction, and social interaction. Review of Educational Research, 67(3), 271–299.
280 ERICA BOWERS ET AL.
Lenhart, A., Madden, M., & Hitlin, P. (2005). Teens and technology: Youth are leading the
transition to a fully wired and mobile nation. Pew Internet & American Life Project.
Retrieved from http://www.pewinternet.org/~/media/Files/Reports/2005/PIP_Teens_
Tech_July2005web.pdf.pdf
Levy, R. (2009). You have to understand words y but not read them’: Young children
becoming readers in a digital age. Journal of Research in Reading, 32(1), 75–91.
Levy, R., & Marsh, J. (2011). Literacy and ICT in the early years. In D. Lapp & D. Fisher
(Eds.), Handbook of research on teaching the English language arts (3rd ed., pp. 168–174).
New York, NY: Taylor & Francis.
Manzo, A., & Casale, U. (1985). Listen-read-discuss: A content reading heuristic. Journal of
Reading, 28(8), 732–734.
Manzo, A. V., & Manzo, U. C. (1990). Content area reading: A heuristic approach. Columbus,
OH: Charles Merrill.
Manzo, A. V., & Manzo, U. C. (2002). Mental modeling. In B. Guzzetti (Ed.), Literacy in
America: An encyclopedia of history, theory and practice (Vol. 1, pp. 344–345). Santa
Barbara, CA: ABC-Clio.
Manzo, A. V., Manzo, U. C., & Thomas, M. M. (2009). Content area literacy: Strategic
teaching for strategic learning (5th ed.). Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley.
Pressley, M. (2002). Comprehension strategies instruction: A turn-of-the-century status report.
In C. C. Block & M. Pressley (Eds.), Comprehension instruction: Research based best
practices (pp. 11–27). New York, NY: Guilford.
Pressley, M., & Afflerbach, P. (1995). Verbal protocols of reading: The nature of constructively
responsive reading. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Van Keer, H., & Verhaeghe, J. P. (2005). Effects of explicit reading strategies instruction and
peer tutoring on second and fifth graders’ reading comprehension and self-efficacy
perceptions. The Journal of Experimental Education, 74(4), 291–329.
Providing a ‘‘Pocket Tutor’’ 281
1. Why do you think the reader is stopping and thinking out loud during
the story?
2. How have the reader’s pauses and thoughts helped you understand the
story?
3. Does the reader say something that you have begun to say, too? If you
are, why have you decided to use it?
4. Do you remember anything, besides certain phrases, that the reader
pointed out to you (such as descriptions or pictures)? If you do, give an
example (or examples).
1. How many times did you listen to the story? Why did you read the story
(Did you want to read it yourself or were you asked to by your parents or
other adults)?
2. Where and when did you listen to it?
3. What are some things you like about using it and what are some
problems (if any) you have with using it?
INNOVATIVE PRACTICES IN THE
READING CLINIC: HELPING
‘‘DIGITAL NATIVES’’
INCORPORATE 21ST CENTURY
TECHNOLOGIES
Joan A. Rhodes
ABSTRACT
Purpose – The chapter provides the reader with an overview of the impact
technology has on literacy education and makes a case for utilizing the
technological pedagogical content knowledge (TPACK) framework for
incorporating instructional technology in the reading clinic. The focus
then shifts to how instructional technologies can be utilized to enhance
literacy learning during a one-on-one tutoring program.
Methodology/approach – The author describes the changing nature of
literacy instruction and the need for 21st century skills for teacher
candidates and the students they serve. Pedagogical possibilities and
instructional expectations are shared through discussion of the technology
activities used by teaching candidates participating in school-based
reading clinics.
INTRODUCTION
Look around any classroom, practice field, or shopping mall and you will
find evidence of the profound impact information communication
technologies have on modern society. Today’s students are engaged in
multiple forms of literacy learning in both formal and informal environ-
ments. In fact, Rosen (2010) reports that preteens, teens, and young adults
are consuming media upward of a nearly impossible, 20 hours a day.
Clearly, smartphones, eReaders, iPads, and the other myriad of technology
tools available to students are changing the nature of reading and study.
Adults, including faculty, have also experienced changes in the ways they
gather and process information in both their work and personal lives. The
reported gap between the levels of technology expertise of persons born after
1980, digital natives, and those born before this time period, the digital
immigrants, presents a challenging situation for educators (Prensky, 2001).
Recent AARP survey results (2010) indicate that 60% of persons over the
age of 50 either, do not use the Internet (17%), feel uncomfortable using it
(22%), or feel only somewhat comfortable working online (21%). Further,
only 4% of the over 50 population reported owning a smartphone and only
Innovative Practices in the Reading Clinic 285
with technology tools and pedagogy while enhancing their tutees’ 21st
century literacy skills.
The remainder of this chapter focuses on instructional activities used by
teaching candidates participating in school-based reading clinics. The
activities are a sampling of ways technology can support instruction in
tutorial settings, which tend to work more easily in clinics where candidates
utilize instructional materials specifically selected or designed for individual
students’ needs rather than those who require prescribed curriculum
activities. The flexibility afforded in this model allows and encourages
candidates to test different types of materials and instructional methods.
Although lessons can vary significantly among course participants, all
candidates should be expected to provide instruction that meets the learning
standards outlined by the relevant policymaking bodies and that supports
the classroom teachers’ expectations. This type of clinic environment offers
unique opportunities for students to test Prensky’s facilitation model for
technology integration within a realistic teaching context.
candidates and instructor determined that they would use the eReaders to
assist students who were having difficulty comprehending text or showed
evidence of weak vocabulary knowledge. The small class size made sharing
devices relatively simple with students collaboratively determining a
schedule for use among their partner groups.
The Kindle eReaders offered a number of features to aid students with
comprehending and retaining information. The Kindle provided a text-to-
speech feature that allowed students to hear a story read orally while
tracking print, offering additional support to those whose comprehension
was impacted by nonfluent reading. Additionally, students increased and
decreased font size to improve the ease of reading. As practical experience
shows, students are often intimidated by reading materials printed in smaller
font sizes. Candidates found that some students would willingly tackle texts
that were more challenging when they simply increased the font size of the
reading material. Another feature that was extremely helpful for increasing
student comprehension was using the device dictionary to immediately
identify and study word meanings. One candidate working with a fifth-grade
English language learner (ELL) was quite surprised when her tutee started
using the pronunciation key in the dictionary to support her oral reading
performance. This unplanned discovery became a favorite strategy in this
candidate–student pair.
The Kindle also had a number of components related to studying in
digital text environments. Students highlighted information and took notes
while reading. Through the school’s WIFI connection, students also referred
to the Kindle’s Popular Highlights feature to determine what other readers
selected as interesting passages within a text (Amazon, 2004–2011). This
feature allowed readers to compare what they believed were important
aspects of a story with the ideas of members from the broader community.
This comparison resulted in interesting conversation between tutors and
students focusing on higher-level comprehension skills required when
reading deeply to analyze texts.
From an instructor’s point of view, introducing the Kindles to the teacher
candidates offered some challenge. The candidates, all digital natives
according to Prensky’s definition, were unfamiliar with using the Kindle
tool. Some students had experience with more advanced devices and were
frustrated by the lack of a touch screen on the available Kindles. However,
the majority of candidates reported that they could not afford an eReader
and wished they had more time for ‘‘playing’’ with the device to increase
their own comfort level before using it with their tutees. This slight
uncertainty allowed for the natural movement of teacher candidates into a
Innovative Practices in the Reading Clinic 291
Using Laptops
As early as 1997, studies noted the positive effect of laptop use on student
writing performance. In an independent analysis of the Microsoft–Toshiba
partnership, Anytime Anywhere Learning Project, teachers reported that
students created more rough drafts and focused on content rather than
mechanics when using laptops for writing (Rockman et al., 1997). A more
recent investigation (Gulek & Demirtas, 2005) showed that sixth- and
eighth-grade students participating in a laptop immersion program exceeded
district and school mean scores on the school district’s writing performance
assessment when they worked with laptops. The use of laptops increased
students’ opportunities for composing, revising, and publishing written
work in Grimes and Warschauer’s (2008) study of elementary and middle
school students. Additionally, using word processing allowed for efficient
feedback from teachers as well as an increase in writing for authentic
purposes in a variety of formats and genres.
Teacher candidates participating in a reading clinic housed in an elementary
school with a large ELL population developed lessons to capitalize on the
positive results of previous studies in the areas of composing, revision, and
publication using their personal laptops during reading clinic lessons.
Although all teacher candidates were required to purchase laptops as part of
enrollment in the university, any who wished to borrow a laptop from the
university technology office for the clinical experience were allowed to do so.
The candidates had freedom to select software programs to encourage writing
during their tutoring sessions or utilize those introduced by the instructor
during the lecture portion of the course. Candidates were encouraged to
consider developing an eBook retelling using Rhodes and Milby’s (2007)
model as a foundation for their work.
292 JOAN A. RHODES
One popular use of the laptop during writing was related to brainstorming
prior to composition. Teacher candidates asked their students to create mind
maps using the Inspiration software program to serve as a basis of their daily
writing projects. More advanced students used images, text, and hyperlinks to
prepare their maps. The use of images for planning was particularly helpful for
the ELLs who needed to review English vocabulary items.
Fortunately, the school was willing to allow the teacher candidates to use
their Internet connection for students to conduct searches for information
for writing projects. Candidates could take advantage of these activities and
offer instruction on the information/media literacy skills of accessing and
evaluating. The one-on-one instructional environment of reading clinics are
highly suitable for observing student Internet search behaviors and ensuring
students can express how they determine the credibility of an Internet site.
Students were expected to develop a piece of writing at each tutoring session.
Depending on their developmental level and writing expertise, students created
between one sentence and several paragraphs during the writing portion of the
clinical session. Following drafting, candidates focused on teaching students to
use the spelling and grammar check features of the word processing program.
Some students were not accustomed to writing for real audiences so publishing
and printing for their classmates and teachers became a prized opportunity. A
favorite writing project to share with others was made using Comic Creator
from ReadWriteThink.org (IRA/NCTE, 2012). This web-based program
allowed students to review story sequence while discussing the role of speech
bubbles in cartoon strips. Students found the ability to create and retell short
stories using images and dialogue particularly motivating. Composing on
laptops appeared to be one of the most beneficial uses of technology during
tutoring sessions. Overall, use of the laptops for enhancing the writing portion
of the clinic experience was viewed as successful even though some candidates
were somewhat anxious about allowing children to use their highly valued
computer hardware.
School officials hoped that the self-paced, individualized format might also
be beneficial for Josh. Upon completion of the program, the researchers
noted that several iPad features seemed to influence his significant literacy
improvement. The integration of multimodalities (visual, kinesthetic) when
working on the touch screen, the ability to record and listen to his own voice
during reading, and the use of a stylus for maintaining control were factors
that contributed to his growth.
iPads are particularly useful for assisting students in developing multi-
media projects in tutoring sessions. Teaching candidates in reading clinics
can assist students in taking digital images related to stories they have read
or as brainstorming for writing. Candidates then email the pictures to
themselves for use in developing eBooks and Power Point presentations.
This type of multimedia exploration allows students to meet the require-
ments of media literacy standards as they engage in activities that ask them
to think critically about how and why they use particular images, music, and
text to represent their learning. The inclusion of mobile devices owned either
by the university or teacher candidates improved students’ written
compositions and reading fluency and encouraged the partnering methods
suggested by Prensky (2010) as students and tutors collaboratively created,
reread, and shared multimedia presentations.
FUTURE DIRECTIONS
for using digital technologies within their sessions was encouraging, further
research is needed to determine how this motivation and learning can be
extended beyond clinic activities. While some attempts at sharing student
products from the clinic within classrooms were successful, organizing for the
systematic sharing of student work and furthering collaborative planning with
classroom educators around digital literacy instruction would be beneficial.
Additionally, further study is needed to determine in which portions of the
tutoring session students gain the most from utilizing instructional technol-
ogies. Seeking ways to maximize learning through technology integration is
essential, particularly for programs with limited contact hours. Candidates’
attitudes toward the use of digital technologies and their understanding of
TPACK itself offer opportunities for further exploration as university
educators continue to provide learning environments where the use of
instructional technology is expected.
CONCLUSION
REFERENCES
Amazon. com, Inc. (2004-2011).Kindle user’s guide. Retrieved from http://kindle.s3.amazo
naws.com/KindleUser%27sGuide.pdf
298 JOAN A. RHODES
Grimes, D., & Warschauer, M. (2008). Learning with laptops: A multi-method case study.
Journal of Educational Computing Research, 38(3), 305–332. Retrieved from http://
www.gse.uci.edu/person/warschauer_m/docs/laptops-jecr.pdf
Henderson, M. V., & Scheffler, A. J. (2004). New literacies, standards, and teacher education.
Education, 124(2), 390–395.
Hobbs, R. (2010). Digital and media literacy: A plan of action. Retrieved from The Knight
Commission on the Information Needs of Communities in a Democracy. Retrieved from
http://www.knightcomm.org/wp-content/uploads/2010/12/Digital_and_Media_Literacy_
A_Plan_of_Action.pdf
International Reading Association. Professional Standards and Ethics Committee. (2010).
Standards for reading professionals: A reference for the preparation of educators in the
United States. Newark, DE: International Reading Association. Retrieved from http://
www.reading.org/General/CurrentResearch/Standards/ProfessionalStandards2010/
ProfessionalStandards2010_Introduction.aspx
International Society for Technology in Education. (2011a). NETS-S. Retrieved from http://
www.iste.org/standards/nets-for-students.aspx
International Society for Technology in Education. (2011b). NETS-T. Retrieved from http://
www.iste.org/Libraries/PDFs/NETS-T_Standards.sflb.ashx
IRA/NCTE. (2012). Comic creator. Retrieved from http://www.readwritethink.org/files/
resources/interactives/comic/
Koppen, J. (2010). Social media and technology use among adults 50+. Washington, DC:
AARP. Retrieved from http://assets.aarp.org/rgcenter/general/socmedia.pdf
Lewin, T. (2009, August). In a digital future, textbooks are history. The New York Times.
