Reading First;It's the Worst

Stephen Krashen also notes that since Reading First did reading 18.5 minutes a day more for two years, their program was worse than those who didn't do Reading First.

Published in Print: December 3, 2008
Education Week
Federal Path for Reading Questioned
By Kathleen Kennedy Manzo

The latest lackluster results from a study on the impact of the Reading First program offer little insight into which parts of the program are worth saving and which need revamping—vital questions, experts say, that could help guide any future federal endeavor to address the nation’s reading woes.

One of the largest and most rigorous studies ever undertaken by the U.S. Department of Education found that the $6 billion funding for Reading First has helped more students “crack the code” to identify letters and words, but it has not had an effect on reading comprehension among 1st, 2nd, and 3rd graders in participating schools.

But the study’s limited scope—the impact of the federal funding on reading comprehension—does not offer enough information to craft better plans or policies aimed at reform.

“My one complaint about this evaluation is that its design was powered to ask a limited question (Does RF work on average?) rather than the contextual question of: Under what conditions does RF work and why?” Barbara R. Foorman, a prominent reading researcher at Florida State University in Tallahassee, wrote in an e-mail.

Ms. Foorman, who served as commissioner of education research at the Education Department’s Institute of Education Sciences in 2005 and 2006, said she is reassured by the findings that Reading First schools are spending more time teaching and practicing basic skills such as decoding, and seeing improved student achievement in those areas. She is disappointed, however, in the lack of improvement in students’ understanding of text—outcomes, she said, which are to be expected given the program’s priorities of teaching the fundamentals.

The final impact study does not provide much hope to Reading First advocates at a time when Congress has slashed funding—from $1 billion a year since the program was launched in 2002 to $353 million in fiscal 2008—and has proposed eliminating it altogether. Proponents of the program point to other findings from state data that show greater gains on several measures among participating schools.

“It’s not such a bad piece of work, but there are no conclusions you can draw from it,” Stanford University researcher Michael L. Kamil said of the study. “But as you look at the whole set of data that we have on Reading First, it is much more encouraging. There’s lots of evidence that this has worked.”

Those state-reported testing data and surveys, Mr. Kamil acknowledges, were not gathered using rigorous methods or compared against results at similar schools that are not in the program.

The impact study, released by the IES Nov. 18, is the only scientifically rigorous review of the grant program. Some of its findings are consistent with those state reports and independent surveys. More time is spent on structured reading instruction and teacher professional development, for example, in schools that received Reading First grants than in comparison schools.

The $36 million study may have left more questions than answers, many observers say.

“There is very little in the report that’s useful,” said G. Reid Lyon, who as then-chief of the reading-research arm of the National Institute of Child Health and Human Development helped draft the Reading First legislation and the requirements for evaluating the program under the No Child Left Behind Act. “The only way for it to be helpful was in an effectiveness study, which was supposed to look at which kids did respond [to Reading First-style instruction] and why, and which kids did not respond and why.

“This evaluation,” he added, “did not help us to improve the program in any way.”

Missing Elements

The study was reconfigured to fit a reduced budget for the evaluation, and also because it was started after implementation of Reading First began, making it unfeasible to assign schools randomly to the treatment or comparison groups, according to federal officials.

Broader questions, however, are the ones that policymakers and researchers say could help refocus a federal reading initiative. It is unclear whether Reading First will survive—Congress’ fiscal 2009 budget proposal provides no funding, but the program will receive continuation funding at least through next March—or if Congress or the new administration will push for a new plan for addressing the nation’s reading woes.

Congressional staff members debated future directions for reading policy last month at a briefing on the impact study, according to Grover J. “Russ” Whitehurst, the director of the institute, the Education Department’s research arm, until Nov. 21.

Those present at the briefing, he said, were not suggesting that the federal government abandon its efforts, but rather try to discover what is missing from the current reading program. Stronger pre-K literacy programs, adolescent literacy, efforts to improve students’ background knowledge, and teacher preparation were all discussed, Mr. Whitehurst said.

The impact study shows clearly, he said, that the program needs improvement.

“Advocates for the program will be pleased that it’s shown a positive correlation on [improved] decoding skills ... the focus of the program,” said Mr. Whitehurst.

Among both students in the Reading First and non-Reading First schools examined in the study, reading achievement was low and had not improved significantly over the course of the three-year study. Fewer than half of 1st graders and less than 40 percent of 2nd and 3rd graders showed grade-level proficiency in their understanding of what they read. Yet, on a basic decoding test, 1st graders in Reading First schools scored significantly better than their peers in the comparison schools.

“I don’t think anyone should be celebrating the fact that the federal government invested $6 billion in a reading program that has shown no effects on reading comprehension,” Mr. Whitehurst added.

Critics of Reading First say the lack of results are because of the program’s narrow focus on explicit skills and the inadequate attention to the complex set of knowledge and skills children need to learn to read.

“You can’t get a much more concentrated effort to make something positive happen than this program has,” said David Reinking, an education professor at Clemson University in Columbia, S.C., and the vice president of the National Reading Conference, a research organization based in Oak Creek, Wis. “The whole [approach] rested on the assumption that improved reading fluency and decoding would translate somehow directly into gains in comprehension.”

The study, he added, “certainly isn’t a ringing endorsement for Reading First, and by extension ... of scientifically based evidence, as being the magic bullet.”

Similar or Not?

Some observers argue, though, that the study’s complex design makes it difficult to draw positive or negative conclusions overall. It compares Reading First schools with similar ones in the same districts that are not part of the program to determine the impact of the extra funding on instruction, reading proficiency, and the relationship between instruction and students’ comprehension.

Between 30,000 and 40,000 students in grades 1, 2, and 3 were given a reading-comprehension test four times from fall 2004 to spring 2007. The students attended nearly 250 schools in 17 districts and a statewide jurisdiction.

The study also includes extensive classroom observations to identify the instructional practices in both types of schools, as well as surveys of teachers, principals, and reading coaches.

An interim report on the findings, released in May, drew scathing criticism from supporters of the program, who suggested that the design of the study was flawed because it did not consider the likelihood that Reading First principles and practices had spread to schools that were not in the program. ("Reading First Doesn't Help Pupils 'Get it'," May 7, 2008.)

Other studies have found that a significant proportion of schools serving struggling students have incorporated explicit instruction in the basic reading skills found to be essential in learning to read: phonemic awareness, phonics, fluency, vocabulary, and comprehension.

But Mr. Whitehurst dismissed those claims, saying that although there may be some “bleed over” into non-Reading First schools, the classroom observations and survey data show that the schools are not so similar.

“The schools were not doing the same thing,” he said. “There were differences in professional development, there were differences in their use of reading coaches, ... and there were significant differences in classroom practices.”

Some experts, however, disagree.

“The schools in the study started out as different as one could expect,” Mr. Lyon said. “But as time went on there was more districtwide adoption of Reading First methods. I’m not at all persuaded.”

Meaningful Instruction Works!!

Two outstanding reports on the efficacy of Reading Recovery intervention on student achievement have been recently released, one by the What Works Clearinghouse (an update of its former validation) and a major study released in England on the effects of their Every Child a Reader initiative. I"ve attached the press release we distributed last week, and please find below two links to the WWC and the UK study.

The significance of these studies includes: meaning-based instruction for initially low-performing children works; at-risk children can learn to read on continuous text (read: phonics worksheets unnecessary); one-to-one instruction is viable for delivering intervention for accelerating pupil learning in order to catch up to their peers; teacher professional development continues to be affirmed as the primary factor for improving reading achievement.

Judith

Links:

WWC Page Revised - http://www.readingrecovery.org/research/what_works/index.asp

Every Child a Reader Page - http://www.readingrecovery.org/rrcna/news/UK_Literacy_News-08.asp

Academic English & Prop. 227

Academic Instrumental Knowledge: Deconstructing Cultural Capital Theory for Strategic Intervention Approaches by Robert Rueda Lilia D. Monzó and Angela Arzubiaga

In this paper we have drawn on a sociocultural perspective in order to situate the nature of cultural capital and argue that all groups have cultural capital in specific sociocultural contexts. Attempts to offer families' knowledge about the educational system (AIK) cannot be effective when they are embedded in deficiency perspectives or treated as a set of neutral facts to be learned. Our interest is in providing families with the opportunities afforded to those who have the knowledge to make informed choices that have positive impact on their children's educational success. We have attempted to distinguish between broader notions of cultural capital, which are difficult to operationalize to a set of more concrete practices and knowledge about the educational system, which will enhance immigrant children's opportunities to academic success. With a perspective on learning as the process of developing identities which may transform people's ways of seeing and doing, we view critical dialogue as an imperative part of this process. We argue against the uncritical enculturation of families into dominant cultural systems and argue in favor of encouraging politically informed decisions, negotiating academic instrumental knowledge within existing values and practices, creating hybrids, transforming knowledge, and permitting informed choice in the acceptance or rejection of cultural practices in the process of appropriating this knowledge.

Academic English: A Conceptual Framework Robin Scarcella April 2003

Learning academic English is probably one of the surest, most reliable ways of attaining socio-economic success in the United States today. Learners cannot function in school settings effectively without it. This variety of English entails the utile, complex features of English required for success in public schooling and career advancement. It involves mastery of a writing system and its particular academic conventions as well as proficiency in reading, speaking, and listening. Unfortunately, academic English has often been ignored or under-emphasized in public school instruction. Many have not understood its importance in helping students function in school settings or have misunderstood its complex nature. This paper discusses approaches to the study of academic English and presents a multi-dimensional framework for analyzing it. The dimensions include linguistic, cognitive, and socio-cultural/psychological ones. Te paper also describes the relationship between the English used in everyday situations and in academic ones. It concludes with a brief discussion of research implications pertaining to instruction, assessment, and professional development.

Implications for Further Study

The research on the development of academic literacy is in its infancy. The proposed framework is designed to promote informed dialogue to practitioners and researchers that will stimulate further investigation. Additional research should explore the limitations of the framework and consider the ways it facilitates the development of testable hypothesis. It should also focus on elaborating the description of academic literacy in developmentally age-appropriate ways for English learners. For instance, while the framework provides a global understanding of the general language components and features young children must develop to acquiring academic English, it does not specify the precise language features children should learn at different grade-levels. If the framework is to be helpful, it would be useful to understand the specific language features (e.g., phonological, lexical, grammatical, and discourse features) English learners should be taught in different grades and at different English proficiency levels. This will entail investigating the teachability (e.g., practice, impute, corrective feedback). It will also be important to explore the extent to which English language learners of diverse proficiency levels are able to acquire the features of academic English. For instance, just because native English speakers are able to narrarate at the third grade, we cannot necessarily expect English learners of specific proficiency levels to be able to narrate. In brief, there is a need to collect data on what English learners in different sets of circumstances and contexts are able to do. Longitudinal research particularly is essential. In terms of instruction, teaching academic English should probably include a consideration of the three dimensions of academic English. However, the extent to which the various dimensions are emphasized in different grades and to learners of different proficiency levels should be explored.

In terms of assessment, the framework suggests the need for reliable, valid measurements of academic English that systematically test the key features of academic English that learners have difficulty acquiring (Bachman, 1990; Duran, 1989; Stevens, Butler & Castellom-Wellington 2000) It will also be important to explore assessments tat provide learners with rich, constructive information that will advance the learners’ language rather than providing students with limited or unhelpful information about their English language development. Finally, if the framework is shown to be useful, teacher professional development programs will be required to provide teachers with the knowledge base required o teach the various dimensions and features of academic English. Larger issues should also be considered in the instruction of academic English. For instance, the huge gap in working conditions and wages paid to teachers in poor affluent communities lead to enormous gaps in the teachers’ knowledge of academic English and probably the ability to teach it.

Because academic English is complex and dynamic, entailing linguistic, cognitive and socio-cultural/psychological dimensions, it may be very difficult to research. Despite these difficulties, academic English merits investigation. The major features of academic English can and should be made clear. This paper has attempted to add this clarity.

Effects of the Implementation of Proposition 227 on the Education of English Learners, K-12
Executive Summary Submitted to the California Department of Education by American Institutes for Research and WestEd Findings from a Five-Year Evaluation

In 2000, the California Department of Education contracted with the American Institutes for Research and WestEd to conduct a five-year evaluation of the effects of Proposition 227 on the education of English learners (ELs). Student achievement analyses, phone interviews, case study site visits, and written surveys were used to examine such questions as how the proposition was implemented, which EL services are most and least effective, and what unintended consequences resulted from Proposition 227 implementation.

Important findings from the achievement analysis include the following:

Since the passage of Proposition 227, students across all language classifications in all grades have experienced performance gains on the Standardized Testing and Reporting Program. However, since Proposition 227 was implemented alongside other reform efforts in a climate of increased accountability, it is difficult to attribute gains solely to these provisions.

While there has been a slight decrease in the performance gap between EL and “English Only” students, it has remained virtually constant in most subject areas for most grades. When former ELs, Reclassified to Fluent English Proficient students, are included in the cohort of ELs, this pattern in the performance gap is very similar. This is especially noteworthy given the substantial increase in the percentage of English learners participating in statewide assessments since the passage of Proposition 227.

Regarding differences in performance by model of instruction, across all analyses little to no evidence of differences was found. Although the most advanced analyses performed, given current state data limitations, show a slight student achievement advantage to immersion over a bilingual approach, more refined analyses enabled through the use of student-linked data from Los Angeles Unified School District indicate that the contribution to EL performance of an additional year in a bilingual program is not statistically different from an additional year in an immersion program.

Because model of instruction does not appear to be a clear determinant of EL success, we explored the premise that the best source for understanding what does lead to high-level academic performance for ELs would be schools and districts that appear to be achieving this result. We developed a model for identifying such sites and interviewed administrators from 66 schools and 5 districts that are among the highest performers statewide. Our findings suggested no single path to academic success among ELs. However, commonly cited key factors included: (1) staff capacity to address EL needs, (2) a school-wide focus on English Language Development and standards-based instruction, (3) shared priorities and expectations in regard to educating ELs, and (4) systematic assessments providing ongoing data to guide EL policy and instruction.

In light of these findings, recommendations from this study include 11 recommendations directed primarily to state and local educational leaders and policymakers.

Listening to Teachers of English Language Learners
Their Challenges, Experiences, and Needs

California’s classrooms are changing. Will teachers be up to the task of ensuring all students, including English language learners, meet the state’s high academic standards?

A new survey of more than 5,000 teachers finds few professional development opportunities targeted on working effectively with second language learners. A lack of time and instructional resources also hamper teachers’ ability to reach the nearly 1.6 million students designated as English learners in California’s public schools. The teachers surveyed also said their efforts to teach English learners are complicated by their struggle to effectively communicate with the parents and families of English learning students.

California’s English Learner Population
Students in California’s public schools come from a wide variety of ethnic, cultural, and linguistic backgrounds. Almost 1.6 million, approximately 25%, are classified as English learners or “EL” and require special assistance from their teachers and schools to meet the state’s rigorous academic content standards while also learning English. The vast majority of teachers, over 80%, have one or more EL students in their classroom. California, with 32% of all EL students in the country, has a higher concentration of English learners than anywhere else in the U.S. California’s growth in EL student enrollment is also greater than the rest of the nation. The most recent language census data lists 57 different primary languages spoken by students in the state’s schools. Most of the state’s English learners, 85%, are Spanish speakers, with only five other language groups (Vietnamese, Filipino, Cantonese, Hmong, and Korean) even reaching the level of 1%-2% of the EL student population. An additional one million students come from homes where a language other than English is spoken, making students who speak a language other than English at home account for 40% of California’s K-12 school population.

With regards to student learning, only 10% of those identified as English learners passed the California English Language Arts Standards Test in 2004. Moreover, only 39% were able to pass the English Language Arts portion of the California High School Exit Exam in 2004, compared with 81% of English speakers. Only 49% of EL students passed the math portion of the exam compared with 78% of their English-only peers.

Surveying Teachers of English Learners
Because of the escalating numbers of English learning students in California’s classrooms, the Center for the Future of Teaching and Learning partnered with Policy Analysis for California Education (PACE) and the University of California Linguistic Minority Research Institute (UC LMRI) to conduct a large-scale survey of teachers from across the state. We set out to learn what challenges these teachers face with regard to educating English learners, and to analyze how these challenges vary according to factors such as teacher experience, training, and student need. The report, Listening to Teachers of English Language Learners, documents the responses of over 5,000 California teachers regarding their challenges, experiences and professional development needs.

Survey Findings
• Over the last five years, many EL teachers had little or no professional development designed to help them teach these students, and the quality of training was uneven.
• Greater preparation for teaching English learners equaled greater self-rated ability to teach these students successfully.
• The majority of teachers expressed the desire and need to gain greater expertise for teaching English language learners.
• Communication with students and their families was of utmost importance to teachers.
• Finding the time to teach EL students all of the required subject matter, including English language development, presented the second greatest teaching challenge for elementary teachers.
• Teachers expressed frustration with the wide range of English language and academic levels often found in their classrooms.
• Teachers were challenged by the lack of tools to teach, including appropriate assessment materials and instruments.
• The more teachers knew about working effectively with English learning students, the more likely they were to cite shortcomings in instructional programs for their students.

The Center View

Until the release of the important information taken from Listening to Teachers of English Language Learners, teachers of English language learning students who are on the front lines of California’s education system were seldom, if ever, asked about the challenges they faced in their classrooms or what they needed to ensure that every child meets the state’s rigorous academic standards. Using the best advice from the classroom, education policy-makers at the local, regional and state levels can strengthen teaching that affects the learning outcomes of a major portion of the state’s student population. As first steps we recommend that:

• The governor and the leadership of the Legislature convene a summit of policy-makers, educational experts, and most of all, classroom EL teachers on “Teaching for California’s English Learners.” The purpose of this summit would be to carefully review and analyze the results of this survey and to chart a course of action that ensures high quality preparation and professional development for all teachers of English learners.
• The California Department of Education should develop and make available to local school districts a package of evaluation tools and instruments to assess the quality of local programs for English learners and identify areas in need of improvement. We further recommend that as part of this process CDE identify state, federal, and other resources that local school districts can use to assist them in making program improvements.
• Local school districts give high priority to the professional development needs of teachers of English learners as they implement the Teacher Credentialing or Professional Development Block Grant, recognizing the differing needs of teachers at the elementary and secondary levels identified in this research.

Increased attention to the needs of teachers of English language learners is warranted given the findings from this study: professional development is not targeted to meet the needs of English language learners; teachers are facing barriers to communication with their students and their students’ parents; and they are constantly accommodating for a lack of appropriate materials and resources to reach their students. Policy-makers and professional development providers across the state would be well advised to consider this fresh voice from the classroom when planning improvements for California’s teacher development system.

Excerpted from:
Gándara, P, Maxwell-Jolly, J, & Driscoll, A. (2005). Listening to teachers of English language learners: A survey of California teachers’ challenges, experiences, and professional development needs. Santa Cruz, CA: The Center for the Future of Teaching and Learning.
The full text of this report is available for download from www.cftl.org

English Language Learners Research Cited in Herrell & Jordan

STRATEGIES FOR TEACHING ENGLISH LANGUAGE LEARNERS
Research cited by:
50 Strategies for Teaching English Language Learners
by Adrienne L. Herrell and Michael Jordan

EL students are the fastest growing population (Leos 2004) (Pearlman) EL will be 50% in 2015

Krashen (1982) language acquisition(natural thing) versus language learning (teacher must focus on factors for instruction)

Canagarajah (2006) teacher must keep in mind when teaching to EL students gender, ethnicity, immigrant non-native status and impact on language learning ; assessment of student needs, level of functioning, motivation affect acquisition of target language; “teaching processes that are process-oriented , autonomous, and experiential are considered empowering.”

Halliday (1978) seven functions of language: instrumental, regulatory, representation, interactional, personal, heuristic, imaginative

Krashen, 1982; Krashen & Terrell, 1983, McLaughlin, 1990) role of emotions on the acquisition of language

Cummins (1986) basic interpersonal communication skills (BICS) versus cognitive academic language proficiency (CALP) What must be added to instruction to make it comprehensible to students. Context supports student understanding or more CAL. (QUADRANT)

Echevarria, Vogt & Short, (2000) The SIOP model –strategies for effectively supporting the learning of EL students

Genesee (1999) slower speech, clear enunciation, use of visuals and demonstrations, vocabulary development, making connections to student experiences, and using supplementary materials

Herrell & Jordan (2003) Echevarria & Short,(2004 and 2005): plan language objectives for all lessons, build academic vocabulary in all lessons, build and activate background knowledge, extend academic English interaction, integrate vocabulary and concept review throughout lessons, provide modeling and feedback related to language use in speech & writing

Krashen and Terrel (1993) students need to be allowed to move into verbal production of L2 at a comfortable rate.