Retrieved from http://www.nytimes.com/2009/08/09/education/09textbook.html?
pagewante&s=1&_r=3%20&sq=Moving%20to%20a%20Digital%20Future,where%
20textbooks%20are%20History&st=cse&scp=1
Martin, F. (2008). Mutual learning: The impact of a study visit course on UK
teachers’ knowledge and understanding of global partnerships. Critical Literacy:
Theories and Practice, 2(1), 60–75. Retrieved from http://criticalliteracy.freehostia.
com/index.php
National Governors Association Center for Best Practices, Council of Chief State School
Officers. (2011). Common core state standards for English language arts and literacy in
history/social studies, science and technical subjects. Washington, D.C.: National
Governors Association Center for Best Practices, Council of Chief State School
Officers. Retrieved from http://www.corestandards.org/assets/CCSSI_ELA%20S
tandards.pdf
Margaryan, A., Littlejohn, A., & Vogt, G. (2011, February). Are digital natives a myth or
reality? University students’ use of digital technologies. Computers & Education, 56(2),
429–440. Retrieved from http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S03601315
10002563
Media Literacy Clearinghouse. (2011). State standards which include elements of media literacy.
Retrieved from http://www.frankwbaker.com/state_lit.htm
McClanahan, B., Williams, K., Kennedy, E., & Tate, S. (2012). A breakthrough for Josh: How
use of an iPad facilitated reading improvement. Techtrends: Linking Research & Practice
to Improve Learning, 56(3), 20–28. doi: 10.1007/s11528-012-0572-6.
New Media Consortium. (2012). The horizon report: 2012 higher education edition. Retrieved
from http://net.educause.edu/ir/library/pdf/HR2012.pdf
300 JOAN A. RHODES
Ortlieb, E., Grandstaff-Beckers, G., & Cheek, E. H. (2012). Fostering reading excellence at
every level of school through reading clinics. The Clearing House: A Journal of
Educational Strategies and Ideas, 85(1), 1–6. doi: 10.1080/00098655.2011.601356.
Prensky, M. (2010). Teaching digital natives: Partnering for real learning. Thousand Oaks, CA:
Corwin.
Prensky, M. (October 2001). Digital Natives Digital Immigrants. On the Horizon
(NCB University Press). 9(5). Retrieved from http://www.marcprensky.com/
writing/Prensky%20-%20Digital%20Natives,%20Digital%20Immigrants%20-%20
Part1.pdf
Rainie, L., Zickuhr, K., Purcell, K., Madden, M., & Brenne, J. (2012). The rise of e-reading.
Pew Internet & American Life Project. Retrieved from http://libraries.pewinternet.org/
2012/04/04/the-rise-of-e-reading
ReadWriteThink.org (n.d.) Magazine redux: An exercise in critical literacy. IRA/NCTE
Retrieved from http://www.readwritethink.org/lessons/lesson_view.asp?id=214
Rhodes, J. A., & Milby, T. M. (2007). Teacher-created electronic books: Integrating technology
to support readers with disabilities. The Reading Teacher, 61(3), 255–259.
Rockman et al. (1997). Report of a laptop program pilot: A project for anytime anywhere learning
by Microsoft Corporation: Notebooks for schools by Toshiba America information
systems. San Fransisco: ROCKMAN ET AL. Retrieved from http://www.microsoft.
com/education/downloads/aal/resrch_1.rtf
Rosen, L. D. (2010). Rewired: Understanding the igeneration and the way they learn. New York:
NY: Palgrave Macmillan.
Roscorla, T. (2010). 10 steps to strengthening digital and media literacy. CONVERGE.
Retrieved from http://www.convergemag.com/policy/10-Steps-to-Strengthen-Digital-
and-Media-Literacy.html
Staples, A., Pugach, M. C., & Himes, D. J. (2005). Reform in teacher education as a scaffold for
technology integration. In S. Rhine & M. Bailey (Eds.), Integrated Technologies,
Innovative Learning: Insights from the PT3 program (Vol. II, pp. 106–117). Pacific
University Libraries at CommonKnowledge. Retrieved from http://commons.pacificu.
edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1002&context=mono
Smith, A. (2012, February). 46% of American adults are smartphone owners. Pew Internet &
American Life Project. Retrieved from http://pewinternet.org/~/media//Files/Reports/
2012/Smartphone%20ownership%202012.pdf
Tancock, S. (2012, April). Using iPads in a corrective reading course. Roundtable presented at
the annual meeting of the International Reading Association, Technology in Literacy
Education Special Interest Group: Chicago: IL.
Thomson, G. (2012, February). BYOD: Enabling the chaos. Network Security, 2012(2), 5–8.
Retrieved from http://www.sciencedirect.com.proxy.library.vcu.edu/science/article/pii/
S1353485812700132
U.S. Department of Education, Office of Educational Technology. (2010). Transforming
American education: Learning powered by technology. Retrieved from http://
www.ed.gov/technology/netp-2010
Vavra, S. A., & Spencer, S. L. (2011). The cold, hard cash of truth about literacy in the twenty-
first century. In S. A. Vavra & S. L. Spencer (Eds.), CLASH! Superheroic yet sensible
strategies for teaching the new literacies despite the status quo (pp. 3–20). Charlotte, NC:
Information Age.
Innovative Practices in the Reading Clinic 301
Venezky, R. L. (1995). Literacy. In T. L. Harris & R. E. Hodges (Eds.), The literacy dictionary:
The vocabulary of reading and writing (p. 142). Newark, DE: International Reading
Association.
Walkosz, B. J., Jolls, T., & Sund, M. A. (May, 2008). Global/local: Media literacy for the global
village. Paper submitted for the International Media Literacy Research Forum, London:
England. Retrieved from http://www.medialit.org/sites/default/files/33_globallocal.pdf
Zickhur, K., & Madden, M. (2012). Older adults and internet use. Pew Internet & American Life
Project. Retrieved from http://www.pewinternet.org/~/media//Files/Reports/2012/
PIP_Older_adults_and_internet_use.pdf
SUPPORTING STRUGGLING
READERS AND LITERACY
CLINICIANS THROUGH
REFLECTIVE VIDEO PEDAGOGY
ABSTRACT
with struggling readers twice a week, but it is also used by the researchers
at the literacy center who study the reflective video pedagogy through the
same video the clinicians use.
Practical implications – Literacy centers are dynamic sites where
children, families, pre/in-service teachers, and teacher educators work
together around literacy development. Reflective video pedagogies can be
used to closely examine learning and teaching for adult students (i.e.,
clinicians) and for youth (i.e., children in elementary, middle, and high
school) and also for parents who want their children to find success with
literacy.
Research implications – In recent years ‘‘scaling up’’ and ‘‘scientific
research’’ have come to dominate much of the literacy research landscape.
While we see the value and necessity of large-scale experimental studies,
we also posit that literacy centers have a unique role to play. Given that
resources are scarce, literacy scholars must maximize the affordances of
literacy centers as rich, productive research sites for the use and study of a
reflective video pedagogy.
Some might argue that in a digital age the reading clinic is passé; indeed
some debate about the role of clinics has surfaced before (Evensen &
Mosenthal, 1999). However, the 21st-century literacy center or literacy clinic
can offer important opportunities for children, teachers, and researchers,
particularly when we make use of effective digital tools for instruction and
research (McKenna, Reinking, Labbo, & Kieffer,1999). In this chapter, we
elaborate upon a framework for a reflective video pedagogy for use within a
reading clinic or within professional development contexts when working
with teachers in the field.
We posit that rapid changes in technologies such as digital video and new
software afford opportunities for literacy teacher educators to maximize
these tools to further facilitate teacher reflection on situated practices within
learning communities.1 While digital technologies are relatively recent, the
stance learners must take up is one articulated long ago by John Dewey
(1910). For Dewey, reflection is more than simply the recall or revisiting of
past events. ‘‘Reflective thought’’ is an ‘‘active, persistent, and careful
Supporting Struggling Readers and Literacy Clinicians 305
VIDEO PEDAGOGY
(Pea & Lindgren, 2008) serving as a tool to mediate their learning. A benefit
of video self-analysis is that the clinicians have the ability to pause, analyze,
and replay video as they reflect on their practice (Kinzer, Cammack, Labbo,
Teale, & Sanny, 2006) and then share their reflections in writing with their
instructor.
Whether reflecting through video in a group discussion or individually in
writing, it is essential to develop a typology of reflective practice to facilitate
the reflective process. Our typology of reflection is rooted in Jay and
Johnson’s (2002) three dimensions of reflection (i.e., descriptive, compara-
tive, and critical). Together, our definition and the typology of reflective
practice assist the teacher educators and clinicians by setting clear
expectations of pedagogical practices program wide.
Two times a week for 75 minutes the clinicians work in clinical pairs, two
clinicians teaching one struggling reader, with the goal of providing high-
quality instruction. Each week the clinicians reflect on their own practices
related to the struggling reader. Through the typology for the written
reflection, clinicians are expected to determine the focus of their reflection,
what Schön (1983) calls ‘‘setting the problem.’’ Clinicians collaboratively set
their goals with their instructors. Next, they reflect in writing on all three
dimensions (Jay & Johnson, 2002). At the descriptive dimension, the
clinicians briefly describe the part of their lesson associated with their
reflective goal. The second reflection level, the comparative dimension, takes
into account alternative perspectives and research. Clinicians ask: ‘‘What
are alternative views of what is happening? How can I improve what is not
working? If there is a goal, what are some other ways of accomplishing it?’’
(Jay & Johnson, 2002, p. 77). Lastly, the third reflection level, critical
dimension, leads the clinicians to create a plan of action by establishing new
instructional ideas and recognizing sound instructional ideas. Specifically,
clinicians consider: (1) What you would do differently if you were to teach
this lesson again and why? (2) What would you keep the same if you were to
teach this lesson again and why? The goal is for the clinicians to become
facile in their reflective abilities by internalizing and applying these three
reflection dimensions to teaching situations in and outside of the clinic.
Within the clinic, we observed that before the implementation of a clear
definition and typology of reflective practice, the clinicians’ reflections rarely
provided detail beyond the descriptive level, in part, because they needed us
as teacher educators to clarify the construct of reflection. When we
introduced the definition and the typology of reflection, the clinicians
developed a deeper understanding of the reflective process related to
diagnostic decision making.
310 LYNN E. SHANAHAN ET AL.
The clinicians described the use of digital video for reflection as one that
provided them with a more authentic experience, because they could see
student engagement and participation, facial expressions, pacing, and
clinicians’ pedagogical moves in response to the student understanding.
They also valued having the opportunity to analyze a lesson for aspects they
thought were effective and discuss areas they thought needed adaptation.
Andrew stated that, ‘‘Using the video study group we were able to get a
complete feel for the lesson and the effectiveness of that particular lesson.’’
Other clinicians claimed that reflective VSG discussions were beneficial
because it was helpful to view peers in similar situations to the one they were
in and video showed them various teaching methods in action. The
Supporting Struggling Readers and Literacy Clinicians 311
clinicians also indicated that although they valued reading journal articles,
reading transcripts of classroom practice fell short of providing them with
the practical ideas gleaned from video. They suggested that video and
journal articles be used in tandem where the readings supplement the video.
In addition, clinicians asked that we be mindful of balancing the time used
for collaborative reflection with their lesson preparation.
Our video pedagogy also informed the research conducted through
CLaRI both in the clinic, serving students in kindergarten through grade 12
and in schools serving students in entering grades 1 through 6. Video
analysis provides researchers with an opportunity to use the same video used
by the clinicians and instructors to engage in a microanalysis of teaching and
learning from multiple perspectives. This type of fine-grained analysis is
beyond the scope of what the instructor in the clinic seminar can engage in
while teaching. However, findings from this research provide us, as teacher
educators, with an opportunity to inform, reflect upon, and adjust our own
pedagogical practices.
In this section, we present case examples derived from the interaction of two
university clinicians, Ms. Baxter and Ms. Green, and Andy, a first-grade
student. Ms. Baxter and Ms. Green were both certified teachers in their early
20s, had limited experience in teaching, and were pursuing master’s degrees
as literacy specialists, which also led to state certification as a literacy
teacher. As such, Ms. Baxter and Ms. Green were representative of the
majority of clinicians at the university. Andy was also representative of the
children attending the clinic.
We have limited our examples here to one child and one clinical pair for
several reasons. First, we sought to enact some of the reflective stances
articulated by Dewey (1910) and revisited at the opening of this chapter
through the analysis of teaching sessions captured on digital video. Rather
than looking at something unusual, we chose to look at the commonplace,
that is, at activities and patterns of behavior that are part of the everyday
interactions of clinicians and children. As Dewey observed, one of the
challenges we face as educators is that we often separate everyday activity
312 LYNN E. SHANAHAN ET AL.
from abstract thought to such a degree that abstract thought is ‘‘aloof’’ and
‘‘remote’’ and thus compartmentalized (p. 51). One of our goals is to keep
the examples grounded in the everyday activity. Ms. Baxter and Ms. Green
were identified as a clinical pair who worked well together and engaged in
many effective practices of literacy instruction. Andy, while identified as a
struggling reader, did not have unusual or extraordinary characteristics that
defined his case. As teacher educators and researchers, we wondered what
we might learn by delving more deeply into a study of our video archives – a
luxury that does not exist during a regular 15-week session when faculty
instructors must balance many tasks to support, guide, and encourage
children (and often parents), and clinicians. What might we learn, we
wondered, by looking at a clinical pair and struggling reader that are typical
for our population? What additional insights, challenges, or rewards would
we encounter?
Below, after providing a more detailed portrait of Andy, we look at the
interactions between Andy, Ms. Baxter, and Ms. Green.
Andy was a first-grade student who came to the center with his mother who
had been told by the school that Andy had achieved unsatisfactory progress
in reading in Kindergarten. Similar to other students who attend the clinic,
when considering his age and developmental level, Andy had not fully
appropriated the skills of a reader. Often these readers are referred to as
struggling learners (Brown, 2010; Walker, 2005). Walker describes the
behavior of readers who struggle as follows:
Even when teachers ask some struggling readers a direct question, they do not respond.
Without thinking the students read words and don’t construct meaning. Or, if these
struggling readers must respond to a question about text, they say, ‘‘I don’t know.’’
These readers have learned that if they refuse to respond, someone else will answer.
Other students do revise their understanding, but less frequently than their active peers.
Struggling readers often rely on their predictions and ignore contradictory information.
(Walker, 2005, p. 688)
being fair to Sue?’’ to which he responded, ‘‘I don’t know.’’ Andy was subsequently
asked an inference-based questiony. Andy’s responses to inferential and critical-
response questions demonstrate that correctly answering these types of questions are
areas which would accelerate his development. (CLaRI diagnostic report, 2009)
The diagnostic report also described how decoding both sight words and
phonetic reading of unknown words were noted to be an area of devel-
opment for Andy as was his ability to demonstrate comprehension for what
he read or was read to him.
Based on data from the Peabody Picture Vocabulary Test (4th ed.) and
Critical Reading Inventory, Andy was almost two standard deviations above
his peers in verbal ability; nevertheless he scored as an emergent reader.
Results from Directed Reading Activity and informal phonological assess-
ments indicated that Andy would benefit from further instruction in word
recognition, particularly in moving beyond identifying the initial and final
consonant sound of one-syllable words toward recognition of the medial
vowel sound. Another important observation, noted by clinicians in his
diagnostic report was: ‘‘Andy wants very badly to please his teachers, to the
point of telling them what he thinks they want to hear rather than risking
disappointing them.’’
This case study examines talk in tutoring sessions with Andy using an
interactional discourse framework. Many scholars have shown that teachers
often follow a typical Initiate–Respond–Evaluate sequence (Cazden, 1988/
2001; Wells, 1993) in classroom settings. Additionally, Graesser, Person, and
Magliano (1995) have indicated that one-to-one instruction is often comprised
of a five-step script or dialogue frame. These frameworks suggest that the
teachers play a critical role in scaffolding talk and assisting learners – although
the process of scaffolding is often more complex than described (McVee &
Pearson, 2003). Given these considerations, we asked: How did Andy and his
teachers interact during sessions? What did this interaction suggest each
wanted to accomplish? What underlying metaphors of learning were enacted
by Andy and his teachers? Examination of the talk between Andy and his
teachers showed that Andy’s teachers relied heavily on verbal scaffolds to
support and direct Andy’s interactions with text. His teachers did their best to
314 LYNN E. SHANAHAN ET AL.
demonstrate what Noddings (2003) calls ‘‘an ethic of care’’ (p. xiv) attempting
to, reach out to Andy, and guide his learning. As a co-interlocutor, Andy was
typically eager to please, responding where prompted.
Scaffolding or Hinting
Ms. Green: All these wordsy[sweeps her hand across word sort as Andy continues to
glue] do you want to take a guess where we are going to find them? [picks up book as she
speaks]
Ms. Green: Yeah, in this handy-dandy little book [shakes book to emphasize ‘‘handy-
dandy’’]. So, while I was making you work really hard, what you were actually doing was
practicing, and you didn’t even know. [Andy continues to glue, Ms. Baxter is heard in
the background, acknowledging agreement with Ms. Green. Ms. Green’s voice is very
lyrical during this last statement]. OK.
In this segment Ms. Green gives Andy a hint by picking up the book and
then asking her question. Andy probably does not really need a hint at this
Supporting Struggling Readers and Literacy Clinicians 315
point as it is obvious by the props and close proximity what Ms. Green is
indicating. By contrast, the word sort that Andy just completed was a
scaffolding activity for reading the book; although it probably was not
necessary given the repetitive nature of the book Pop and its limited words
per page. However, it is clear that Ms. Green and Ms. Baxter have planned a
lesson that they felt would ensure that Andy read successfully. A close
analysis of this and other episodes reveal that this scaffolding actually over-
relies on a particular strategy – that of hinting – even in cases where Andy
clearly knew the answer. In their enthusiasm to help Andy, the clinicians
also overscaffolded Andy’s reading (e.g., helping with short CVC words
Andy could already read independently).
Part of the challenge faced by the clinicians was that they adopted a
metaphor toward reading/learning that focused on acquisition. The
acquisition metaphor presumes that knowledge originates with the teacher,
and flows from teacher to student. This contrasts with a view or metaphor of
learning that is transactional (Dewey & Bentley, 1949) in which ‘‘knowledge
is situated in the transaction between the world and individual’’ (McVee,
Dunsmore, & Gavelek, 2005, pp. 555–556). In other words, knowledge does
not reside in the teacher alone, but in what the teacher and student bring to
their interactions and in the transactions occurring between teacher-student
in particular contexts. For his part, Andy aims to please, and his responses
coupled with the clinicians’ responses convey a second predominant
metaphor toward reading/learning as participation. While participation is
essential to learning, close scrutiny of the interactions between Ms. Baxter,
Ms. Green, and Andy each take up particular ‘‘rights, duties, and
obligations’’ (McVee, 2011, p. 5) that position them in set ways. It is the
clinicians’ place to ask questions, direct activities, and offer feedback,
particularly affirmation. In contrast, it was Andy’s duty to respond and
participates to much so that he appears to respond in certain ways just to
please his teachers. The participation metaphor indicates that one values
and can follow the norms and patterns of language in a particular
community (Sfard, 1998), which is important. But at the same time these
two metaphors, that of acquisition and participation, created tensions
around Andy’s potential learning and reading growth.
In weekly reflections written after reviewing video of their teaching, the
clinicians were often aware of their mismatch in planning and instruction
316 LYNN E. SHANAHAN ET AL.
but struggled to shift talk and activities away from an acquisition based
model. They expressed their desire to help Andy, but at the same time
emphasized their concerns about getting through all the material they had
planned, a struggle for many novice teachers. ‘‘Seventy-five minutes sounds
like a lot of time in theory, however, it goes quickly when you have a lot to
cover in a tutoring session! I found that it was interesting to watch myself
make subtle instructional changes to the lesson plan meanwhile knowing all
of the things swirling through my head – time always being one of
them.’’ Their struggle with pacing and timing of lessons was, in part, due to
the tension created around knowledge as acquisition and knowledge as
participation. The clinicians wanted Andy to participate, and Andy wanted
to participate and please his teachers, but the clinicians also wanted to cover
material and give Andy the information he needed.
As teacher educators and mentors, we must balance the objective of
completing tasks with an emphasis that learning is a process, clearly
emphasizing that the quality of the learning is more important than staying
to the script or covering all aspects of a planned lesson. These findings
remind us that we must support and encourage clinicians’ consideration of
their own metaphors of teaching and learning, particularly in light of the
stances toward reflection fostered by a pedagogy of video reflection and of
the diagnostic model of decision making.
As noted, we noticed a proliferation of feedback from Ms. Baxter and
Ms. Green to Andy across all lessons. This is indicative of their heartfelt
desire to help Andy and create a positive environment and learning
experience related to reading. We wondered about the type and frequency of
this feedback in the tutoring process as presented in the next section.
Hattie (1992) has observed that ‘‘[t]he most powerful single modification
that enhances achievement is feedback. The simplest prescription for
improving education must be ‘dollops of feedback’’’ (p. 9). To be sure this is
a provocative statement, but as we considered Andy’s interactions with his
teachers and specifically their feedback to him, we wondered: What types of
oral feedback did Andy’s teachers provide, and how does feedback support
Andy’s literacy learning? What behaviors indicated that Andy was engaged/
disengaged in the literacy learning process? How did the instructor’s use of
feedback relate to the student’s level of engagement?
Supporting Struggling Readers and Literacy Clinicians 317
Ms. Baxter: Can you give me a high-five? I’m sorry to interrupt your reading, but you
know why I’m so excited?
Andy: I read, um, the word and went back to the beginning.
Ms. Baxter: At first you said ‘‘in my’’ and then you said ‘‘oh, no’’ and you went back to
the beginning of the sentence. So excited. Ok, sorry to interrupt, Go ahead.
Ms. Baxter’s praise was specific; defining what Andy did that was helpful
without using a vague term such as ‘‘good.’’ The praise was worthy because
Andy had just employed a strategy that was also a learning objective.
Andy’s facial expression and posture indicated he appeared very happy
during and after the incident, having pleased Ms. Blue as well as
having accomplished a task that was difficult for him. Weiner (1972) states
that if students feel that hard work will yield a payout, regardless of ability,
luck, or task difficulty they will likely to be motivated to complete a task.
This notion of constructing meaning as a means of motivating and
increasing engagement was seen again in the same video selection:
Andy: Was I my[16 seconds elapse as Andy attempts to determine the word ever]yever
mad!
Ms. Baxter: Oh, you sounded it out? What do you think that means? ‘‘Was I ever mad!?’’
What do you think that means?
In this instance, Ms. Baxter allowed Andy to struggle and she resisted
providing immediate support. Andy used a strategy and accelerated beyond
his current level of development and make a small stretch forward. Though
Ms. Baxter did not directly praise him, Andy was noticeably pleased and
appeared to be highly engaged. Across the video we examined, there was a
tendency for higher levels of feedback (e.g., specifying attainment, specifying
improvement, and constructing achievement) to consistently precede
periods of engagement.
320 LYNN E. SHANAHAN ET AL.
As noted in the previous section, Ms. Baxter and Ms. Green were very
concerned about Andy and wanted him to achieve success. Toward this end,
they continually praised Andy’s work. However, at times this praise actually
appeared to hinder the lesson by continually interrupting the flow of reading or
other interactions. Additionally, Andy did not always respond favorably to the
constant barrage of positive comments. In contrast, targeted, sincere praise
that was specific to the task at hand, while less frequent in occurrence, seemed
more powerful in application. Andy responded with higher levels of engage-
ment. Here we see that teachers, and the educators or coaches who guide them,
must carefully consider not only the type of feedback given and how targeted
it is. Ultimately, this could hold forth the potential of more dramatically
impacting student achievement. In addition, these studies are concentrated
around talk as interaction. We believe the cases above indicate the vast
richness of data, in particular video data that exists in many clinical settings.
CONCLUSION
In recent years, ‘‘scaling up’’ and ‘‘scientific research’’ have come to dominate
much of the literacy research landscape. While we see the value and necessity
of large-scale experimental studies, we also posit that literacy centers have a
unique role to play. Literacy centers are dynamic sites where children,
families, pre/in-service teachers, and teacher educators work together around
literacy development (see questions to consider in Appendix). Video
pedagogies can be used to closely examine learning and teaching for adult
students (i.e., teachers seeking literacy knowledge or coaching experience)
and for youth (children in elementary, middle, and high school) and also for
parents who want their children to find success with literacy. Literacy centers
have a long-standing history and plurality of strengths that should be
capitalized upon. Given that resources are scarce, literacy scholars must
maximize the affordances of literacy clinics and centers as rich, productive
research sites for the use and study of reflective video pedagogy.
NOTE
1. While recording clinic sessions is a long-standing tradition at CLaRI, new
advances in digital technologies have greatly increased possibilities for video capture,
streaming, and archival, and analysis. For more on how we developed our digital
technologies to support a reflective video pedagogy see http://www.clari.buffalo.edu.
Supporting Struggling Readers and Literacy Clinicians 321
REFERENCES
Baker, E., & Wedman, J. (2000). Lessons learned while using case-based instruction with
preservice literacy teachers. In T. Shanahan & F. Rodriguez-Brown (Eds.), National
Reading Conference yearbook 49 (pp. 122–136). Chicago, IL: National Reading Conference
Boling, E. (2004). Preparing novices for teaching literacy in diverse classrooms: Using written,
video, and hypermedia cases to prepare literacy teachers. In J. Worthy, B. Maloch,
J. Hoffman, D. Schallert, & C. Fairbanks (Eds.), National Reading Conference Yearbook,
53 (pp. 130–145). Chicago, IL: National Reading Conference.
Brown, T. B. H. (2010). Learning to read: The unofficial scripts of succeeders and strugglers.
The Reading Teacher, 64(4), 261–271.
Cazden, C. B. (1988/2001). Classroom discourse: The language of teaching and learning.
Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.
Copeland, W. D., & Decker, D. L. (1996). Video cases and the development of meaning making
in preservice teachers. Teaching and Teacher Education, 12, 467–481.
Daly, A. J. (2010). Mapping the terrain: Social network theory and educational change. In A. J.
Daly, Social network theory and educational change (pp. 1–16). Cambridge, MA:
Harvard Education Press.
Dewey, J. (1910). The American association for the advancement of science as subject-matter
and as method. Science, 31(787), 121–127.
Dewey, J., & Bentley, A. F. (1949). Knowing and the known. Boston, MA: Beacon Press.
Evensen, D. H., & Mosenthal, P. B. (Eds.). (1999). Reconsidering the role of the reading clinic in
a new age of literacy (Vol. 6). Stamford, CT: JAI Press.
Graesser, A. C., Person, N. K., & Magliano, J. P. (1995). Collaborative dialogic patterns in
naturalistic one-on-one tutoring. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 9, 359–387.
Hattie, J. (1992). Self-concept. Hillsdale, NJ: L. Erlbaum Associates.
Hume, G., Michael, J., Rovick, A., & Evens, M. (1996). Hinting as a tactic in one-on-one
tutoring. The Journal of the Learning Sciences, 5(1), 23–47.
Jay, J. K., & Johnson, K. L. (2002). Capturing complexity: A typology of reflective practice for
teacher education. Teaching and teacher education, 18(1), 73–85.
Kibby, M. W. (1995). Practical steps for informing literacy instruction: a diagnostic decision-
making model. Newark, DE: International Reading Association.
Kinzer, C., Cammack, D., Labbor, L., Teale, W., & Sanny, R. (2006). The need to
(re)conceptualize preservice teacher development and the role of technology in that
development. In M. McKenna, L. Labbo, R. Kieffer & D. Reinking (Eds.), International
handbook of literacy and technology (pp. 211–233). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Knight, J. (2003). Scientific literacy: Clear as mud. Nature, 423(6938), 376–378.
Marzano, R. J., & Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development. (2006).
Classroom assessment & grading that work. Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision
and Curriculum Development.
McKenna, M. C., Reinking, D., Labbo, L. D., & Kieffer, R. D. (1999). The electronic
transformation of literacy and its implications for the struggling reader. Reading &
Writing Quarterly: Overcoming Learning Difficulties, 15(2), 111–126.
McVee, M. B. (2011). Positioning theory and sociocultural perspectives: Affordances for
educational researchers. In C. H. Brock, J. A. Glazier & M. B. McVee (Eds.),
Sociocultural positioning in literacy: Exploring culture, discourse, narrative, and power in
diverse educational contexts (pp. 1–22). Cresskill, NJ: Hampton Press.