Swain (1993) children who work together to solve problems, create projects supports language acquisition

Diaz-Rico and Weed (2003) and Ovando, Collier, and Combs (2003): scaffolding strategies to help EL student organize thoughts in English make significant gains

Rhodes & Nathenson-Mejia (1993) anecdotal records, form of assessment that allow the teacher to document the growth and accomplishment of students, based on teacher’s observations

Genishi & Dyson (1984) assessment and documentation is especially appropriate for EL students

Garcia (1994) anecdotal records results help teachers celebrate growth this can motivate students, lower classroom anxiety, and increase participation and learning.

Hernandez (1997) performance sampling works well with EL students; portfolios are not as difficult for EL students to understand

Herrell (1996) Portfolio Assessment

Farr & Tone (1994) students involved in their portfolio

Create predictable routines and signals

Provide language support through visual images

Connect language acquisition to the real world

Use interactive read-aloud –Barrentine (1996) the reading of books out loud with the use of expression, different, voices for characters, gestures and the active participation of the listener through predicting, discussion, and check for understanding, exploration of text structure, think aloud strategies

Smallwood (1992) strong English model and reduces anxiety

Demonstrates what good readers do (Tompkins, 1998)

Good for older students (Krashen, 1993; Trelease, 1995) higher test scores

Wood (1994) students will choose the same book or another by same author

Swain (1993) Discussion of literary elements help EL students

Trelease (1995) those read aloud to have a larger vocabulary

Teaching students to use advanced organizers
Ausubel (1963) representations of abstract concepts given before a lesson to help students make connections between old and new knowledge

Newell (1984) comparative organizers

Preview and review vocabulary
Lessow-Hurley (1990) give a preview of the lesson in the students home language

Have lessons, which focus on language
Gibbons (1993) lessons which emphasize the English vocabulary and usage rather than the curricular content

Scaffold the teaching of academic language
Jim Cummins (1986) BICS and CALP

Create a framework for language success
Gibbons (1993) a strategy in which the teacher identifies the language necessary for the students to be successful in a lesson and plans activities that support the use of the language in multiple functions

Skills Grouping for more individualized instruction
Gibbons (1993) is the act of arranging students in groups based on their need for instruction in a specific skill; done for a short periods of time for a few lessons---depends on how well a teacher knows the language skills of students
Total Physical Response: Movement for Language Acquisition

Asher (1982) learning another language through actions

Using Shared Reading
Holdaway (1979) teachers read books, charts, and other texts WITH students when text is too hard for students to read by themselves

Depree & Iversen (1996) teachers read BIG BOOKS to small groups so all can see the text and pictures

Tompkins (1997) shared reading can be done with sets of small books, poetry charts, song lyrics, or any text as long as students and teacher can all see the words

Gibbons (1993) use of shared reading with EL students is appropriate because there are
teachers can use illustrations to support vocabulary development, think aloud and problem solving approaches, and verbal interactions to support comprehension

Using Leveled Questions
Krashen & Terrell (1983) teachers adapt the way they ask questions so students can respond according to their language acquisition stage

Use Objects to Connect Concepts

Partner Work
Meyers (1993) and Diaz-Rico& Weed (2002) effective with ELs because it gives opportunities for verbal interaction and support

Thonis (1994) PEER TUTORING- a student who has achieved a skill works with a classmate to help them acquire the skill

Communication games for verbal interaction
Gibbons (1993) activities set up in a class create opportunities and purposes for verbal communication practice

Bilingual books for biliteracy awareness

Cooperative Group Learning
Johnson & Johnson (1984) a collection of strategies in which students work together to accomplish a group task

Kagan (1989) small groups are effective for EL students because they have more opportunities for verbal interactions


Home cultures connections
Freeman & Freeman (1994) culture studies are studies in which students research and share information about their own cultural history and builds classroom community

Learning Centers-extending learning with
Imaging: creating visual pictures
Chamot & O’Malley (1994) state imaging encourages students to make an image in their minds to support the understanding of concepts or problems to be solved

Projects to integrate curriculum
Meyers (1993) planning curriculum in which knowledge and skills in several curricular areas are combined to accomplish an authentic task---students are learning vocabulary and having experiences which demonstrate the need to sue knowledge in multiple disciplines

Sort information in categories
Bear, Invernizzi, Templeton & Johnston (1996) say sorting activities require students to sort objects, words, phrases, and sentences according to set parameters

Collaborative Reading for those who cannot read the text
Gibbons (1993) collaborative reading helpful to EL students when they are reading for information, supports readers of various abilities, use a variety of books/media on the topic to be studied

Multimedia presentations: the modern oral report
Diaz-Rico & Weed (2002) use of media to do research, publish, and make classroom presentations

Reciprocal Teaching-group work with interactive structure
Palincsar & Brown (1986) students take turns teaching small sections of text. Student reads a section of text, summarize it, and then question other students about it

Modeled talk: showing as you speak
Herrell (1999) concurrent verbal explanation and physical demonstration of directions or concepts (one of the simplest and most powerful strategies to use for EL students)

Reporting Back-verbal practice with curricular connections
Gibbons (1993) bridges spoken and written language: students report back by describing their experience, using related vocabulary in class news or daily learning log

Vocabulary Role-Play (dramatizing the word)
Herrell (1998) learners make connections to past experiences, current content, and new vocabulary and write and perform skits in which vocabulary words are use in different contexts (homographs and polysemous words)

Vocabulary Processing
Jordan & Herrell (2002) vocabulary is introduced in several contexts ( word collections, saying it, acting it out, relating it to something familiar) students pick three words to practice in their everyday interactions ( written in vocabulary journals with documentation of how they used the words in different ways)

Word Walls
Tompkins (1997) alphabetical lists of words created in the classroom for the purpose of word study and vocabulary development ( bilingual or multilingual word walls)

Story Reenactment

Scripting
Lozanov (1982) sample language interactions presented and practiced prior to students encountering the situation when the scripts will be needed

Talk Show
Three students work together to create an interview in which one plays the talk show host, one plays the person to be interviewed, and the third person provides a silent “acting out”

Writing Workshop
Graves (1983) and Tompkins (1994) writing workshop is an approach to writing in which the students choose their own writing topics and move through the prewriting, drafting, revising, editing, and publishing of their work as if they were professional writers

Diaz-Rico & Weed (2002) EL students work with a partner or group in revising and editing, as they are encouraged to interact and discuss

Read Aloud Plus
Jordan & Herrell (2001) read aloud plus can be used whenever there is tough text ( modeling fluency and expression, clarification of vocabulary, periodic checks for understanding, activating of knowledge and connections ) PLUS: visuals, realia, paraphrasing, rewriting, rewriting and illustrating, comparing and contrasting, and physicalization

Building on an Experience to Create a Written Account
Lee & Allen (1963) activity based writing lesson, connects student experiences, what is spoken, and written language---EL students are able to read text because they participated in the activity and the written words tell what they said about their experience

Writing Skills Through Active Scaffolding
Pinnell & McCarrier (1994) form of shared writing or language experience lesson where teacher and students compose a story or text and share the pen in writing the words down on a chart or writing paper ( students are supported in using conventional spelling, capitalization, and punctuation, encouraged to write what they can); teacher supports conventions and mechanics

Guided Reading (within a group setting)
Fountas & Pinnell ( 1996) provides a small group of 4-6 students basically at the same reading with individual coaching through these strategies; running records for cueing systems, phonics, word meanings, word order, sentence structure, relation of text to student’s prior experience, use of self-correction and self-monitoring whether reading made sense. BOOK WALK, PREDICTION, READING MULTIPLE TIMES ( teacher monitors individual students on above items), MINI-LESSONS

Using Technology to Build Background

CLOZE: using context to create meaning

Attribute charting
Peregoy & Boyle (1993) organizing information to support understanding , also called semantic feature analysis, visually organizing information to support understanding of the attributes of the concepts being studied

Cohesion links for paragraphs
Find all the nouns, verbs, conjunctions, substitutions, ellipses, lexical cohesion, etc.

Acquiring Self-help Skills
Gagne (1985) learning strategy instruction supports students in understanding their own learning and in monitoring the methods and results of strategies they use in reading, writing, discussions, and research (metacognitive strategies, cognitive strategies, social/affective strategies)

Dictoglos ( for oral and communication skills)
Ruth Wajnryb (1990) students listen to repeated fluent readings of English text, at first listen, on subsequent readings take down as much of the text as possible, get in pairs, and then in groups of fours to combine their notations and recreate as much of the text as possible. Authentic reason for communication and practice recreating, rewriting, and rereading English text.

Gibbons (1993) focuses on fluent academic language and supports learners in listening and recalling good English language models

Free Voluntary Reading
Krashen (1993) involves students in reading English text, FVR ( free voluntary reading) encourages silent, self-selected reading of enjoyable books written at students’ independent levels, supports reading comprehension, writing, grammar, spelling, and vocabulary development

Hernardez (1997) difficult to implement because of the large numbers of books required, effective for EL students because of the power in exposing them to a large volume of English reading

Repetition (multiple interactions with a book)
Tompkins (1996) the use of a piece of text in several different ways to reinforce the understanding of it and the gradual integration of the vocabulary and concepts into the speaking and writing vocabulary of the students: choose a book that will sustain interest over time, explore the story structure, play with words, create an alternate text, create an innovation on the text, create another innovation or version

GIST (exploring tough text)
Cunningham (1982) supports comprehension of informational text: students read sections of the text silently, after each short section, group members work collaboratively to generate one sentence that summarizes the “gist” of the passage ( or paragraph with dense text). EL students have a chance to discuss and clarify meaning as they decide on the best summary sentence for the section or paragraph

Syntax Surgery: Manipulating English Grammar
Herrell (1998)allows students to see the relationships of elements within a sentence that may be confusing to understand because English syntax often differs from word order found in students’ home languages

Baltra (1998) EL students sometimes encounter difficulty in comprehending sentences they read or confuse word order when speaking or writing in English

Swain (1993) refining of the spoken and written product are vital to the development of fluency ---in output theory

Gardner (1993) Theory of Multiple Intelligences –the ways people are smart-the modes in which they process information effectively- Use these to teach and test students in their preferred modes

VOCABULARY RESEARCH

RESEARCH ON VOCABULARY INSTRUCTION


The following studies show that students need large vocabularies to be successful readers and that economically disadvantaged children enter school with far fewer words.


Vocabulary knowledge is one of the most significant predictors of reading comprehension.
Davis, F.B., (1972). Research on comprehension in reading. Reading Research Quarterly, 7, 628-678.

Children with average or above-average verbal ability enter kindergarten with a receptive vocabulary of approximately 5,000-10,000 words, others enter school with knowledge of far fewer words, thus beginning their school careers at a disadvantage. Hart and Risley’s long-term study of vocabulary development in children during the first three years of life revealed these significant differences as strongly related to parental income and welfare status. Children in economically disadvantage households were exposed to significantly fewer words, which was related to their own vocabulary use as well as their rate of vocabulary growth during these formative years.

Hart, B., & Risley, T.R. (1995) Meaningful differences in the everyday experience of you American children. Baltimore: Paul H. Brookes.

Marzano’s study shows that students need to learn specific academic vocabulary to understand specific genres and content areas.

Vocabulary knowledge differentially affects comprehension in school reading and learning, depending on the nature of what is being read. Stories and literature are much less dependent on specific terms used by authors than informational texts used in science, social studies, and mathematics. Academic vocabularies consist of words with precise meanings that are often central to content area understanding and differ from general meanings of even the same terms, (e.g., operation has a very specific meaning in mathematics; Marzano, 2004)

Marzano, R.J. (2004). Building background knowledge for academic achievement: Research on what works in schools. Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision & Curriculum Development.

Definition:
Comprehensive vocabulary instruction- (from Vocabulary: Questions from the Classroom) vocabulary instruction that encompasses much more than a list of words to teach at the beginning of the week. Rather, it involves a common philosophy and shared practices among teachers in a school or district based on a solid understanding of the knowledge base of vocabulary and understanding need to be supported by curricular considerations as well as by appropriate classroom and school organization. Blachowicz, Watts-Taffe, & Fisher (2006), Graves (2006), and Nagy (2005) all agree on the following characteristics of good vocabulary instruction:
It takes place in a language-and word-rich environment that fosters what has been
Referred to as “word consciousness’.

It includes intentional teaching of selected words, providing multiple types of
information about each new word as well as opportunities for repeated exposure,
use and practice.

It includes teaching generative elements of words and word-learning strategies in
ways that give students the ability to learn new words independently.

Blachowicz,C.L.Z., Watts-Taffe, S., & Fisher, P. (2006). Integrated vocabulary instruction: Meeting the needs of diverse learners in grades 1-5. Naperville, IL: Learning Point Associates.

Graves, M.F. (2006). The vocabulary book. New York: Teachers College Press.

Nagy, W.E. (2005). Why vocabulary instruction needs to be long term and comprehensive. In E.H. Hiebert & M.L. Kamil (Eds.), Teaching and learning vocabulary: Bringing research to practice (p 27-44). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.

Some class time needs to be devoted to vocabulary instruction but in context is best. Commercial vocabulary programs have not been successful in producing documented growth in word knowledge.

Definition: (from Questions from the classroom) language-rich environment is one in which children’s opportunities to read, hear, use, and talk about new vocabulary are many and varied. Naturally, these environments contain books and other reading materials, both narrative and expository, on a variety of topics appropriate for a variety of reading levels.

Duke’s study involved looking at low socioeconomic schools and high socioeconomic schools to compare how print-rich the environments were. Low SES classrooms had smaller libraries, 40% fewer books and magazines, less displays of books and magazines in the classrooms and fewer texts on walls and other surfaces.

Lower socioeconomic schools may contribute to lower levels of achievement by limiting students to literacy in the form of print rich environments.


The following studies show that reading aloud to children can increase their incidental vocabulary learning whether teachers explain words or not, but they learn more with explanations.

Eller et al. and Robbins& Her, documented the fact that young students can learn word meanings incidentally from read-aloud experiences.

Eller, G., Pappas, C., & Brown, E. (1988). The lexical development of kindergartners: Learning from written context. Journal of Reading Behavior, 20, 5-24.
Robbins, C., & Ehri, L.C. (1994). Reading storybooks to kindergarteners helps them learn new vocabulary words. Journal of Educational Psychology, 86, 54-64.


Elley’s studied classroom teachers reading stories aloud to 7 and 8 year olds. Seven classes of 7-year-olds showed vocabulary gains of 15 percent from one story, without any teacher explanation. Three classes of 8-year-olds who received no teacher explanation showed gains of 15 percent, and three classes that did receive explanation showed 40 percent. Follow-up tests showed that this incidental vocabulary learning was relatively permanent, and low-scoring children gained as much as high-scoring children.

Elley, W.B. (1988). Vocabulary acquisition from listening to stories. Reading Research Quarterly, 24, 174-187.

Research on Comprehension
by Susan Drew, Graduate Student at California State University Fresno

Background Knowledge – is knowledge that is acquired through study or experience.

To summarize the conclusions of the studies listed below the researchers found that in order for people to understand what they read and/or hear they must have knowledge of the language and of the world. Bransford and Johnson’s study was with adults, however Pearson, Hansen, and Gordon (1979) did a similar study with children and had parallel results. The greater the background knowledge of the material, the greater the understanding there will be.

Identical untitled passages were given to three groups of adults: one group was told what the passage was about before they read it, another group was told what the passage was about after they read it, and a third group was not told what the passage was about at all.
Bransford and Johnson found that the ability to understand messages is based not only on the comprehender's knowledge of language but also on his/her general knowledge of the world.

They found the people who were told what the passage was about before they read it comprehended and recalled the passage twice as well as the people in the other groups.

According to Bransford and Johnson people gain greater understanding of presented materials when they are able to connect it with something they have heard or learned about prior to reading.

Bransford, J.D., & Johnson, M.K. (1972). Contextual prerequisites for understanding: Some investigations of comprehension and recall. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 11, 711-726.

Pearson, Hansen, and Gordon found that young children use background knowledge to make sense of print. They asked 20 average second-grade children with the same overall intelligence and general reading level—10 who knew a great deal about spiders and 10 who knew little about spiders—to read a passage on spiders.

They found that the children who knew more about spiders before they read the passage were significantly better at answering questions on information in the passage than the children who knew less about spiders before they read the passage.

Similar to the Bransford and Johnson study, this one concluded how vital it is for teachers to present good background information to students on new topics to ensure that children have the ability to make connections with the new information. This is especially important for our struggling readers and our English language learners. All students need guidance and support in the effort to present information in a fair and just manner.

Pearson, P.D., Hansen, J., & Gordon, C. (1979). The effect of background knowledge on young children's comprehension of explicit and implicit information. Journal of Reading Behavior, 11, 201-209.

Taylor found that young children use background knowledge to make sense of print and that below-average readers do especially well on making sense of passages on familiar topics as opposed to unfamiliar topics. She gave 31 third- and fifth-grade children passages on a topic generally familiar to children—bird nest building—and on a topic generally unfamiliar to children—bee dancing. The third-grade children were average third-grade readers. The fifth-grade children were average and below-average fifth-grade readers.

Taylor found all the children recalled significantly more on the familiar topic than on the unfamiliar topic. The below-average fifth-graders were the most affected by whether they were reading on a familiar or unfamiliar topic. They recalled as much as the third graders when reading on the unfamiliar topic but as much as the average fifth graders when reading on the familiar topic.

Similar to the previous findings, Taylor found that the students who gained a significant amount in recalling information were the struggling readers. If unfamiliar information is presented to students, without the support of scaffolding, we are doing them a disservice. Taylor implied that by presenting background knowledge to children we have an opportunity to offer more meaningful lessons and possibly begin to close the achievement gap.

Taylor, B. (1979). Good and poor readers' recall of familiar and unfamiliar text. Journal of Reading Behavior, 11, 375-388.

Lipson found that young children use background knowledge to make sense of print. She gave 32 fourth-, fifth-, and sixth-grade average and above-average readers two passages, one was entitled First Communion and the other was entitled Bar Mitzvah. Half the children were attending a Catholic school and half were attending a Hebrew school.

Lipson found the children read significantly faster and recalled significantly more on the culturally familiar passages than on the culturally unfamiliar passages.

Like Taylor’s findings, Lipson found that when presented with cultural familiar and unfamiliar passages, the students were much more successful with the culturally familiar. Students attending Catholic school would undoubtedly be familiar with a First Communion and the students who attend Hebrew school would be familiar with a Bar Mitzvah. To be familiar with a subject assists in the process of making meaning and also with being able to further connect with other new subjects or topics.

Lipson, M.Y. (1983). The influence of religious affiliation on children's memory for text information. Reading Research Quarterly, XVIII, 448-457.
Access to Books

Below are studies that suggest the importance of children having access to books. It is vital that students have access to many high-interest books that cross genres in a literacy-rich classroom.

Elley and Mangubhai found that increasing access to books for children with limited access to books increased their literacy achievement. They studied 614 children in 4th and 5th grade classrooms in rural Fijian schools with very few books. Of these children, 380 were in classrooms where the researchers provided 250 high-interest, illustrated storybooks in English per classroom, and 234 were in the on-going English language program that put little emphasis on reading. Eight of the 16 experimental classes used sustained silent reading. The other 8 experimental classes used the Shared Book Experience (a.k.a., shared reading), a teaching technique where the teacher points to the print in full view of the children while reading to the children. The researchers found that after eight months, the pupils in the two experimental groups progressed in reading comprehension at twice the rate of the comparison group.

The book flooding studies were convincing. The students in both the shared reading group and the silent reading group far outperformed those who were in the more traditional model in reading comprehension. By providing a variety high-interest books and giving students the gift of time to read proved to be beneficial to the students.

Elley, W.B., & Mangubhai, F. (1983). The impact of reading on second language learning. Reading Research Quarterly, XIX, 53-67.