322 LYNN E. SHANAHAN ET AL.
McVee, M. B., Dunsmore, K., & Gavelek, J. R. (2005). Schema theory revisited. Review of
Educational Research, 75(4), 531–566.
McVee, M., & Pearson, P. D. (2003). Talking the talk: A close examination of teacher-student
discourse around written artifacts. Literacy Teaching and Learning, 8(1), 47–71.
Miller, S. M., & McVee, M. B. (2012). Multimodal composing in classrooms: Learning and
teaching for the digital world. New York, NY: Routledge.
Noddings, N. (2003). Caring: A feminine approach to ethics & moral education. Berkeley, CA:
University of California Press.
Pea, R., & Lindgren, R. (2008). Video collaboratories for research and education: An analysis
of collaboration design patterns. IEEE Transactions on Learning Technologies, 1(4),
235–247.
Phinney, M. Y. (1988). Reading with the troubled reader. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.
Sanny, R., Teale, W., & Person, C. (2008). Using multimedia anchored instruction cases in
literacy methods courses: Lessons learned from pre-service teachers. Journal of Literacy
& Technology, 9(1), 2–35.
Schön, D. A. (1983). The reflective practitioner: How professionals think in action. London:
Temple Smith.
Schrader, R. G., Leu, D. J., Kinzer, C., Ataya, R., Teale, W., Labbo, L., & Cammack, D.
(2003). Using Internet delivered video cases to support pre-service teachers’ undermining
of effective early literacy instruction: An exploratory study. Instructional Science, 31,
317–340.
Sfard, A. (1998). On two metaphors for learning and the dangers of choosing just one.
Educational Researcher, 27(2), 4–13.
Shanahan, L. E., Flury-Kashmanian, C. M., & Roof, L. (2012, November). Using gesture and
artifacts to scaffold reading strategy instruction: Considerations on the role of
embodiment. A paper presented at the Literacy Research Association Conference, San
Diego, CA.
Shulman, L. S., & Schulman, J. (2004). How and what teachers learn: A shifting perspective.
Journal of Curriculum Studies, 36(2), 257–271.
Tochon, F. V. (1999). Video study groups for education, professional development, and change.
Madison, WI: Atwood Publishing.
Tunstall, P., & Gipps, C. (1996). How does your teacher help you to make your work better?
Children’s understanding of formative assessment. The Curriculum Journal, 7(2), 185–
203.
Vygotsky, L. S., & Cole, M. (1978). Mind in society: The development of higher psychological
processes. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Walker, B. J. (2000). Diagnostic teaching of reading (4th ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice
Hall.
Walker, B. J. (2005). Thinking aloud: Struggling readers often require more than a model. The
Reading Teacher, 58(7), 688–692.
Weiner, B. (1972). Attribution theory, achievement motivation, and the educational process.
Review of Educational Research, 42(2), 203–215.
Wells, G. (1993). Reevaluating the IRF sequence: A proposal for the articulation of theories of
activity and discourse for the analysis of teaching and learning in the classroom.
Linguistics and education, 5(1), 1–37.
Wood, D., Bruner, J. S., & Ross, G. (1976). The role of tutoring in problem solving. Journal of
Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 17(2), 89–100.
Supporting Struggling Readers and Literacy Clinicians 323
Vicki Collet
ABSTRACT
For both teachers and students, scaffolding in the context of use is necessary
for effective learning to take place. Learners benefit when they are supported
in the process of changing their practices. In an effort to provide support to
both teachers and students, many universities in the United States provide a
clinical experience as part of graduate literacy programs. Clinics serve as a
vehicle for developing teachers’ dispositions toward instruction while
concurrently offering support to struggling readers.
University reading clinics support struggling readers by assessing and
addressing each student’s unique needs as a reader. Typically, an intensive
diagnostic process is followed by one-on-one or small group instruction
providing targeted intervention in the context of authentic opportunities to
read and write. Graduate students are the teachers who provide this
instruction, mentored by more experienced coaches, who may be advanced
graduate students or university faculty.
Clinical settings offer teachers the opportunity for targeted guidance and
encourage nuanced instructional judgments by situating teacher learning
within the real work of teaching (Dunston, 2007; Kibby & Barr, 1999;
Roskos, Boehlen, & Walker, 2000). In clinics, coaches provide feedback as
teachers appropriate a repertoire of strategies and deepen their under-
standing of literacy acquisition. Teachers and their coaches reflect on and
dialogue together about instruction that they have participated in or
observed. This mediational dialogue encourages teachers to analyze their
instructional decisions, the thought processes behind the decisions, and the
The Gradual Increase of Responsibility Model 329
The GIR model for Coaching (Collet, 2008) described in this chapter is an
adaptation of Pearson and Gallagher’s GRR model (Pearson & Gallagher,
1983). GIR emphasizes the meditational role of coaching; it includes
coaching practices that provide decreasing levels of scaffolding as teachers
become more proficient in providing support to struggling readers.
Qualitative analysis of data collected in teachers’ classrooms over a 1.5-year
period indicated that following this model led to sustained improvement in
literacy instruction (Collet, 2011). These results support use of the GIR model
as a guide for scaffolding interactions between teachers and coaches.
The Gradual Increase of Responsibility Model 331
continue to learn and grow in their profession by having the line end below
the upper corner.
The GIR model provides a guide for the coaching process as teachers’
ability to support struggling readers increases. In general, modeling occurs
most frequently at the beginning of the clinical experience as teachers are
learning and trying new assessments and methodologies. Providing slightly
less support, coaches often make recommendations early in the semester as
teachers determine goals for their students and decide what approaches to
take. As teachers gain more confidence in working with their students,
coaches scaffold them by asking probing questions. Such questions push
teachers to consider implications of their instruction and how they might
move forward. Later in the semester, coaching may take the role of
affirming teachers’ instructional decisions. When teachers feel confident
about what they are doing, coaches offer praise. Of course, this progression
is not perfectly linear and there is interplay among these coaching practices;
however, overall there is a tendency toward decreased support and increased
teacher responsibility. As the clinical experience progresses, the support that
coaches provide changes in both quantity and quality. There is a decrease in
the amount of support provided as teachers increase in competence and
confidence. Concurrently, the type of scaffolding changes as coaches use
practices that provide less support. Elaboration and description of the
The Gradual Increase of Responsibility Model 333
practices delineated in the GIR model are provided in the sections that
follow.
Modeling
Modeling has long been encouraged as a scaffold for learning (Anderson &
Roit, 1993; Block & Israel, 2004; Dole et al., 1996). Similarly, modeling is
valuable as a practice in the coaching cycle. As part of GIR, modeling
provides the most supportive scaffolds for teachers in the clinic. In addition
to the typical practice of modeling during a lesson, modeling may take other
useful forms. For example, instructional practices may be modeled during
planning or post-lesson discussions, models may be provided through digital
recordings, and coaches may also model instructional decision-making by
thinking aloud when conferencing with teachers. These several forms of
modeling are discussed below.
Recommending
Your insights about Caleb’s comprehension will be helpful as you plan instruction. We
do see evidence that vocabulary instruction would be helpful to Caleb, so it is
appropriate to include it. Before too long, you’ll also want to address his word
recognition needs. In your next reflection, would you please include your thinking about
this need? (Collet, 2012, p. 39)
The coach first acknowledges relevant insights the teacher has shared,
building the teacher’s confidence and strengthening feelings of trust in their
relationship. She then nudges the teacher to consider additional needs of the
student.
Give him an opportunity to transfer the skill of reading with expression to real text –
otherwise, it’s not serving a real purpose. Perhaps he could preview the sample paper,
‘‘Put Ups Are Important’’ by reading it out loud attending to punctuation. (Collet, 2011,
p. 92)
Because the coach may have greater familiarity with texts that are
available, such a recommendation could be helpful. Note that the coach’s
recommendation of a text is also combined with suggestions about authentic
application of a discrete skill (fluency) on which the teacher has been
focusing during tutoring sessions.
By making recommendations about instructional strategies, content or
skills being taught, the developmental processes of becoming literate, or
the standards or resources being used, coaches can encourage teachers to
attend to important instructional goals. Although some coaching models
do not encourage coaches to take a consulting role (Costa & Garmston,
2002), studies indicate that taking an expert stance and offering
suggestions to improve instruction can be an effective coaching practice
(Bean, 2004; Carrier, 1980; Darby, 2008; Gibson, 2006; Glazer &
Hannafin, 2006; Symonds, 2003). Making recommendations can appro-
priately scaffold teachers as they develop strategies for intensive
intervention.
In the GIR model, making recommendations is most prevalent near the
beginning of the coaching cycle and then decreases sharply as the clinical
experience progresses. By making recommendations, coaches encourage
teachers to attend to important instructional goals. This focus continues as
coaches shift from making recommendations to asking questions, scaffold-
ing teachers to form habits of focused reflection.
338 VICKI COLLET
Questioning
Recommendation:
‘‘You could have students use the rubric to assess their own papers.’’
‘‘What would happen if students used their rubric to assess their own work?’’
Question:
‘‘What would have to change for students to work more for themselves and less for
you?’’
When the coach asks ‘‘What would have to change y.,’’ she opens the
teacher’s thinking to new possibilities, rather than funneling her thinking to
a single, pre-determined choice.
Broadening the Scope of Ideas. At times the coach may want to ask
questions that broaden the scope of ideas under consideration. These
inquiring questions tend to be open-ended. The following question stems can
be used to craft questions that support inquiry:
Making Thinking More Precise. Using information that has been shared
by the teacher, the coach may choose to ask questions that take thinking to
a deeper, more precise level. These probing questions are specific to the
content of the conversation and express genuine curiosity. For example,
when a coach asks, ‘‘What might you hear students saying if they
understood that concept?’’ she invites consideration of the measurement
of learning targets. When a coach follows up on a teacher’s comment, ‘‘They
just don’t get it!’’ with the probing question of, ‘‘What are some examples of
students’ confusion?’’ she is moving the conversation in a productive
direction. Questioning by asking for concreteness and requesting
clarification can provide opportunities to engage in collaborative problem
solving that lead to improved instruction (Crasborn, Hennissen, Brouwer,
Korthagen, & Bergen, 2008; Gibson, 2006).
What level of detail would you expect or hope for Caleb to remember? What level of
detail will he need to be able to retain to be successful in school and, most importantly,
life experiences? (Collet, 2011, p. 86)
The coach asked these questions when Betsy was concerned about her
student’s ability to retain the information that Betsy was expecting. The
questions encouraged Betsy to reevaluate her expectations and possibly her
concept of comprehension; her revised lesson plan for the following session
included opportunities for deeper thinking versus recall of details. When a
coach hypothesizes that a teacher’s underlying assumptions are negatively
impacting instruction, she asks questions that lead to an examination of
theory and broad concepts. Questions that bring theories, principles, and
concepts of instruction into focus can have a far-reaching effect on
instructional practices.
The Gradual Increase of Responsibility Model 341
Affirming
Praising
Using the GIR model, coaching support moves from being instructional and
very supportive to affirming and providing praise. The model can be used to
guide the mediation provided by coaches as teachers’ competencies are
emerging, with the coach providing varying but decreasing support. This
changing support reflects teachers’ increase in responsibility. However,
coaches should adapt the scaffolding they provide based on the experiences
and needs of the teachers. Coaches can respond to the dynamic nature of a
teacher’s zone of proximal development (ZPD) by assessing and staying
within that zone. Coaches leverage teachers’ abilities by providing
progressive scaffolding – support that changes to match teachers’ escalating
zones of proximal development (Collet, 2011). In the GIR model, this
flexible support is represented as an indirect course, which describes the
recursive and iterative but progressive use of the coaching moves.
An additional feature of the GIR coaching model is the acknowledgment
that teachers bring funds of knowledge (Moll, Amanti, & Gonzalez, 2001) to
any learning situation and that they will continue to learn and grow in their
profession. The coaching path (shown in the model by the curving line)
acknowledges teachers’ previous knowledge and experience by starting
above the ‘‘0-0’’ position on the axis. The model also illustrates the belief
that teachers will continue to learn and grow in their profession by having
the line end below the upper corner. The model describes changes in
coaching over time and shows teachers’ growth as they rely less on the coach
and engage more in collaboration.
they consider these variabilities; leaders can ‘‘place’’ teachers on the GIR
model as a way to begin considering the type of coaching support they might
provide (keeping in mind GIR’s circuitous path, which acknowledges the
need for varying support rather than a linear progression through phases of
the model). Additionally, the GIR model serves as a guide to the shared
work that teachers are encouraged to undertake in today’s schools.
The collaborative features of the GIR model have pertinence in today’s
educational climate, where collaboration is emphasized and the organiza-
tion, rather than the individual, is viewed as the unit of change (City,
Elmore, Fiarman, & Teitel, 2009). Collaboration is a necessary facet of
professional learning communities (PLCs), which are being encouraged
throughout the country as a means for improving education (Cox, 2001;
DuFour, 2004; Fullan, 2001; Senge, 1990). The coaching process
instantiated in the GIR model prepares teachers for participation in these
communities of learners. By following the pattern of modeling, making
recommendations, asking questions, providing affirmations, and giving
praise, coaches help teachers apply new learning and move them toward the
final stage of the GIR model: Interdependence and Collaboration. The GIR
model is useful as coaches and other school leaders seek to provide
meaningful, job-embedded professional development and strengthen the
work of PLCs within their schools.
CONCLUSION
The GIR model adapts Pearson and Gallagher’s (1983) GRR to provide a
model for coaching that reflects teachers’ growing increase in responsibility.
By modeling, making recommendations, asking probing questions, affirm-
ing teachers’ appropriate decisions, and praising, coaches can provide
scaffolding that stays within teachers’ ZPD and moves them toward
interdependence and collaboration. There is a decrease in the amount of
support provided as teachers increase in competence and confidence.
Interactions with a coach support teachers’ increasing expertise and
experience.
Using the GIR model fosters collaboration. When used in university
reading clinics, interdependent, collaborative relationships are developed
within the clinic. This may encourage teachers who are participating to
develop such relationships outside of the clinic. Developing relationships of
trust in the clinic with colleagues and the coach may encourage teachers to
seek out similar benefits in their schools, because teachers see the value
348 VICKI COLLET
REFERENCES
Amobi, F. A. (2005). Preservice teachers’ reflectivity on the sequence and consequences of
teaching actions in a microteaching experience. Teacher Education Quarterly, 32(1),
115–126.
The Gradual Increase of Responsibility Model 349
Anderson, V., & Roit, M. (1993). Planning and implementing collaborative strategy instruction
for delayed readers in grades 6–10. The Elementary School Journal, 94(2), 121–137.
Bean, R. (2004). The reading specialist: Leadership for the classroom, school, and community.
New York, NY: Guildford Press.
Block, C. C., & Israel, S. E. (2004). The ABCs of performing highly effective think-alouds. The
Reading Teacher, 58(2), 154–167.
Bodrova, E., & Leong, D. J. (2007). Tools of the mind: The Vygotskian approach to early
childhood education (2nd ed.). Columbus, OH: Merrill/Prentice Hall.
Cantrell, S. C., & Callaway, P. (2008). High and low implementers of content literacy
instruction: Portraits of teacher efficacy. Teaching and Teacher Education, 24, 1739–
1750.
Cantrell, S. C., Madden, A., Carter, J. C., Rintamaa, M. & Almasi, J. (2011). The development
of teacher efficacy in a dual-role literacy coaching position. Paper presented at the annual
meeting of the American Educational Research Association, New Orleans, LA.
Carrier, C. (1980). Developmental environments for teachers. Theory into Practice, 19(4),
240–247.
City, E. A., Elmore, R. F., Fiarman, S. E., & Teitel, L. (2009). Instructional rounds in education.
Cambridge, MA: Harvard Education Press.
Clark, K., & Graves, M. (2004). Scaffolding students’ comprehension of text. The Reading
Teacher, 58(6), 570–580.
Collet, V. (2008, December). Coaching today’s teachers: Mentoring using new literacies. Paper
presented at the 2008 National Reading Conference, Orlando, Florida.
Collet, V. (2011). The gradual increase of responsibility: Scaffolds for change. ProQuest Digital
Dissertations (UMI No. 3475305).
Collet, V. (2012). The gradual increase of responsibility model: Coaching for teacher change.
Literacy Research and Instruction, 51(1), 27–47.
Costa, A. L., & Garmston, R. J. (1994, 2002). Cognitive coaching: A foundation for renaissance
schools (1st and 2nd ed.). Norwood, MA: Christopher-Gordon.
Covey, S. (1990). Principle-centered leadership. New York, NY: Free Press.
Cox, M. D. (2001). Faculty learning communities: Change agents for transforming institutions
into learning organizations. To Improve the Academy, 19, 69–93.
Crasborn, F., Hennissen, P., Brouwer, N., Korthagen, F., & Bergen, T. (2008). Promoting
versatility in mentor teachers’ use of supervisory skills. Teaching and Teacher Education,
24(3), 499–514.
Cross, R. (1995). The role of the mentor in utilising the support system for the newly qualified
teacher. School Organisation, 15(1), 35–41.
Darby, A. (2008). Teachers’ emotions in the reconstruction of professional self-understanding.
Teaching and Teacher Education, 24, 1160–1172.
Dole, J. A., Brown, K. J., & Trathen, W. (1996). The effects of strategy instruction on the
comprehension performance of at-risk students. Reading Research Quarterly, 31(1), 62–88.
Duffy, G., Roehler, L., Meloth, M., Vavrus, L., Book, C., Putnam, J., & Wesselman, R. (1986).
The relationship between explicit verbal explanations during reading skill instruction
and student awareness and achievement: A study of reading teacher effects. Reading
Research Quarterly, 21(3), 237–252.
DuFour, R. (2004). Schools as learning communities. Educational Leadership, 61(8), 6–11.
Dunston, P. J. (2007). Instructional practices, struggling readers, and a university-based reading
clinic. Journal of Adolescent and Adult Literacy, 50(5), 328–336.
350 VICKI COLLET
Elish-Piper, L., & L’Allier, S. (2007). Does literacy coaching make a difference? The effects of
literacy coaching on reading achievement in grades K-3 in a Reading First district. Paper
presented at the 57th annual meeting of the National Reading Conference, Austin, TX.
Research brief. Retrieved from http://www.niu.edu/cisll/documents/Elish-
Piper%20&%20L’Allier.pdf. Accessed on June 21, 2010.
Feiman-Nemser, S. (2001). Helping novices learn to teach: Lessons from an exemplary support
teacher. Journal of Teacher Education, 52(1), 17–30.
Fullan, M. (2001). The new meaning of educational change. New York, NY: Teachers College
Press.
Gandhi, M. (1922). The collected works of Mahatma Gandhi. Ahmedabad, India: Navjivan
Press.
Gibson, S. (2006). Lesson observation and feedback: The practice of an expert reading coach.
Literacy Research and Instruction, 45(4), 295–318.
Glazer, E. M., & Hannafin, M. J. (2006). The collaborative apprenticeship model: Situated
professional development within school settings. Teaching and Teacher Education, 22,
179–193.
Guskey, T. R., & Passaro, P. D. (1993). Teacher efficacy: A study of construct dimensions. Paper
presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association,
Atlanta, GA.
Halai, A. (2006). Mentoring in-service teachers: Issues of role diversity. Teaching and Teacher
Education, 22, 700–710.
Kibby, M. W. (1995). Practical steps for informing literacy instruction: A diagnostic decision-
making model. Newark, DE: International Reading Association.
Kibby, M., & Barr, R. (1999). The education of reading clinicians. In D. Evensen &
P. Mosenthal (Eds.), Reconsidering the role of the reading clinic in a new age of literacy.
Advances in Reading/Language Research (Vol. 6, pp. 3–40). Stamford, CT: JAI Press.
Killion, J., & Harrison, C. (2006). Taking the lead: New roles for teachers and school-based
coaches. Oxford, OH: National Staff Development Council.
Mills, M., & Satterthwait, D. (2000). The disciplining of pre-service teachers: Reflections on the
teaching of reflective teaching. Asia-Pacific Journal of Teacher Education, 28(1), 29–38.
Moll, L., Amanti, C., Neff, D., & Gonzalez, N. (2001). Funds of knowledge for teaching: Using
a qualitative approach to connect homes and classrooms. Theory into Practice, 31(2),
132–141.
Pearson, P. D., & Gallagher, M. C. (1983). The instruction of reading comprehension.
Contemporary Educational Psychology, 8, 317–344.
Risko, V. J., Roller, C. Cummins, C. Bean, R., Block, C. C., & Anders, P. (2009). Making sense
of reading teacher education research and prospects for future research. Presentation at the
annual conference of the International Reading Association, Minneapolis, MN.
Rodgers, E. (2012). Using systematic observation to assess early literacy development and plan
instruction. In E. Ortlieb & E. H. Cheek, Jr. (Eds.), Utilizing informative assessments
towards effective literacy instruction (pp. 107–136). Bingley, UK: Emerald.
Roskos, K., Boehlen, S., & Walker, B. (2000). Learning the art of instructional conversation:
The influence of self-assessment on teachers’ instructional discourse in a reading clinic.
The Elementary School Journal, 100(3), 229–252.
Senge, P. (1990). The fifth discipline: The art and practice of the learning organization. New
York, NY: Currency Doubleday.
The Gradual Increase of Responsibility Model 351
Symonds, K. W. (2003). Literacy coaching: How school districts can support a long-term strategy
in a short-term world. Oakland, CA: Bay Area School Reform Collaborative.
Tschannen-Moran, M., & Hoy, A. W. (2007). The differential antecedents of self-efficacy beliefs
of novice and experienced teachers. Teaching and Teacher Education, 23, 944–956.
Twain, M. (n.d.). Quotes.net. Retrieved from http://www.quotes.net/quote/39037. Accessed on
July 11, 2012.
Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). Mind in society: The development of higher psychological processes. In
M. Cole, V. Alfred-Steiner, S. Schribener & E. Souberman (Eds.), Cambridge, MA:
Harvard University Press.
Wertsch, J. V. (1991). Voices of the mind: A sociocultural approach to mediated action.
Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Wood, D. J., Bruner, J., & Ross, G. (1976). The role of tutoring in problem solving. Journal of
Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 17, 89–100.
PEER CONFERENCING: ADDING A
COLLABORATIVE COMPONENT TO
GRADUATE AND
UNDERGRADUATE UNIVERSITY
READING CLINICS
ABSTRACT
INTRODUCTION
The situation called for creative problem-solving, and a new strategy was
implemented – peer conferencing. The conferencing was introduced into
both graduate and undergraduate settings, albeit with slightly different
formats. The strategy was dubbed ‘‘cadre conferencing,’’ a term that defined
the verbal interactions of a small professional group. Cadre conferencing
has proven to be effective in both graduate and undergraduate clinical
reading experiences.
The graduate reading clinic at the university is called the BEST Program,
with ‘‘BEST’’ being an acronym for Basic Educational Skills and Teaching.
Initially conceived by Dr. Jack Cassidy at Millersville University in
Pennsylvania, the BEST Program has been implemented successfully for
more than 20 years at two different universities. The BEST Program is a 12-
week, two-hour Saturday clinic associated with a six-credit graduate course
in a reading masters program. The tutors are in-service teachers. The tutors
first determine students’ levels and needs through a variety of diagnostic
tools: parent interviews, teacher interviews, student interviews, informal
reading inventories, attitude surveys, and writing inventories. Tutors then
use the results of the diagnostic activities to develop an individual plan of
instruction for their students. Each tutoring session consists of four 30-
minute components: reading, writing, skills, and response to literature. The
first three components are taught one-on-one. In the response to literature
segments, students are grouped by grade level and one tutor conducts a read
aloud and follow-up activities. Because the response-to-literature groups
have students in a one-year to two-year grade range, the tutors face similar
instructional situations. Thus, in the graduate course, each response-to-
literature group became a grade-specific cadre.
The undergraduate reading clinic is called a ‘‘reading camp.’’ The camp
consists of eight 75-minute tutoring sessions. The tutors are pre-service
teachers. The undergraduates use diagnostic tools similar to those in the
graduate program: student interviews, student self-selection book activities,
attitude surveys, informal reading inventories, and writing inventories. The
tutors use information learned from the diagnostic activities to develop one-
on-one tutoring lessons for the students. The tutoring sessions are not
divided into specific segments, but tutors are required to include reading,
writing, skills, and read aloud activities in their lessons. The cadres in the
undergraduate program were created by grouping tutors who were teaching
children in the same grade.
The cadre conferencing sessions were conducted before tutoring in the
graduate course and after tutoring in the undergraduate course. Positive
results were reported from each group.
356 SHERRYE DEE GARRETT AND LUCINDA MARIE JUAREZ
For a time, it appeared that there was little research related to university
reading clinics. Pearce, Garrett, Grote-Garcia, and Schaum (2007) reported
that studies in the 1980s related to ‘‘organization, materials, and practices’’
(p. 43). Bader and Wiesendanger (1986), Bates (1984), and Irvin and Lynch-
Brown (1988) were among those who conducted surveys about assessments,
grouping, affiliation, approaches to mediation, and strengths and challenges
of the clinics. In the early 1990s, Cassidy and Hanes (1992) noted that many
reading clinic programs, because of their predominantly diagnostic-
prescriptive approach, were philosophically incompatible with the holistic
methods of that decade. Many clinics closed because of the influence of the
whole language movement (Jones & Joshi, 1991). The BEST Program began
operating in 1980 at Millersville University in Pennsylvania as an alternative
to the prescription-remediation model (Cassidy & Hanes, 1992). Unlike
previous clinics that emphasized an extensive diagnosis component, the
BEST clinic allocated less time for diagnosis and more time for
individualized tutoring. The BEST diagnostic battery included informal
reading and writing inventories, a standardized test, an attitude test, and
student, parent, and teacher interviews. Gone were tests of intelligence, and
visual and auditory perception and discrimination. The focus of the clinic
involved general goals with an emphasis on a child’s strengths.
Research on reading clinics increased in the 2000s, reflecting researcher
efforts to determine again how reading clinics were organized and how they
delivered services (Bevans, 2004; Carr, 2003; Cuevas, Schumm, Mits-Cash, &
Pilonieta, 2006; Elish-Piper, 2001; Garrett, Pearce, Salazar, & Pate, 2007;
Hoffman & Topping, 2001; Jensen & Tuten, 2007; Pearce et al., 2007; Tuten &
Jensen, 2008). Garrett et al. (2007) focused on the topic of instructional
delivery; their findings indicated that the overwhelming amount of clinic
tutoring involved individualized instruction, followed by small group
instruction or a combination of the two. But of the existing reading clinic
literature, few, if any, studies have explored the function, roles, and operation
of masters or undergraduate students in the reading clinic. There appears,
then, to be a gap in the literature with regard to peer conferencing.
The support for peer learning and conferencing are sound. The term
‘‘cadre’’ was selected intentionally. Two definitions for cadre apply to the
peer-conferencing model. The first stems from military history, as in ‘‘a key
group of officers and enlisted personnel necessary to establish and train a
new unit.’’ The second refers to ‘‘a group of trained or otherwise qualified
Peer Conferencing 357
Even as some reading clinics closed in the whole language era of the 1990s,
others evolved. Social constructivist theory espoused by whole language
advocates changed practices in the surviving reading clinics. The prior
emphasis on intervention and remediation was diminished and the new
focus included more social interaction between peers in reading clinics
(Ortlieb, 2012). The social constructivist practices of peer questioning,
sharing of information, and learning became common components in the
reading clinic. Shulman and Carey (1984) describe social constructivism as
representative of a paradigmatic shift toward the construction of meaning
through the reciprocal influences of individuals and context.
While constructivist theory in reading clinics involved teacher–tutor
interactions, several other practices, like those adopted in the BEST clinic
model emerged: reflection, learner-centered instruction, collaborative
learning, problem-solving, cohort groups, and action research (Dangel &
Guyton, 2003). These practices highlighted meaning making and learning
from social interaction. The social constructivist theoretical framework
played a role in establishing the value of peer collaboration. Forman and
358 SHERRYE DEE GARRETT AND LUCINDA MARIE JUAREZ
IMPLEMENTATION
The authors, a university faculty member and a doctoral assistant,
developed the collaborative cadre model to establish and support an
environment of reciprocal teaching and scaffolding between equal learners –
the tutors. Peer conferencing was called ‘‘cadre conferencing’’ in the two
programs because tutors are placed into grade-specific ‘‘cadres.’’ The cadre
format allowed the tutors to support each other with suggestions about
appropriate materials and methodology.