Elley found the availability of books is a key factor in reading achievement. He studied the reading achievement of children in 32 countries and found that factors which consistently differentiated high-scoring and low-scoring countries were large school libraries, large classroom libraries, regular book borrowing, frequent silent reading in class, and frequent story reading aloud by teachers. The highest scoring countries typically provide their students with greater access to books in the home, in nearby community libraries and bookstores, and in the school.

The models used by the 16 experimental classes were ones in which scaffolding, guidance, and critical literacy was provided. By rereading the story multiple times, and incorporating activities that extend the story, the teacher lowered the affective filter for the students and reading comprehension increased, making it accessible to all. With such tremendous support it would be difficult to imagine that students not being motivated by a teacher using such great strategies

Elley, W.B. (1992). How in the World Do Students Read? The IEA Study of Reading Literacy. The Hague, the Netherlands: International Association for the Evaluation of Educational Achievement.

Krashen found a significant positive correlation between each (U.S.) state's 1992 fourth-grade reading comprehension scores on the National Assessment of Education Progress (NAEP) and the number of books per students in school libraries as well as library use, regardless of how much money the state spent on education per pupil. The findings suggest that for money spent on education to affect reading scores it needs to be invested in library books.

Krashen’s findings are compelling, however we must determine how to get the books out of the libraries and into the students’ hands. When a school is fortunate enough to have a certified librarian making excellent and varied book selections students will likely make use of the library. Teachers can assist in this with modeling readings across genres. Krashen stated the importance and significance of books being accessible to all students.

Krashen, S. (1995). School libraries, public libraries, and the NAEP reading scores. School Library Media Quarterly, 23, 235-237.

Neuman found that increasing 3- and 4-year-old children's access to books in child care centers serving economically disadvantaged children and providing training to child-care staff in an intervention program known as Books Aloud significantly increased the children's early literacy knowledge. The program flooded over 330 childcare centers with high-quality children's books at a ratio of 5 books per child and provided 10 hours of training to child-care staff. Neuman examined the project's impact on 400 3-and 4-year-old children randomly selected from 50 centers across 10 regions and 100 control children from comparable child care centers not involved in the project.

Neuman found the children in the experimental group showed significantly higher increases in concepts of print, letter name knowledge concepts of writing and concepts of narrative than the control group.

Neuman’s study of book flooding childcare centers demonstrated the importance of children being familiar with books. The population studied was of economically disadvantaged children. It is likely that these children do not have reading materials in their home. Training staff at the centers enables the youngsters to have good modeling and lots of support with the books. The study showed that early intervention of providing opportunities with books would place the children at an advantage when they enter kindergarten, and not at the disadvantage they would have experienced without the program.

Neuman, S.B. (1999). Books make a difference: A study of access to literacy. Reading Research Quarterly, 34, (3), 286-311.

Smith, C., Constantino, R., & Krashen, S. (1997). Difference in print environment for children in Beverly Hills, Compton and Watts. Emergency Librarian, 24, (4), 8-9.

Neuman and Celano found striking differences in access to print between middle-income neighborhoods and low-income neighborhoods. They found children in middle-income neighborhoods have a large variety of resources to choose from while children in low-income neighborhoods have to rely on public institutions which provide unequal resources, both in quantity and quality, across communities.

Neuman’s findings support earlier findings of Krashen (1995) and those of Smith, Constantino, & Krashan (1997) that children who reside in low-income communities do no have the same access to books and other reading materials as those who reside in middle- or high-income communities. The results of the findings suggest a discrepancy that requires further action for improvement.

Neuman, S.B. and Celano, D. (2001). Access to print in low-income and middle-income communities: An ecological study of four neighborhoods. Reading Research Quarterly, 36, (1), 8-26.


Natural vs. Contrived Language

Rhodes found children read and comprehend stories with natural language better than stories with contrived language. She asked 13 first grade children to read four stories, two with natural language and two with contrived language. Of the two with natural language, one was a familiar story and one was an unfamiliar story. Of the two with contrived language, one was based on letter-sound correspondences that had been taught and one was based on print words that had been taught.

Rhodes found 3 of the children read all four stories without difficulty. However, among the10 children who had some difficulty, the children read and retold the stories with the natural language better than the stories with the contrived language. On average, the children retold 61% of the unfamiliar story with the natural language, 52% of the story based on letter-sound correspondences, and 24% of the story based on print words.

Rhodes also noted that several times the children laughed and smiled in the process of reading the stories with natural language but only one child had the same reaction (and then only once) in the process of reading a story with contrived language.

The findings of Rhodes demonstrated that children are able to understand and comprehend stories better when the language presented is natural and familiar to them. The affective filter would be lowered and therefore children would be able to relax and enjoy the story and opposed to having to concentrate intently on it and not gain meaning.

Rhodes, L.K. (1979). Comprehension and predictability: an analysis of beginning reading materials. In New Perspectives on Comprehension, edited by J. C. Harste and R. F. Carey, pp. 100-31. Bloomington, Ind.: Indiana University School of Education.


Bridge, Winograd, and Haley found children learn to recognize print words significantly better when working with texts with natural language than with contrived language. They studied 16 first grade slow learners, 8 with reading instruction using predictable reading materials (texts with familiar, natural language) and 8 with reading instruction using preprimer materials (texts with contrived language).

They found that after four weeks of instruction, the children receiving instruction using the predictable reading materials learned significantly more target words and non-target words than the students using the preprimer materials.

They also found that the children who had been reading the predictable materials reported more positive feelings about reading aloud while the preprimer children reported more negative feelings about reading aloud in the reading group.

Like the findings of Rhodes, Bridge, Winograd, & Haley discovered that children had positive feelings about reading and were successful through the use of predictable materials. The repeat practice provides the support necessary for children to not feel threatened, but to be confident and excited about their progress.

Bridge, C., Winograd, P.N., & Haley, D. (1983). Using predictable materials vs. preprimers to teach beginning sight words. The Reading Teacher, 884-891.




Fluency

Fluency- is the ability to read a text accurately and quickly. When fluent readers read silently, they recognize words automatically. They group words quickly to help them gain meaning from what they read. Fluent readers read aloud effortlessly and with expression. Their reading sounds natural, as if they are speaking. Readers who have not yet developed fluency read slowly, word by word. Their oral reading is choppy and plodding.
Fluency is important because it provides a bridge between word recognition and comprehension. Because fluent readers do not have to concentrate on decoding the words, they can focus their attention on what the text means. They can make connections among the ideas in the text and between the text and their background knowledge. In other words, fluent readers recognize words and comprehend at the same time. Less fluent readers, however, must focus their attention on figuring out the words, leaving them little attention for understanding the text.

Stahl found that instructing students to say words in isolation faster does not necessarily mean they have stronger comprehension skills. Studies have demonstrated that a child’s reading a fluency passage might improve, however there are no findings that show that comprehension improved along with the fluency.

I have had difficulty with my middle school students who read TOO quickly. They were under the impression that reading fast, meant reading well. When they read their won poetry, they read it so fast that no one in the class understands the beautiful work they have written. I take their work and read it more slowly with lots of expression, pausing frequently to enphasize the language and emotions, and the students begin to realize that reading FAST is not being fluent.

Stahl, S. (2004). What do we know about fluency? Findings of the National Reading Panel. In P. McCardle & V. Chhabra (Eds.), The voice of evidence in reading research. Baltimore, MD: Brookes Publishing.


Fluency is a result of contextual reading, including sustained silent reading. It should not be practiced aside from authentic contextualized reading experience.

Fluency is not decoding or based on speed, however it is having the ability to make meaning while reading. Fluent readers comprehend what they are reading while they are reading. Students must read quickly enough to be able to understand and to be understood if reading to others- that- is the fluent reader.

National Institute of Child Health and Human Development. (2000). The report of the National Reading Panel: Teaching children to read (00-4769). Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office.

Samuels warned us to beware in his paper by stating that “speed barking” at print does not always demonstrate to teachers that students understand what they are reading. He continued with the fact that many ELL students are able to decode with speed, but have weak comprehension because of vocabulary problems. These students are able to decode, however they cannot be considered fluent readers of English.

I see this with students who are second language learners, as eighth grade students. They can reading quickly, skip over words they don’t know, and are happy to be finished with the passage. This is where I work with my students in small groups or individually, and slow them down, discuss unfamiliar words, idioms and colloquialisms. Pre-teaching using this methodology is vitally important, to teach the students the difference between decoding/word-calling and being truly fluent- which includes UNDERSTANDING!

Samuels, S. J. (2006) Introduction to reading fluency. Paper presented at Spotlight on Fluency: Research and Practice from International Reading Association Publications, 51st IRA Annual Convention Chicago, IL

Emergent Literacy Research

Beginning Reading Instruction is the strategies used to teach students how to read. Research shows that students improved most in a contemporary classroom which included meaning-emphasis reading instruction, shared reading experiences, the use of big books, overall story meaning and skills taught in context as opposed to a classroom that focused on phonics oriented, traditional skills, round robin reading, commercial reading programs and accurate oral reading instruction.

Seminal Research

Sacks, C.H., & Mergendoller, J. R. (1997). The relationship between teachers' theoretical orientation toward reading and student outcomes in kindergarten children with different initial reading abilities. American Educational Research Journal, 34, 4, 721-739.

Sacks and Mergendoller studied 132 kindergartners in eleven classrooms. They found the children who scored the lowest on entry into kindergarten improved the most in reading achievement in classrooms with contemporary, meaning-emphasis reading instruction and improved the least in traditional phonics-oriented classrooms.

According to sack and Mergendoller children need and emphasis placed on meaning and not phonics type instruction.

Reutzel, D.R., & Cooter, R.B. (1990). Whole language: Comparative effects on first-grade reading achievement. Journal of Educational Research, 83, 252-257.

Reutzel and Cooter studied 91 first-grade children in four classrooms, two that used shared reading and other contemporary reading instructional strategies and two that had a traditional skills reading program.
Reutzel and Cooter found the children in the contemporary classrooms with shared reading became significantly better readers at the end of the school year than the children in the traditional skills classrooms (p<.01).
According to Reutzel and Cooter shared reading aligns with better readers.
Milligan, J.L., & Berg, H. (1992). The effect of whole language on the comprehending ability of first grade children. Reading Improvement, 29, 3, 146-154.
Milligan and Berg studied 165 first-grade children, 82 in classrooms with contemporary reading instruction and 83 in classrooms with traditional reading instruction.
Milligan and Berg found the middle and lower-achieving children with the contemporary reading instruction were significantly better in reading comprehension than the middle and lower-achieving children with traditional reading instruction, especially the lower-achieving children. They also found the high, middle, and lower-achieving males with the contemporary reading instruction comprehended text significantly better than the males with traditional reading instruction.
According to Milligan and Berg, children attain higher comprehension when instructed by contemporary reading strategies.

Eldredge, J.L., Reutzel, D.R., & Hollingsworth, P.M. (1996). Comparing the effectiveness of two oral reading practices: Round-robin reading and the shared book experience. Journal of Literacy Research, 28, 2, 201-225.

Eldredge, Reutzel, and Hollingsworth studied 78 second-grade children, some in classrooms with shared reading (also known as shared book experience, or S.B.E., an instructional technique where the teacher points to the text in full view of the children as s/he reads to the children) and some in classrooms with traditional round-robin reading (an instructional technique where the teacher has the children take turns reading consecutive parts of a story orally).

Eldredge, Reutzel, and Hollingsworth found that shared reading typically moved average students from the 50th to the 80th percentile in word analysis, i.e., letter-sound correspondences, on the Iowa Test of Basic Skills.
Eldredge, Reutzel, and Hollingsworth also found the average students in the shared reading group became 20% better in oral reading than the average students in the round-robin group.
Eldredge, Reutzel, and Hollingsworth found while all groups—above average, average and below average—benefited from shared reading, the below-average students benefited the most. The below-average students in shared reading became 41% better in oral reading than the below-average students in round robin reading.
As indicated by Eldredge, Reutzel, and Hollingworth, shared reading increases oral reading, word analysis, and letter-sound correspondence, and is a better practice than round robin reading.

Elley, W. (1998). Vocabulary acquisition from listening to stories. Reading Research Quarterly, 24, 174-187.

Elley found that even without any explanation of vocabulary, the children who listened to stories learned statistically significantly more vocabulary that those who did not. With some teacher discussion of vocabulary, the children learned even more. They learned vocabulary through experience, through the rich, lived context that gives words their value and utility.

Elley found that children can learn new vocabulary incidentally from having illustrated storybooks read to them. The teacher’s additional explanations of unknown words as they are encountered can more than double vocabulary gain. The evidence indicates that students who start out with less vocabulary knowledge gain at least as much from the readings as the other students, and that learning is permanent.

According to Elley children learned more vocabulary and even doubled that amount when vocabulary was discussed when they took part in listening to stories. More is learned in context through experience.

National Institute of Child Health and Human Development. (2000). The report of the National Reading Panel: Reports of the subgroups (comprehension). Washington DC: U.S. Government Printing Office.

This report concluded the nature of the interaction (emphasizing active participation) during storybook readings may also have an impact on learning (p. 4 - 21).
Studies found that student-initiated talk or active participation was important (p. 4 - 21).
This report stated active learning is best (p, 4 – 26).

As per the NRP, students are impacted by being active in reading participation.

Kamil, M. (2004). Vocabulary and comprehension instruction: Summary and implications of the National Reading Panel findings. In P, McCardle & V. Chhabra (Eds.), The voice of evidence in reading research (pp. 213 – 234). Baltimore, MD: Brookes Publishing.

Kamil found students learn words better if they are actively engaged in the task of inferring vocabulary meaning from context rather than simply being given the definition.

Kamil found not only do students need to encounter vocabulary words frequently, but they should also be given items that are likely to appear in contexts…The context in which a word is learned is critical. Lists are generally less effective that connected texts (p. 218).
Kamil found structuring vocabulary instruction to include group learning formats has found empirical support…Vocabulary learning should entail active engagement in learning tasks…Students may learn vocabulary…when they are simply listening to other students respond (p. 219).
According to Kamil student learn best when they are actively engaged with vocabulary in text, rather than lists or definitions. Students learn from participation in class discussion even if they are only listening to their classmates. The key is they are active in learning process of vocabulary, and this allows them to encounter the vocabulary more often.
Snow, C.E. (2000). Brookings paper on education policy: Comment by Catherine Snow of the federal bilingual education program (pp. 244 – 255). Washington, DC: Brookings Institute Press.

Snow found the super ordinate prevention strategies identified by the committee were: (1) ensuring that all children have access to excellent, language- and literacy-rich school environments (p. 245).

As said by Snow student respond best to language and literacy rich school environment.

Elley, W. (1989). Vocabulary acquisition from listening to stories. Reading Research Quarterly, 24, 174-187.

Elley, W., & Mangubhai, F. (1983). The impact of reading on second language learning. Reading Research Quarterly, 19, 53-67.

Elley, W. (1991). Acquiring literacy in a second language: The effect of book-based programs. Language Learning, 41(3), 375-411.

Dickinson, D.K., & Smith, M.W. (1994). Long-term effects of preschool teachers’ book readings on low-income children’s vocabulary and story comprehension. Reading Research Quarterly, 29, 105-122.
Elley and Mangubhai found in the “book flood” studies in which the researchers flooded dozens of classrooms with high-interest books and trained teachers in shared reading instruction. The results showed that not only the thousands of ESL students in the study improved in reading, they also improved in writing.
Elley, Dickison, and Smith found long-term benefits of reading aloud on low-income children’s reading comprehension and vocabulary. They concluded that reading aloud to students helps them develop their listening comprehension.

According to Elley, Dickison, Smith, and Mangubhai story comprehension, and writing is positively affected by being read to by teachers trained in read alouds using stories that are of high interest.

Garan, E. (2007). Smart Answers to tough questions. New York: Scholastic.

Garan found that reading aloud to children is a powerful predictor of reading success. When children are read to, they learn many important language skills and concepts about print in a warm and nurturing low-stress environment. Reading aloud to children has a positive effect on kids’ brain development. Those children who have not been read to are at a disadvantage. Teachers need to provide the experiential background of stories through read-alouds to level the playing field and to help narrow the achievement gap.
In keeping with Garan students who are exposed to read alouds learn language skills, and concepts in a safe environment. This positive experience increases brain development. Classrooms that participate in read alouds provide background knowledge of stories in a way that all kids can understand and learn from. Read alouds is a technique that is a way to reach all the learners in the classroom.

Durkin, D. (1966). Children who read early: Two longitudinal studies. New York: Teachers College Press.

Wells, G. (1986), The meaning makers: Children learning language and using language to learn. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.

Durkin and Wells found the big book shared experience replicates the sharing of text children and parents experience at home.
Durkin and Wells pointed out that the way big books are presented in similar to the experience of reading at home with your parents.

Anderson, R.C., Wilkinson, I.A.G., & Mason, J.M. (1991). A microanalysis of the small-group guided reading lesson: Effects of an emphasis on global story meaning. Reading Research Quarterly, XXVI, 417-441.

Anderson, Wilkinson, and Mason studied 149 third-grade children in six classrooms. They asked the teachers to teach their students four lessons, two lessons with an emphasis on overall story meaning and two lessons with an emphasis on such things as letter-phoneme correspondences and accurate oral reading.
They found that the lessons that emphasized overall story meaning led to better outcomes in relation to factors such as students' recall, oral reading, story interest, and lesson time. While all of the reading groups—high, average, and low—benefited from the emphasis on meaning, the average and low groups especially benefited from it.
According to Anderson, Wilkison and Mason kids are more interested and will have better comprehension if the lesson emphasizes story meaning and not sounding out the words correctly.

Cantrell, S.C. (1999). Effective teaching and literacy learning: A look inside primary classrooms. The Reading Teacher, 52, 4, 370-378.

Cantrell studied 49 children in 8 multi-age primary grade classrooms, four that focused on reading for meaning, the writing process, and skills taught in context and four that did not promote meaning-centered reading or the writing process and taught skills out of context. At least 50% of the student population in each school was classified as low income, based on eligibility for free and reduced-price lunch.
Cantrell found the children in the classrooms that taught skills in context did better than the children in the classrooms where skills were taught out of context on every measure of literacy achievement including reading comprehension, fluency, and phonics as well as writing organization, word choice, grammar, and spelling. They also did significantly better on the Stanford 9 assessment of reading and writing as shown in the following table.
Percentile Score1
Stanford 9 Skills taught in context Skills taught out of context
Comprehension 67 41
Word analysis 47 37
Spelling 66 38
Language 76 36

1Scores above the 50th percentile are above average nationally and scores below the 50th percentile are below average nationally.

According to Cantrell, students who learned in context did better on skills such as reading comprehension, fluency, phonics, writing organization, word choice, grammas, and spelling than kids who learned out of context.

Mullis, I., Campbell, J., & Farstrup, A. (1993). NAEP 1992 Reading Report Card for the Nation and the States. Washington, D.C.: National Center for Education Statistics.

The 1992 National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP) tested large numbers of fourth-grade children in 42 U.S. states.
The NAEP found that children whose reading instruction emphasized meaning outscored children whose reading instruction emphasized phonics.
It also found that children whose reading instruction had little or no emphasis on phonics outscored children whose reading instruction emphasized phonics (p. 30).
As stated by Mullis, Campbell, and Farstrup through the Reading Report Card kids scored better on emphasized meaning reading instruction than kids who were taught with only phonics.
Round Robin Reading

Stahl, S. (2004). What do we know about fluency? Findings of the National Reading Panel. In P.McCardle & V. Chhabra (Eds.), The voice of evidence in reading research (pp. 187-211). Baltimore, MD: Brookes Publishing.
Stahl found round robbing reading forces low-performing children to perform publicly [and] it is boring. He concluded that it wastes instructional time…In classes where round robin reading predominated; children read an average of 6 minutes per day with low-achieving readers often reading less than 2 minutes per day (p. 190).
Stahl found reading instruction is most effective when teachers actively monitor students as they are reading by “cueing children to use their knowledge of the words to decode unknown words in context (Clay, 1993) and assisting them in recognizing and correcting miscues” (P. 209).
In accordance with Stahl, round robin reading is more harmful than good. It puts kids on the spot and is boring. Round robin reading only allows one child to read at a time, not allowing teachers to actively monitor students.
National Institute of Child Health and Human Development. (2000).The report of the National Reading Panel: Report of the subgroups (fluency). Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office.
The report found that round-robin reading has been criticized as boring, anxiety provoking, disruptive of fluency, and a waste of instructional time, and the use has been found to have little or no relationship to gains in reading achievement. With round robin reading students receive little actual practice in reading because in reading because no child is allowed to read for long (p. 3-11).
The report found The lack of attention to motivational factors by researchers in the design of phonics programs is potentially very serious because debates about reading instruction often boil down to concern about “relevance” and “interest value” of how something is being taught, rather than specific content of what is being taught (p.2-97).
The NRP basically said that round robin reading is boring, causes stress, and has little or no relationship to improving reading skills. This strategy does not allow much practice in the actual act of reading. If what you are reading is not of interest, you simply check out and the time allotted to reading instruction is wasted.