There was differentiation in the implementation of the peer conferencing
with graduate and undergraduate cadres. The graduate cadres were made up
of in-service teachers, many with several years of experience. Graduate cadres
were provided with 45-minute meeting times before each tutoring session; they
were encouraged to self-select discussion topics. On some days, the cadres
discussed assessments. On other days, they used the time to plan their response
to literature lessons. For example, in one response to literature group planning
session, teachers in cadre conferencing began brainstorming how to formulate
higher thinking skills questions after one member shared that her student was
having struggles answering comprehension questions. The tutor expressed her
concerns about the questions she should ask about a book: her questions
tended to be knowledge based; she had difficulty preparing higher order
thinking skill questions. The cadre members worked together to prepare the
response to literature session for their second-grade and third-grade students
using the book We All Scream for Ice Cream! The Scoop on America’s Favorite
Dessert by Lee Wardlaw. In the end, the cadre’s students were able to answer
inferential and synthesis questions that centered on what would happen if
certain ingredients were left out of the ice cream making process and the
implications that this type of learning would have for environmental climatic
issues. The structure of the questions the teachers had selected scaffolded from
simple knowledge-based ingredients in the book to critical conclusions about
Peer Conferencing 359
what happens to land forms when water sources such as river flowing or
snowing do not occur in a region.
Undergraduates, on the other hand, met for 30 minutes after each
tutoring session; they were provided with specific prompts. The first set of
undergraduate prompts required students to pose questions about ass-
essments. The targeted assessment prompt was used because undergrad-
uates were unfamiliar with diagnosis and were often hesitant about asking
for help in interpreting assessments. The prompts addressed a range of
topics from the scoring of word lists and analysis of miscues to identifying
comprehension strengths. Questions addressed issues student may have
encountered in the reading inventories or writing attitude surveys and how
they should score certain aspects of the assessments, such as what clusters
of answers might mean regarding an individual’s actual attitude or even
how to determine with accuracy a student’s reading level. The assessment-
focused prompts included, ‘‘Ask a question about the Bader Informal
Reading Inventory,’’ and ‘‘Ask a question about the Cassidy Writing
Inventory.’’
The second set of cadre prompts related to the activities, plans and
strategies that the tutors were implementing with their assigned students.
The cadre conferencing time for this prompt involved sharing books of
interest, activities connected to the book, and strategies designed to move
the learners forward. Other questions in this second group of prompts
guided the tutors in discussing and reflecting upon reading comprehension
activities, lessons, and strategies they were finding to be particularly useful.
Typical comprehension issues involved how to best get students to ask
their own questions as they read, engage in making inferences from the
texts, write concise summaries, determine main idea from the selections,
and synthesize material. The activity-focused questions included, ‘‘Share a
good nonfiction book you’ve used with your student,’’ and ‘‘Share a
comprehension activity you’ve used with your student.’’
The third generalized cadre prompt asked the tutors to write down an
important idea they received during cadre conferencing time. In this way,
tutors was engaging in self-reflection concerning ways to improve their
teaching and increase their own efficacy. Providing time for the tutors to
write out the ideas or information they acquired from the sessions
regarding strategies, assessments, and decision-making helped them to
integrate new ideas, information and learning into their own repertoire of
teaching practices. The last session prompted students to ‘‘Share how the
reading camp experience has changed your knowledge/attitude toward
teaching.’’
360 SHERRYE DEE GARRETT AND LUCINDA MARIE JUAREZ
Graduate and undergraduate students were asked to discuss the value they
saw in the cadre conferencing. Both groups reported that cadre meetings
allowed them to take advantage of suggestions and recommendations they
previously had not considered on their own; however, there were differences
in the type of support the two groups valued. A feedback questionnaire,
‘‘Cadre Conferencing Opinion Survey,’’ was used to collect opinions from
graduate and undergraduate groups. The first question, for example, asked
students to indicate the extent to which the cadre meetings helped them
‘‘interpret results of your IRI?’’ Students responded on a five-point Likert-
type scale, on which ‘‘1’’ meant ‘‘not at all,’’ to ‘‘5,’’ which meant ‘‘a great
deal.’’ Other questions addressed interpretation of assessments and ideas for
instructional support. The survey results indicated that both groups valued
the sessions, with undergraduate students perceiving more benefit from the
sessions than graduate students. The results of the feedback on the questions
are shown in Table 1, with the averages for each group on each question.
The feedback survey included several open-ended questions that asked
students what they liked best about the conferencing and what they would
change. Generally, feedback was very positive.
The graduate tutors in the BEST Program were in-service teachers who
had taken a previous course in diagnosis. They did not feel that the cadre
Undergraduates Graduates
(n=22) (n=8)
sessions helped them with interpreting assessments. They did find the
meetings useful for sharing tutoring ideas and learning about new materials
and trade books. Some graduate tutors wanted biweekly meetings; others
wanted longer weekly sessions. Several tutors felt that occasional whole
group sessions would be helpful so they could learn about other grade levels.
Comments from graduate students addressed function issues; they included,
‘‘Maybe instead of small groups, have some conference as a whole class to get more
opinions.’’
‘‘I would allow more time to meet. Possibly meet before and after working with the
student.’’
‘‘The whole experience was very helpful. My confidence level went up and I feel that
I can now assess and instruct a student one-on-one.’’
‘‘Talking about things out loud to one another helped me work through, in my mind,
how to tackle a particular issue.’’
‘‘Cadre meetings should never be taken out of this course. It is necessary for us who are
doing this for the first time.’’
IMPLICATIONS
CONCLUSION
An important challenge for reading clinic directors who want to use cadre
conferencing is to determine how to meet the needs of both graduate and
undergraduate students. In graduate courses, tutors were concerned with
implementing strategies and learning more about trade books. In the under-
graduate courses, tutors valued opportunities for sharing concerns about
interpreting assessments as well as ideas for strategies and materials. The cadre
conferencing model allowed reading clinic instructors to provide multiple
resources for tutors in the form of faculty mentoring and peer support.
Peer learning is best supported by school systems in which there is a
shared model or shared decision-making. The transferability of a cadre
conferencing model then is best supported by an environment where learner-
centered communities are valued and discussion and reflective practice are
implemented as effective learning strategies. Persico, Pozzi, and Sarti (2010)
posit that models of PAL, peer tutoring, and reciprocal teaching best result
in the development of group problem-solving abilities. The observations of
undergraduate and graduate tutors in cadre conferencing activities reflected
reading professionals striving to improve their instructional practices and
their knowledge of assessments and materials. Because the model supported
the exchange of ideas, problem-solving strategies, and multiple perspectives,
overall tutor and student satisfaction were reported.
REFERENCES
Bader, L., & Wiesendanger, K. (1986). University based reading clinics: Practices and
procedures. The Reading Teacher, 39, 698–702.
364 SHERRYE DEE GARRETT AND LUCINDA MARIE JUAREZ
Bates, F. (1984). Profile of university based reading clinics: Results of a U.S. survey. Journal of
Reading, 27, 524–529.
Bevans, J. (2004). A study to determine the status and features of reading clinics that serve
elementary students in teacher education institutions in the state of Ohio. Unpublished
doctoral dissertation. The Ohio State University, Columbus, OH.
Carr, K. C. (2003). Today’s reading clinic: How relevant is the grading reading practicum? A
researcher evaluates the effectiveness of a graduate-level clinical practicum and finds
positive results. The Reading Teacher, 57(3), 256–269.
Cassidy, J., & Hanes, M. (1992). Rethinking the college-based reading clinic: Past traditions and
new alternatives. In N. Padak, T. V. Rasinski & J. Logan (Eds.), Literacy research and
practice: Foundations for the year 2000. Kansas City, KS: College Reading Association.
Costa, A. L., & Garmston, R. J. (2002). Cognitive coaching: A foundation for Renaissance
Schools. Norwood, MA: Christopher Gordon Publishers, Inc.
Cuevas, P., Schumm, J. S., Mits-Cash, M., & Pilonieta, P. (2006). Reading clinics in the U.S.:
A national survey of present practice. Journal of Reading Education, 31(2), 5–12.
Dangel, J., & Guyton, E. (2003, January 24–27). Expanding our view of teaching and learning:
Applying constructivist theory(s) to teacher’s education. Paper presented at the Annual
Meeting of the American Association of Colleges for Teacher Education, New Orleans,
LA (ED472816).
Elish-Piper, L. (2001). Reading clinics in the new century: A preliminary analysis. Paper
presented at the annual conference of the College Reading Association, Orlando, FL.
Ertmer, P. A., Richardson, J. C., Lehman, J. D., Newby, T. J., Cheng, X., Mong, C., & Sadaf,
A. (2010). Peer feedback in a large undergraduate blended course: Perceptions of value
and learning. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 43(1), 67–88.
Forman, E. A., & Cazden, C. B. (1985). Exploring Vygotskian perspectives in education: The
cognitive value of peer interaction. In J. V. Wertsch (Ed.), Culture, communication, and
cognition: Vygotskian perspectives (pp. 323–347). New York, NY: Cambridge University
Press.
Gale Group, Inc. (2008). Dictionary of collective nouns and group terms. Farmington Hills, MI:
Author.
Garrett, S. D., Pearce, D. L., Salazar, L. A., & Pate, R. S. (2007b). University-based reading
clinics: Where are we now? In M. B. Sampson, P. E. Linder, F. Falk-Ross, Foote &
S. Szabo (Eds.), Multiple literacies in the 21st century (pp. 198–212). Logan: UT College
Reading Association.
Hart, G. (1990). Peer consultation and review. The Australian Journal of Advanced Nursing, 7,
40–46.
Hoffman, S., & Topping, D. (2001). Reading clinics: Same goals but many different paths.
Pennsylvania Reads, 2(2), 10–26.
Irvin, J. L., & Lynch-Brown, C. (1988). A national survey of U.S. university reading clinics:
Clientele, functions, and tests. Journal of Reading, 31, 436–442.
Jensen, D. A., & Tuten, J. A. (2007). From reading clinic to reading community. Reading
Horizon Journal, 4(3), 295–313.
Jones, J. J., & Joshi, R. M. (1991). Where have all the reading centers gone and why? The results
of a national survey. Paper presented at the meeting of the College Reading Association,
Washington, DC.
Lincoln, M. A., & McAllister, L. L. (1993). Peer learning in clinical education. Medical Teacher,
15(1), 17–26.
Peer Conferencing 365
Mallory, B. L., & New, R. S. (1994). Social constructivist theory and principles of inclusion:
Challenges for early childhood special education. Journal of Special Education, 28(3),
322–337.
McDermott, L. (2012). Tapping the Wisdom of Peers. T þ D, 66(5), 70–72.
Ortlieb, E. (2012). The past, present, and future of reading diagnosis and remediation. Journal
of Language Teaching and Research, 3(3), 395–400.
Pearce, D. L., Garrett, S. D., Grote-Garcia, S., & Schaum, A. M. (2007). University-based
reading clinics: Perceptions and practices. The Reading Professor, 29(2), 43–48.
Persico, D., Pozzi, F., & Sarti, L. (2010). Monitoring collaborative activities in computer
supported collaborative learning. Distance Education, 31(1), 5–22. doi: 10.1080/015879
11003724603.
Sampaio, P. N. M., Teixeria, J. M., Camacho, M. F., & deFreitas Gouveia, R. H. (2010–2011).
Blended peer-assisted learning platform: Improving learning outcomes with a
collaborative environment. Journal of Educational Technology Systems, 39(4), 371–395.
Shulman, L. S., & Carey, N. B. (1984). Psychology and the limitation of individual rationality:
Implications for the study of reasoning and civility. Review of Educational Research,
54(4), 501–524.
Tuten, J. A., & Jensen, D. A. (2008). Re-visioning the reading clinic experience: Tutoring at the
edge of one’s comfort zone. Journal of Reading Education, 42(1), 25–32.
KEEPING LEARNERS AT THE
CENTER OF TEACHING
ABSTRACT
Purpose – This chapter shares a model of responsive teacher preparation
in literacy labs/reading clinics that emphasizes student-centered instruc-
tion.
Approach – Through vignettes and the voices of teachers enrolled in
literacy lab/reading clinics, the authors highlight clinical practices
effective in helping teachers focus on learners including building
relationships, learning from students, structuring opportunities for student
success, and understanding the power of language choices.
Practical implications – Teacher educators can use practices presented in
this chapter in their clinical instruction. In turn, their teachers can
transfer these clinical practices and foundations to school settings.
Originality/value – This approach to teacher education creates a culture
of collaboration and responsive teaching that moves beyond clinical
settings to classrooms and schools.
INTRODUCTION
BUILDING RELATIONSHIPS
Introductions
Introductions are a powerful vehicle for learning about our teachers and
helping them become invested in each other. On the first night of class, we
ask teachers to bring in a decorated manila folder filled with photos, favorite
sayings, and artifacts. The folders serve two purposes. First, teachers use
them as anchors to introduce themselves to the group. As teachers listen to
one another, they learn about their colleagues, find commonalities, and
begin the process of creating a community of learners. Second, teachers use
the folders when they submit their assigned work. As we read teachers’
course assignments, the folders remind us of who our teachers are beyond
the clinic/lab walls, of what they bring to teaching and learning.
heard from Nazeer’s family, he assures her they read each and every letter.
We learn that Lisa notices Julianna’s breakthrough as a reader when she
shares Julianna’s running record, with her first ever self-correction. We learn
from Chrissie that Jacquari has finally engaged as a writer when she reads
aloud his writing from the afternoon, even though we groan when hear he
has included earwax, spiders, and crayons in his version of Yuccky Soup. In
our lab, sharing artifacts provides teachers a way to build relationships,
which they can transfer (Bransford & Schwartz, 1999) beyond the clinic lab
experience into classrooms.
With the pressure of meeting the needs of teachers and students, it
would be easy for clinic/lab instructors to view time for teacher sharing
as wasted time. However, in clinics/labs, our teachers are faced with
many challenges and uncertainties as they work with their learners. They
must be open to accepting advice and learning from others. By building a
community from the first night, teachers come to trust each other and
their instructors. This trust is important as we help teachers become
responsive and focus on the learners they tutor (Dever, Johnson, &
Hobbs, 2000; Gardiner, 2012). Knowing our teachers well gives us an
inroad in how best to support them as they engage in the difficult work
ahead.