Guthrie, J. T., & Humenick, N. M. (2004). Motivating students to read: Evidence for classroom practices that increase reading motivation and achievement. In McCardle & Chhabra (Eds.), The voice of evidence in reading research (pp. 329-354). Baltimore, MD: Brookes Publishing.
Guthrie and Humenick found students with self-efficacy believe they have the capability to read well. They approach books with confidence and tackle challenging texts of difficult words with the expectation that they will master them. They have a “can do” approach to reading and learning from text. In contrast students with low self-efficacy are likely to say,”I can’t do it,” when faced with long passages, unfamiliar text, or new expectations for learning from a book. Without the energizing value of high self-efficacy, students are unable to sustain the effort required to learn reading skills or to become knowledgeable through print (p.331).
According to Guthrie and Hammock if the student has low self esteem they will think they can’t do it, but if they have high self esteem when it comes to reading they will have the mind-set that they can do it.

Phonic Awareness

Phonemic awareness and phonological awareness both involve the ability to focus on the sounds of spoken words rather than their meanings. While some interchange the terms, others make a distinction.
• Phonemic awareness is the ability to consciously analyze spoken words into phonemes. Phonemes are the smallest unit of spoken language that makes a difference in the meaning of a word. For example, the words pin and chin are each composed of three phonemes: /p/, /i/, & /n/ and /ch/, /i/, & /n/.
• Phonological awareness is the ability to consciously analyze spoken words into syllables, onsets and rimes, or phonemes. Onsets are any consonant sounds before the vowel in spoken syllables, such as the /p/ in pin, the /ch/ in chin, and the /p/ and /s/ in pencil. Rimes are the vowel sounds and any consonants that follow it in spoken syllables, such as the /in/ in pin and chin and the /en/ and /il/ in pencil.
Phonemic and phonological awareness are not phonics: phonics involves both letters and sounds.

Seminal research:

Bruce, D.J. (1964). The analysis of word sounds. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 34, 158-170.
Bruce found that five- and six-year old children are not able to consciously identify phonemes in spoken words. He gave children spoken words and asked them to make other words by deleting phonemes. For example, he said fork and asked the children to say it without the /k/; he said snail and asked the children to say it without the /n/.
Bruce found none of the five- and six-year-old children were able to do the task with any of the 30 words Bruce gave them. The seven-year-olds averaged only two correct answers. The eight-year-olds averaged about 50% of the words right. Only the nine-year-olds (equivalent to fourth graders in the U.S.) got almost all the words right.
According to Bruce children are not able to consciously identify phonemes in spoken words

Replication research:

Liberman, I., Shankweiler, D., Fischer, F.W., & Carter, B. (1974). Explicit syllable and phoneme segmentation in the young child. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 18, 201-212.
Liberman, Shankweiler, Fischer, and Carter had similar findings. They simplified the children's task by asking them to tap out the number of phonemes in a spoken word.
Liberman and her associates found that 83% of the kindergarten children they tested could not analyze spoken words into phonemes most of the time. That is, they could not abstract spoken sounds into units represented by single letters and digraphs before being taught to read. They also found that 30% of the children they tested at the end of first grade could not analyze spoken words into phonemes most of the time.
According to Liberman, Shankweller, Fischer, and Carter, most of the time kindergarteners could not analyze spoken words into phonemes. A small number of times 1st graders were able to analyze spoken words into phonemes.

Scholes, R. J. (1998). The case against phonemic awareness. Journal of Research in Reading, 21, 3, 177-189. Available at http://www.clas.ufl.edu/users/rscholes/psa1.htm.
Scholes found that literate adults use their knowledge of spelling to help them do phonemic awareness tasks. He asked 70 university students questions such as "What word do you get when you delete the second sound in frame?" where the test word had common letter-sound correspondences and "What word do you get when you delete the fourth sound in faxed?" where the test word had less common letter-sound correspondences.
Sholes found when asked "What word do you get when you delete the fourth sound in faxed?", only 6% of the subjects correctly responded fact. (The x in faxed is pronounced /ks/. Thus, the fourth phoneme in faxed is /s/.) When asked "What word do you get when you delete the third sound in liked?", only 19% correctly responded light. (The letter d in liked is pronounced /t/.) Forty-three percent of the subjects incorrectly responded lied. Their responses demonstrated that they were using the spellings of faxed and liked rather than their pronunciations to respond.
According to Scholes most of the time college students are not able to analyze spoken words into phonemes.

Phonemic awareness training
Rosner, J. (1974). Auditory analysis training with pre-readers. The Reading Teacher 27, 379-384.

Seminal research:

Rosner replicated Bruce's work with kindergarten children (described above) but added instruction. He taught the phoneme deletion task to kindergarten children for a whole school year and had similar findings to those of Bruce
According to Rosner even after teaching kindergarteners for a school year, they were still not able to consciously identify phonemes in spoken words.

Replication research:
Treiman, R. (1983). The structure of spoken syllables: Evidence from novel word games. Cognition, 15, 49-74.

Treiman, R. (1985). Onsets and rimes as units of spoken syllables: Evidence from children. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 39, 161-181.

Treiman, R. (1986). The division between onsets and rimes in English syllables. Journal of Memory and Language, 25, 476-491.
Treiman found that, even with training, eight-year-olds as well as adults have difficulty splitting spoken syllables anywhere but between their onsets and rimes.
According to Treiman, even after receiving instruction 8 yr olds and adults only had success in splitting spoken syllables between their onsets and rimes.

Research review:
Bus, A.G., & van Ijzendoorn, M.H. (1999). Phonological awareness and early reading: A meta-analysis of experimental training studies. Journal of Educational Psychology, 91, 3, 403-414.
Bus and van Ijzendoorn reviewed the findings of 32 published studies on phonological awareness training. They found:
• the studies varied widely in their findings, from a large effect size (r =.97) to no effect size (r = -.06) for phonological awareness training on reading (p. 406).
• the combined effect size of phonological training on reading of all the studies in the review was small (r =.21) (p. 406).
• among the four studies that reported the long-term effects of phonological training on reading, the combined effect size was not significant (r =.08, p<.06) (p. 406).
• phonological training that was not combined with reading or letters had less effect on reading (combined d =0.18) than phonological training that included reading (combined d =.88) or letters (combined d =.66) (p. 407).
According to Bus and Van Lizendoorn only a small number of studies were done on phonological training on reading. From the few studies it can be deduced that phonological training that is not combined with reading has less effect on reading that phonological training that includes reading.

National Reading Panel. (2000). Teaching Children to Read: An evidenced-based assessment of the scientific research literature on reading and its implications for reading instruction. Reports of the Subgroups. Available at http://www.nationalreadingpanel.org/Publications/subgroups.htm.
The National Reading Panel reviewed the findings of 52 published studies on phonemic awareness training. They found:
• teaching children phonemic awareness with letters had more effect on reading (r =.67) than teaching children phonemic awareness without letters (r =.38) (pp. 2-21 & 2-22 & Table 3).
• long-term phonemic awareness training programs had a significantly smaller effect size on reading than short-term training programs: training programs that lasted 1 to 4.5 hours had a moderate effect size (r =.61); training programs from 10 to 18 hours had a large effect size (r =.86); training programs that lasted 20 to 75 hours had a small effect size (r =.31) (p. 2-22 & Table 3).
• phonemic awareness training had a significantly smaller effect size on reading when the training was conducted by teachers (r =.41 on immediate posttests; r =.32 on follow-up posttests) than by researchers (r =.64 on immediate posttests; r =.63 on follow-up posttests) (pp. 2-22 & 2-23 & Table 2).
According to the NRP children learn to read better with PA instruction with letters. PA training had the greatest effect when lasting 10-18 hours. PA training had greater effect when conducted by researchers as oppose to teachers, which leads me to believe that teachers require more training in teaching PA.

Scaffolding

Scaffolding is an instructional technique where the teacher models the desired learning strategy or task, then gradually shifts responsibility to the students.
Cole, A.D. (2006). Scaffolding beginning readers: Micro and macro cues teachers use during student oral reading. The Reading Teacher, 59, 450-459.
This comprehensive investigation revealed how scaffolders use multiple, simultaneous strategies within graphophonics, semantics, and syntactic, as well as within a frequently overlooked cueing system, pragmatics. Pragmatic cues are influences from the environment, human relationships, and the texts being used.

Cole found that preword readers, word readers, and fluent readers are scaffolded differently (Cole, 1995, 2004).

Cole found Teachers must have a broad spectrum of internalized cues for use with scaffolding—ones they can employ at a moment’s notice. Devoid of such internalized
options, teachers overuse and abuse particular cues, such as “sound it out” or “tell.” This cue overuse has been deemed ineffective (Chinn et al., 1993; Jenkins & Larson, 1979; Perkins, 1988; Taylor et al., 2002).

Cole’s study included four urban and three suburban 1st grade teachers a part of a diverse group, working with diverse readers too. Each teacher selected two students, one novice and one fluent reader; but the students varied in gender, race, and age (from 6.9 to 7.10 years). Four teachers and their students used a commercial reading program each day; the three others used a literature-based approach. Regardless of whether the student was a novice or fluent reader, each teacher preselected an unrehearsed challenging text, which she predicted would present some difficulty and thus a need for scaffolding. Students were expected to experience 5 to 10 difficult parts or words in a 100-word section.

Cole found These demonstrated that teachers provide novices more scaffolding time,
more touch-the-page finger pointing, more voiced praise and affirmation, and a greater number of interruptions.