When teachers learn from children and their families, they better understand
how to design lessons and plan for each child’s progress (Kroeger & Lash,
2011; Kyle, McIntyre, Miller, & Moore, 2002; Rosebery, McIntyre, &
Gonzalez, 2001). For some, building relationships with students and families
is an easy process; for others, it is more difficult. We expect this, and provide
opportunities and support for teacher to learn about their students.
Family Photographs
In the lab, we use photographs as a way to learn about our students. Tutors
give students a disposable camera, and invite them to, ‘‘Take photographs
that matter to you.’’ Teachers talk with family members about the cameras
and explain how they will serve as writing prompts for future writing pieces
during the tutorials. Students are thrilled with their cameras, and take
photos of a wide variety of people and activities in their lives – new babies,
grandparents, family pets, Halloween costumes, family celebrations,
weddings, and sporting events. The process of developing the photos and
Keeping Learners at the Center of Teaching 371
then using the photographs for writing is one of discovery for the teachers.
What photos did the student take? What are the stories behind the photos?
By inviting children to share photographs, we invite them to bridge their
home lives with their schooling lives, and can better understand each
student’s interests and strengths beyond school boundaries (Orellana &
Hernandez, 1999; Spielman, 2001). Photographs also help us connect with
students’ families as we engage in thoughtful, deliberate, and intentional
conversations, and use these conversations to engage students in purposeful
writing (Dozier, 2006; Spielman, 2001).
My conversations and connections with Tylene, Tyshawn’s mother, were helpful. She
told me about his interests and about their family y I always had that in mind as we
read together. That influenced the books I chose and the conversations we had around
reading. In the past, I have not always been able to see the true benefit of talking with
parents. Now, I see it as a priceless entity that should gear our instruction.
our teachers. We use the story of Dana, a straight ‘‘A’’ student, to illustrate
the complexities of developing relationships with students and families.
Dana was well-prepared for her first session with her second grader, Tara.
She wrote a letter to introduce herself to her Tara’s family, gathered
materials to work with her, and planned introductory reading and writing
events. All was going well on the first night, and Dana was excited to
introduce herself to Tara’s family. However, a family member rushed in to
pick up Tara 30 minutes late, leaving no opportunity for Dana to talk or
introduce herself. As this pattern continued, Dana became increasingly
frustrated. After all, she was required to communicate with the family each
week. Rather than adopting a problem-solving stance to working with Tara
and her family, Dana made judgments about them, and worried how their
lack of participation would affect her course grade. This frustration
impeded Dana’s relationship with Tara. Dana continued to plan detailed
lessons, but was not yet responsive to Tara’s needs, engagement, and
interests. Dana often described Tara with deficit language, She doesn’t want
to y She didn’t y She won’t write. Dana met with course instructors to ask
why she was having so much trouble during the tutorials.
As teacher educators, we need to help teachers think through their
relationships with students, even when these conversations may be
uncomfortable. From our observations, Dana had not connected with
Tara. When we told her this, Dana was hurt and defensive – she had never
had trouble establishing a relationship with a student, ever. The relationship
we had built with Dana allowed us to help her begin to move past her hurt
to accept advice. We helped Dana choose texts and activities that related
more closely to Tara’s life. We also modeled responsive, purposeful
instruction by following Tara’s lead when she asked to write a birthday
card for her sister. In this way, we helped Dana think and learn about Tara’s
engagement and interests.
When Tara’s mother arrived at a tutoring session later in the semester,
Dana’s preconceived notions of Tara’s family were challenged. Rather than
being an uninvolved parent, Dana learned Tara’s mom was blind and had
trouble getting to lab. When Tara’s mom was able to come, she talked with
Dana at length. Dana learned about their family trips to the library, the
books Tara chose, holiday traditions, and Tara’s interests. Dana shared this
experience during celebrations and acknowledged she had judged Tara’s
family. This was a defining moment for Dana. She was now ready to focus
on Tara as a learner. In her final reflective essay, Dana wrote that ‘‘building
a trusting relationship with Tara’s mother and sister’’ helped her respect
students and become a more caring teacher.
Keeping Learners at the Center of Teaching 373
Careful Observation
Fern, a novice teacher, related that it was difficult to engage her nine-year-
old, third-grade student, Carissa, in discussions related to literacy tasks. In
working with Carissa, Fern noticed that although Carissa liked animals,
when reading books about them, she often did not appear to understand.
When asked a question about shark pups, Fern relayed that Carissa sat for
several moments and then said, ‘‘Wait, what?’’ Fern wondered about
Carissa’s attention, engagement, and comprehension, and wanted to know
what further assessments she could give to answer her questions. However,
to choose the most appropriate assessments, we need to know what areas to
target.
374 CHERYL DOZIER AND THERESA DEENEY
Success as Self-Regulation
Problem-Solving
Although it may be easier to see Mark as the source of his own lack of
engagement, in lab/clinics, when our students are not learning, we take a step
back and reevaluate. What are we doing? How is it working? What are we
going to do differently? We use the power of our clinic/lab colleagues to answer
Keeping Learners at the Center of Teaching 377
all about the ‘‘Gordie Howe hat trick’’ (one goal, one assist, and one fight in
the same game). Mark was proud to share that he had scored his own
‘‘Gordie Howe hat trick.’’ He and Maura then read an article on Howe and
learned that the famous ‘‘Mr. Hockey’’ had dyslexia – one of Mark’s hockey
heroes was more like him than he realized.
There were other topics that interested Mark throughout the rest of the
semester, among them building paper airplanes and investigating crime
scenes. The key was Maura’s research and extensive planning to help Mark
discover his own interest in these topics. Mark, finally, was engaged,
learning, and self-regulating. He was better able to work through challen-
ging texts without giving up, and more amenable to instruction. While
earlier in the semester, Mark would have become discouraged and quit, he
now actively solved his own problems. With guidance from instructors and
colleagues and ‘‘permission’’ to refocus her lessons on enhancing Mark’s
self-esteem and self-regulation, Maura focused on what Mark wanted and
needed to accomplish.
From Maura and Mark, we learn the importance of fostering self-
regulation, of working together to problem-solve, and of supporting teachers
to develop resilience. As clinic/lab instructors, we must offer generous
encouragement and support to teachers and students so neither gives up.
In considering how our clinic focus on problem-solving transfers to
school contexts (Deeney et al., 2011), participants discussed the importance
of working to find relevance for students, fostering motivation and
engagement, and seeking variety in choosing instructional practices and
materials. One participant noted,
I transferred in a big way the notion of relevancy and working to the student y It’s not
a program that I have to follow. It’s not a script. It’s meeting the child where the child is,
finding the success and working where the child needs to go (p. 138).
In clinic/lab, we ask teachers to name the strategies readers and writers use
and to name students as readers and writers (Johnston, 2004). This emphasis
on language helps teachers move beyond ‘‘Good job,’’ ‘‘Excellent,’’ ‘‘Nice
work’’ statements. These global statements do not help students identify
their processes as learners. Students in the lab need to know how to focus
their energies, and which strategies and behaviors help them accelerate as
readers (Mercer, 2000). Teachers, at first, find monitoring their language
difficult. As one teacher said, ‘‘I’ve never had to think about my language this
much!’’
During our observations and subsequent conferences, we help teachers
notice and name reading and writing strategies and behaviors they observe.
We emphasize helping children build on their strengths (Clay, 2005a,
2005b). Teachers learn to name when children self-correct or re-read
sections of the text. They come to name when students question texts and
include craft features explored during mini-lessons. Hannah noted, ‘‘I have
begun noticing and naming the strategies my students use, and I do my best to
give purpose for each task I request of them.’’
When teachers name students as readers and writers, students take on
these identities (Johnston, 2004), many for the first time. Teachers find that
the specificity of their noticing and naming helps students continue to
engage productively. Maggie observed, ‘‘When I named Jake as a reader or
writer or let him know that he was doing things that readers and writers do, he
began to feel more secure and his effort and stamina grew.’’ Carla, too, noted
the power of naming students as writers.
I have never said ‘‘That’s what writers do’’ or ‘‘That’s what readers do’’ until this
semester. I have implied it, but I haven’t explicitly stated it. Now, I will y. After Sophie
extended the ending of ‘‘Stray’’ by Cynthia Rylant, I saw the power of those prompts.
That’s what writers do. They observe the way words flow on a page. They pay attention
to adjectives that are used to describe things in interesting ways. In Sophie’s ending, she
captured the beautiful, quiet language Rylant used in her short story. Sophie referred to
the dog as pup, just as Rylant did y Sophie’s writing was beautiful, and insightful, and
compelling. That’s what writers do.
Like many other teachers in the class, Alana began to write out open-
ended questions before the tutorials to ensure she and Beth engaged in
deeper conversations.
CONCLUSION
Learners are complex. Families are complex. Teachers are complex. Therefore,
our work in clinics/labs is complex. We recognize these complexities and
intentionally focus clinic experiences and our own instruction on the multiple
layers of learning needed to enable all participants to be successful (Table 1). We
begin by building relationships with teachers and students so we can learn how
best to teach them. Since students often come to our clinics/labs with difficult
learning histories, we ask teachers to find what inspires, what challenges, and
what engages each learner. Through this process, teachers learn how to help
students see possibilities. Through our relationships, we push teachers and
students to persevere during times of frustration and unrest, and work together
to solve problems. We seek to help teachers realize there is a way for every child
to engage successfully, even if it takes a while to discover this. In clinics and labs,
just as we want children to become self-regulated, our goal is for teachers, too, to
become purposeful, intentional, problem-solvers. Most important, we want
teachers to expect that teaching is complex and to be comfortable and confident
in dealing with that complexity. As such, teachers learn to examine both their
teaching decisions and their language choices through multiple lenses and
multiple interpretations. Through the deliberateness of our instruction, we set
teachers up to transfer these sensibilities to their future educational contexts.
382 CHERYL DOZIER AND THERESA DEENEY
Table 1. (Continued )
Purpose/Intent Activity Brief Explanation
REFERENCES
Allington, R. (2005). What really matters for struggling readers. New York, NY: Allyn & Bacon.
Allington, R. (2009). What really matters in response to intervention. New York, NY: Allyn &
Bacon.
Bransford, J. D., & Schwartz, D. L. (1999). Rethinking transfer: A simple proposal with
multiple implications. In A. Iran-Nejad & P. D. Pearson (Eds.), Review of research in
education (Vol. 24, pp. 61–100). Washington, DC: American Educational Research
Association.
Cambourne, B. (1995). Toward an educationally relevant theory of literacy learning. Twenty
years of inquiry. The Reading Teacher, 49(3), 182–190.
Clay, M. M. (1998). By different paths to common outcomes. York, ME: Stenhouse.
Clay, M. M. (2001). Change over time in children’s literacy development. Portsmouth, NH:
Heinemann.
384 CHERYL DOZIER AND THERESA DEENEY
Clay, M. (2005a). Literacy lessons designed for individuals, Part 1. Portsmouth, NH:
Heinemann.
Clay, M. (2005b). Literacy lessons designed for individuals, Part 2. Portsmouth, NH:
Heinemann.
Deeney, T., Dozier, C., Smit, J., Davis, S., Laster, B., Applegate, M., Cobb, J., y Morewood,
A. (2011). Clinic experiences that promote transfer to school contexts: What matters
in clinical teacher preparation. 60th annual yearbook of the literacy research association
(pp. 111–127). Oak Creek, WI: Literacy Research Association.
Delpit, L. (2012). ‘‘Multiplication is for White people’’: Raising expectations for other people’s
children. New York, NY: The New Press.
Dever, M. T., Johnson, F. F., & Hobbs, D. E. (2000). A qualitative analysis of an intensive
mentor-apprentice collaboration: MAC. Journal of Research and Development in
Education, 33(4), 241–256.
Dozier, C. (2006). Responsive literacy coaching. Portland, ME: Stenhouse.
Dozier, C., Garnett, S., & Tabatabai, S. (2011). Responsive teaching through conversation. The
Reading Teacher, 64(8), 636–638.
Dozier, C., Johnston, P., & Rogers, R. (2006). Critical literacy/critical learning: tools for
preparing responsive teachers. New York, NY: Teachers College Press.
Gardiner, W. (2012). Coaches’ and new urban teachers’ perceptions of induction coaching:
Time, trust, and accelerated learning curves. Teacher Educator, 47(3), 195–215.
Guthrie, J. T., & Davis, M. H. (2003). Motivating struggling readers in middle school through
an engagement model of classroom practice.. Reading & Writing Quarterly: Overcoming
Learning Difficulties, 19, 59–85.
Johnston, P. H. (1997). Knowing literacy: Constructive literacy assessment. York, ME:
Stenhouse.
Johnston, P. H. (2004). Choice words: How our language affects children’s learning. Portland,
ME: Stenhouse.
Kroeger, J., & Lash, M. (2011). Asking, listening, and learning: Toward a more thorough
method of inquiry in home-school relations. Teaching and Teacher Education, 27(2),
268–277.
Kyle, D. W., McIntyre, E., Miller, K., & Moore, G. (2002). Reaching out: A K-8 resource for
connecting with families. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.
Ladson-Billings, G. (2009). The dreamkeepers: Successful teachers of African American children
(2nd ed.). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
L’Allier, S., Elish-Piper, L., & Bean, R. (2010). What matters for elementary literacy coaching?
Guiding principles for instructional improvement and student achievement. The Reading
Teacher, 63(7), 544–554.
Mercer, N. (2000). Words and minds: How we use language to think together. London:
Routledge.
Orellana, M., & Hernandez, A. (1999). Talking the walk: Children reading urban environmental
print. The Reading Teacher, 52(6), 612–619.
Paris, S. G., & Newman, R. S. (1990). Developmental aspects of self-regulated learning.
Educational Psychologist, 25, 87–102.
Pintrich, P. R., & Schunk, D. H. (2002). Motivation in education: Theory, research and
applications. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Merrill.
Keeping Learners at the Center of Teaching 385
Rosebery, A., McIntyre, E., & Gonzalez, N. (2001). Connecting students’ cultures to
instruction. In E. McIntyre, A. Rosebery & N. Gonzalez (Eds.), Classroom diversity:
Connecting curriculum to students’ lives (pp. 1–13). Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.
Ryan, R. M., & Deci, E. L. (2000). Intrinsic and extrinsic motivations: Classic definitions and
new directions. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 25(1), 54–67.
Schon, D. (1987). Educating the reflective practitioner. San Francisco, CA: Jossey Bass.
Spielman, J. (2001). The family photograph project: ‘‘We will just read what the pictures tell
us’’. The Reading Teacher, 54(8), 762–777.
Tharp, R., & Gallimore, R. (1988). Rousing minds to life: Teaching, learning and schooling in
social context. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.
Thorkildsen, T. A., & Nicholls, J. G. (2002). Motivation and the struggling to learn: Responding
to fractured experience. Boston, MA: Allyn & Bacon.
Vygotsky, L. (1978). Mind in society: The development of higher psychological processes.
Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Warford, M. K. (2011). The zone of proximal teacher development. Teaching and Teacher
Education, 27(2), 252–258.
Zimmerman, B. J. (2000). Self-efficacy: An essential motive to learn. Contemporary Educational
Psychology, 25, 82–91.
INNOVATIVE PRACTICES:
DEVELOPING EFFECTIVE
COLLABORATION AND
PARTNERSHIPS WITHIN SCHOOL-
BASED READING CLINICS
Tammy Milby
ABSTRACT
INTRODUCTION
self-directed learning (Clay, 1985; Cobb, 2001; Morris, 2003; Pullen, Lane, &
Monaghan, 2004; Wasik & Slavin, 1993). The practice and use of tutoring as a
pedagogical method is also extensively documented (Cohen et al., 1982; Fashola,
2001; Lauer et al., 2006; Wasik & Slavin, 1993). Additionally, many fiscal
resources have been utilized across time to fund tutoring programs and these
programs may significantly influence educational policy. Yet, educators and the
public may wonder, ‘‘How effective is a supplemental tutoring program
conducted by a university student?’’ The academic benefits of tutoring programs
have recently been analyzed through two meta-analyses. Elbaum, Vaughn,
Hughes, and Moody (2000) conducted a meta-analysis of supplemental, adult-
instructed one-on-one reading interventions for students who are at-risk for
reading failure. These researchers documented that interventions that used
trained volunteers or college students were highly effective. According to their
findings, students who were tutored by college students made the largest gains.
This research team also found that intensive programs had more powerful
effects, noting that interventions focused on comprehension tended to produce
the largest instructional gains. Elbaum et al. reached the conclusion that ‘‘college
students and trained, reliable community volunteers were able to provide
significant help to struggling readers’’ (p. 616).
Having trained volunteers work under the supervision of a teacher,
reading specialist, or university faculty member qualified to teach reading
may increase the quantity and quality of services provided (Dromsky &
Gambrell, 1999; Invernizzi, Juel, & Rosemary, 1997; Morrow & Woo,
1999). Likewise, meaningful lesson planning including a structured
approach which includes high-quality materials will also increase the value
of instruction (Wasik, 1998). As the tutoring is conducted, monitoring and
reinforcement of instructional progress can enhance the growth of reading
achievement (Meier & Invernizzi, 2001). Ongoing monitoring of progress
and careful guidance from an experienced supervisor who is trained in
literacy practices will help student attain greater progress (Johnston,
Invernizzi, Juel, & Lewis-Wagner, 2009).
A second meta-analysis conducted by Ritter et al. (2009) examined the
effectiveness of volunteer tutoring programs for improving the academic skills
of K-8 students enrolled in public school settings. Ritter et al. determined that
volunteer tutoring has a positive effect on achievement for students being
tutored and found specific gains in the areas of word study, oral fluency, and
writing when comparing tutored students to peers who were not tutored. These
authors conclude that success of participation in a volunteer program results in
improved overall reading measures and offers instructional advice to
educators looking to meet Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP) goals on state
Innovative Practices 391
about learning, social and cultural contexts, and teaching and be able to enact
these understandings in complex classrooms serving increasingly diverse
students’’ (Darling-Hammond, 2006, p. 302). School-based Reading Clinics
facilitate the purposeful ability of teacher educators to help college students
apply course materials through demonstrating, reinforcing, and modeling
crucial literacy techniques in a practical one-on-one setting. Thus, this type of
clinical experience allows for greater learning, enhanced reflective thinking,
and rich, guided conversations to occur.
PURPOSEFUL PARTNERSHIPS
Partnerships occur when organizations agree to cooperate or work together
to support mutual interests. Schools and universities have this mutual
interest, since they are both working towards the same global mission – the
pursuit of knowledge to build lifelong literacy. Universities have the
opportunity to offer the community a wide range of resources that can
provide valuable support. Schools are always in need of ongoing literacy
support to upkeep educational excellence. A common purpose of many
educational partnerships is to improve both the academic achievement as
well as the social outcomes for children (Blank, Jacobson, & Melaville,
2012). However, it is sometimes challenging for elementary or secondary
schools to build a long-term partnership with university partners that can
service the needs and interests of both groups. How can school and
university partnerships best be achieved?
Partnerships must begin with both parties recognizing the need for
working with one another. Universities must recognize the shift in teacher
education toward a more robust program based on a complex view of
teaching (Hoffman & Pearson, 2000). Clinical instruction has shifted
thinking to focus more centrally on teaching children rather than teaching
skills, addressing how to use assessments to guide instruction planning and
address the individual needs of learners (Peck, 2009). Schools must also shift
toward recognizing the need to become more open to community partner-
ships (Epstein, 2001). ‘‘Schools that are committed to developing students’
critical thinking skills and real-world applications of knowledge as well as
providing necessary services and enrichment activities need to forge new
relationships with the community to improve student learning’’ (Shields,
1994). School and university partnerships align resources and help greater
learning to occur. Blank et al. (2012) in the document entitled, Achieving
results through community school partnerships: How district and community
Innovative Practices 393
years below grade level, may recognize the need to read better but may not
be motivated to engage in recreational reading behaviors. A university
student athlete who comes 2–3 times per week to tutor Tyron in literacy may
assist Tyron in developing the value of reading for pleasure and could help
him find books which contain the adventures he has been seeking. Tyron
benefits from not only academic but also social support, once he
understands the vision and is included in the partnership.
2. Establish structured opportunities to engage key stakeholders
Once the clinic has been started, one of the first steps will be determining
which type of relationship should be established. Will you need a formal
written agreement or can your relationship be developed more informally
through meetings and emails? Who is able to grant permission for building
or facility use? Who will ensure access to the needed students and materials?
Face-to-face meetings at the beginning of the partnership can be a strong
step toward developing a lasting relationship. The focus on this meeting
should be the creation of a beneficial and trusting relationship. Blank et al.
(2012) discuss the importance of developing trust within your collaborative
partnership. They write:
The structures and functions associated with building a community schools strategy are
built on a deepening foundation of collective trust. That trust is vital to achieving the
collective impact that emerges when school and community partners share responsibility
for the education of our children and youth. (p. 4–5)
Products created within the clinic can be useful artifacts for school or
community partners. For example, documents such as assessment reports,
instructional activities, and family newsletters could all be helpful materials
to share with school and community partners. One point to consider is that
the clinic supervisor cannot always view everything. All lessons and family
interactions cannot always be supervised or recorded. New assessments are
likely being given as a learning opportunity for the university student and
could contain small mistakes as the university student may be nervous to
administer the protocol for the first time with an actual student. As with
school children, miscues, questions, or prompts made by university students
during instruction can serve as a powerful catalyst to promote learning. The
crucial factor is determining what data will be collected, how it will be
utilized and shared, and who will have access to confidential materials.
5. Creating capacity to sustain the work
Change is an ongoing part of everyday life. From chaos comes growth and
development. However, it is important to develop the capacity of your clinic
so that it can be sustained long-term. Within any school program, change
will occur. Teachers and faculty retire. Reading specialists transfer or get
promoted. Administrators will be appointed to new schools. The key to
coping with change is to plan for it, building contingencies into your clinical
program. Getting more individuals vested in the School-based Reading
Clinic and sharing your success will ensure that small changes don’t lead to
the demise of your program. Consider training additional faculty or school
staff to support the goals of the clinic. In addition to human resources, other
physical changes can greatly influence the feasibility of the clinical model.
Space for an ‘‘extra’’ program or a ‘‘curricular’’ model that disconnects with
the divisions approach can lead to program closure. Sometimes, these issues
are unavoidable or it is just time to move along to a better location or
learning experience.
The wise faculty member is ever flexible and responsive, ever forging
relationships and building community connections so that change brings
new opportunities. Creating capacity to sustain the work does not stop with
off-site school and community partners. Faculty need to consider how to
share the work and success of the clinic model with others within and out-
side of their education departments. Some universities are considering off-
ering totally online teacher preparation experiences in order to recruit
students from a larger geographic population. This movement is impacting
reading clinics specifically, which are built on establishing rapport and lea-
rner interactions in a face-to-face environment that promotes high-quality
Innovative Practices 397
Once the community partnership has been established, the next step is ensuring
that the tutoring that takes place will support diverse learners. Gunning (2006)
398 TAMMY MILBY
Tutoring should take place for a substantial time period and must include
ongoing learner scaffolding.
Appropriate and engaging instructional materials should be utilized.
Ongoing monitoring occurs which includes opportunities for tutor
training and feedback with scaffolding and modeling as needed.
Tutoring should be aligned with and congruent to the classroom reading
program.
teachers visit the school for two mornings per week to work with English
Language Learners. The tutoring takes place after whole-class instruction is
completed during an intervention time where the classroom teacher is
working with small groups of first-grade students. Tutoring takes place
while other students are visiting literacy centers in the classroom. Tutors
work individually with children for 30–45 minutes while the teacher and
reading specialist provide learner support for other students in the
classroom. The university students typically utilize the following sequence
for their lessons: familiar text reading, running record, word study/word
bank, new text reading, writing, and a read aloud experience at the end of
the lesson. This format is an adaptation made by the university faculty
member from research on well-established tutoring programs such as
Reading Recovery, Book Buddies, and the Howard Street models. During
tutoring, the faculty supervisor circulates to coach and observe the
instruction. Following tutoring, the faculty supervisor joins the tutors in
an available classroom in the public school for a university class session
concentrated on reflection and application of course materials.
REFERENCES
Allington, R. L. (2005). What really matters for struggling readers: Designing research-based
programs (2nd ed.). New York, NY: Addison-Wesley Longman.
Blank, M. J., Jacobson, R., & Melaville, A. (2012). Achieving results through community
school partnerships: How district and community leaders are building effective,
Innovative Practices 405
Lauer, P. A., Akiba, M., Wilkerson, S. B., Apthorp, H. S., Snow, D., & Martin-Glenn, M. L.
(2006). Out-of-school time programs: A meta-analysis of effects of at-risk students.
Review of Educational Research, 76, 275–313.
Meier, J., & Invernizzi, M. (2001). Book buddies in the Bronx: Testing a model for America
Reads. Journal of Education for Students Placed at Risk, 6(4), 319–333.
Milby, T. M. (2007). Classroom assessment in action: A sourcebook of examples and teaching
techniques. Boston, MA: Allyn & Bacon.
Morris, D. (2003). Tutoring at-risk beginning readers. In D. Morris & R. E. Slavin (Eds.), Every
child reading (pp. 60–79). Boston, MA: Allyn & Bacon.
Morrow, L. M., & Woo, D. G. (1999, April). The effects of an American Reads tutoring program
on literacy achievement and an evaluation of the attitudes of teachers, tutors, and children
toward the program. Panel presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational
Research Association, Montreal, Quebec, Canada.
Peck, S. M. (2009). Endless possibilities for learning and reflection: Lessons from two after-
school urban literacy clinics. In J. C. Richards & C. A. Lassonde (Eds.), Literacy tutoring
that works (pp. 119–131). Newark, DE: International Reading Association.
Pullen, P. C., Lane, H. B., & Monaghan, M. C. (2004). Effects of a volunteer tutoring model on
the early literacy development of struggling first-grade students. Reading Research and
Instruction, 43(4), 21–40.
Risko, V. J., Roller, C. M., Cummins, C., Bean, R. M., Block, C. C., Anders, P. L., & Flood, J.
(2008). A critical analysis of research on reading teacher education. Reading Research
Quarterly, 43, 252–288. doi: 10.1598/RRQ.43.3.3
Ritter, G. W., Barnett, J. H., Denny, G. S., & Albin, G. R. (2009). The effectiveness of
volunteer tutoring programs for elementary and middle school students: A meta-
analysis. Review of Educational Research, 79(1), 3–38.
Rothman, T., & Henderson, M. (2011). Do school-based tutoring programs significantly
improve student performance on standardized tests? Research in Middle Level Education,
34(6), 1–10.
Schon, D. A. (1983). The reflective practitioner: How professionals think in action. London:
Temple Smith.
Shanahan, T. (1998). On the effectiveness and limitations of tutoring in reading. In P.
D. Pearson & A. Iran-Nejad (Eds.), Review of research in education (pp. 217–234).
Washington, DC: American Educational Research Association.
Shields, P. M. (1994). Bringing schools and communities together in preparation for the 21st
century: Implications of the current educational reform movement for family and
community involvement policies. Systemic Reform: Perspectives on Personalizing
Education. Retrieved from http://www.ed.gov/pubs/EdReformStudies/SysReforms/
shields1.html
Wasik, B. A. (1998). Volunteer tutoring programs in reading: A review. Reading Research
Quarterly, 33, 266–291. doi: 10.1598/RRQ.33.3.2
Wasik, B. A., & Slavin, R. A. (1993). Preventing early reading failure with one-to-one tutoring:
A review of five great programs. Reading Research Quarterly, 28(2), 179–200.
Worthy, J., & Patterson, E. (2001). ‘‘I can’t wait to see Carlos!’’: Preservice teachers, situated learning,
and personal relationships with students. Journal of Literacy Research, 33(2), 303–344.
Zeichner, K. (2006). Reflections of a university-based teacher educator on the future of college-
and university-based teacher education. Journal of Teacher Education, 57(1), 326–340.
Zeichner, K., & Liston, D. (1996). Reflective teaching. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.