Cole found Teachers integrated the micro and macro in ways that led readers toward a semantic match for existing graphophonic micro cues, but they also integrated
S–S strategies that led readers toward the macro and fluency.

Cole found when readers are more fluent; scaffolders offer mostly macro processing cues that prompt students to expand meaning. Novices need lots of experience and scaffolding within the micro context, which involves a focus on words, sound patterns, syntactic flow, and semantic details

Cole found when the teachers interrupted, detaining the novice for sometimes over a minute, it took a toll on both fluency and meaning. It appeared that when cues pulled readers away from the text, fluency was harmed; whereas, when cues were directly related to the text, fluency was supported.

Teachers in this study used multiple, simultaneous primary cues from all cueing systems: they uttered the actual sound (a G cue); they marked a pictorial event, such as running (an S–S cue); they uttered or masked part of the word (a G cue); they
quickly reread (an S–S cue); and they gesturally prompted readers to reread and read on (S–S). These tactics help keep fluency and meaning going when readers stumble.

This research demonstrated that, in the first grade, teachers used mostly sustaining feedback. Such ongoing, in-process support is offered both verbally and generally, but with a far greater incidence of marking and emotive gestural behaviors. To support fluency and meaning, scaffolding moved readers back and forth between micro and macro contexts. But occasionally, teachers focused their cues on one small textual element, causing readers to become mired in the micro. Thus, fluency suffered. When teachers used distantly related (secondary) cues, they drew readers away from the text and interrupted the flow of reading. Their primary cues had a more direct effect on the novice’s decoding and, consequently, on his or her fluency.

This work validates existing research, indicating that scaffolding behaviors change as development changes. It demonstrates that, compared to fluent readers, novice readers experienced (1) lengthier scaffolding periods, (2) more praise and affirmation,
(3) more interruptions during the process and (4) more gestural marking behaviors. All teachers differentiated their instruction in these ways.

According to Cole scaffolding supports emergent readers by the use of 4 types of cuing systems: Graphophonics, syntactic, semantics, and pragmatics. These are carried out though verbal and gesturally cues, which moved readers back and forth between micro and macro contexts. Primary cues showed to be most effective because they stayed with the context of the story. More scaffolding is needed for beginning readers, and as they progress less is necessary. Effective use of scaffolding using multiple cueing systems is a positive practice that could be used for emergent and developing readers.

Mcintyre, E., Kyle, D.W., & Moore, G.H. (2006). A primary-grade teacher’s guidance toward small-group dialogue. Reading Research Quarterly, 41(1), 36-66.

This study contributes to the literature on classroom dialogue by illustrating how
one teacher scaffolds young students’ participation in dialogue and construction of meaning in one second grade classroom that serves students typically at risk for school failure.

This study focused on how one teacher promoted small-group dialogue about books and literary concepts in her second-grade classroom that served poor and working class rural students, a population typically at risk for school failure. Specifically, we focused on how the teacher guided the students from the beginning of a lesson sequence in ways that led to dialogue and the construction of new understandings. As stated, we found patterns of Gayle’s guidance that ranged from traditional to dialogic discourse. We also found her patterns of talk to be related to the characteristics of her classroom culture in its broadest sense.

Thus, it is evident that teacher-fronted talk and true dialogue are not mutually exclusive as shown by these responses and further illustrated by the successful appropriation of dialogue into students’ written texts. Therefore, we argue that teachers need to be “frontal” at times—to demonstrate, explain, and define in order to lead students to complex literary academic understandings.

This contribution is significant for understanding that these dialogic episodes do not just happen naturally in classrooms but must be choreographed in a sense.

Mcintyre, Kyle, and Moore found that developing a dialogic classroom is not just
about developing skills, but about ensuring an overall classroom that promotes collaborative work and the sharing of ideas.

According to Mcintyre, Kyle, and Moore classroom dialogue is an essential of attaining meaning from discussions. Dialoguing provides the students with a model on how to discuss and listen to facts and ideas that are being contributed to the discussion. The teacher approaches each situation differently. Some students need more help in discussing, where others may simple need a reminder, or even affirmation they are on the right track. It is important that the teacher develop a safe environment, and build rapport with students in order for dialoguing to be the most effective.


Phonics

Phonics is letter-sound correspondences. The units of sound can be syllables, onsets & rimes, or phonemes.
• Onsets are any consonants before a vowel in a syllable (e.g., /dr/ in drum). Rimes are the vowel and any consonants after it in a syllable (e.g., /um/ in drum).
• Phonemes are the smallest unit of spoken language that makes a difference in the meaning of a word, as the /d/, /r/, /u/, and /m/ in drum.
Seminal research:

Clymer, T. (1963). The utility of phonic generalizations in the primary grades. The Reading Teacher, 16, 252-258.
Clymer found that most letter-phoneme generalizations are unreliable. He looked at four popular reading programs for children and chose forty-five of the most clearly stated phonics [letter-phoneme] generalizations in these programs. He then compared these phonics generalizations with the words used in the stories in these reading programs.
Clymer found that most letter-phoneme generalizations do not work much of the time. For example, of over thirty vowel generalizations tested, only half of them worked at least 60 percent of the time.
According to Clymer most letter phoneme generalizations are unreliable; they do not work most of the times.

Replication research:

Bailey, M.H. (1967). The utility of phonic generalizations in grades one through six. The Reading Teacher, 20, 413-418.

Burmeister, L.E. (1968). Usefulness of phonic generalizations. The Reading Teacher, 21, 349-356.

Emans, R. (1967). The usefulness of phonic generalizations above the primary grades. The Reading Teacher, 20, 419-425.

Bailey (1967), Burmeister (1968) and Emans (1967) did similar studies and had similar findings.
Related research:

Berdiansky, B., Cronnell, B., & Koehler, J. (1969). Spelling-Sound Relations and Primary Form-Class Descriptions for Speech Comprehension Vocabularies of 6-9 Year Olds. Technical Report No. 15. Los Alamitos, CA: Southwest Regional Laboratory for Educational Research and Development.

Berdiansky, Cronnell, and Koehler found the English writing system is a complex maze of over 211 overlapping letter-phoneme correspondences. They analyzed over 6,000 one- and two-syllables words within the comprehension vocabularies of children ages six to nine years old.
Berdiansky and her colleagues found 69 letters and digraphs (letter pairs that represent a single phoneme) used to represent 38 phonemes, but the letters and digraphs were related to the 38 phonemes in 211 overlapping ways. To illustrate the complexity they found, the letter o is pronounced one way in no, another way in to, another way in won, and yet another way in woman. The letters ow are pronounced one way in now and another way in snow (which is the same as the o in no). The letters oe are pronounced one way in shoe, another way in does (when does is a verb, not a noun), and yet another way in doe (which is the same as the o in no and the ow in snow).
According to Berdiansky, Cronnell, and Koehler the English writing system is confusing, and fails to follow “the rules” most of the time.
Adams, M.J. (1990). Beginning to read: Thinking and learning about print. Cambridge, MA: Massachusetts Institute of Technology Press.
Adams found it’s counterproductive to spend a lot of time teaching vowel sounds. Consonants are more likely to have one-to-one letter sound correspondence that vowels. Vowels are rampantly irregular in the English…writing system (p.76).
According to Adams more time should be spent on teaching consonant sounds because they are regular as oppose to vowel sounds that are irregular.

Learning phonics
Manning, M, Manning, G., Long, R., & Kamii, C. (1993). Preschoolers' conjunctures about segments of a written sentence. Journal of Research in Childhood Education, 8, 1, 5-11.
Manning, Manning, Long, and Kamii found that as children develop they are able to use their knowledge of word order to figure out unfamiliar print words in written sentences before they are able to use their knowledge of phonics to figure out unfamiliar print words. They studied 38 three-, four-, and five-year old children's untaught understandings of sentences that are written in front of them and read to them.
Manning and her colleagues found children who were not yet able to use phonics (letter-sound correspondences) to figure out print words in sentences were able to use word order to figure out print words. This finding suggests that children can learn to read using shared reading (a technique where the teacher points to the words in full view of the children as he/she reads to the children) before they can learn phonics.
According to Manning, Long, and Kamii children can learn to read using shared reading before they can learn phonics. Children rely more of word order than phonics.
Goswami, U. (1986). Children's use of analogy in learning to read: A developmental study. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 42, 73-83.
Goswami, U. (1988). Orthographic analogies and reading development. The Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 40A, 239-268.

Goswami U., & Mead, F. (1992). Onset and rime awareness and analogies in reading. Reading Research Quarterly, 27, 150-162.

Goswami found that children who have begun to read use analogy between familiar and unfamiliar print words to figure out how to pronounce unfamiliar print words. She showed children in the U.K., in grades equivalent to U.S. kindergarten, first and second grade, pairs of print words with similar letters such as hark & lark and hark & harm. She told each child one of the words in the pair and then asked the child to tell her the other word in the pair if the child did not know it in the pretest.
Goswami found that children who had begun to read were able to use the word she read to them to figure out how to read the second word in the pair when the letters represented similar rimes (e.g., the -ark in hark & lark) but not when the letters represented similar phonemes within rimes (e.g., /a/ and /r/ in hark & harm) (p<.01).
According to Goswami children utilize rime patterns when encountering a word that is unfamiliar.

Moustafa, M. (1995). Children's productive phonological recoding. Reading Research Quarterly. 30, 3, 464-475.
Moustafa found children's knowledge of analogous print words better explains their correct pronunciations of unfamiliar print words than their knowledge of letter-phoneme correspondences (p<.001). She showed 75 first grade children common words such as green and black and analogous unusual words such as grack created from letters representing the onsets and rimes in the common words.
Moustafa found that 95% of the time children could pronounce the unusual words, they could also pronounce the analogous common words used in the study. In contrast, only 64% of the time the children could pronounce the unusual words, they could correctly identify letter-phoneme correspondences used in the words.
Moustafa also found the more print words children learn to recognize, the better they are able to correctly figure out print words they have not seen before (p.<001).
According to Moustafa children use their knowledge of print words to figure out unfamiliar print words as opposed to sounding out the words. Therefore children who are exposed to more print words are better able to figure our print words they have never seen.

Phonics instruction

Seminal research:

Freppon found children with contemporary literature-based reading instruction are more successful at sounding out unfamiliar words when reading than children with traditional reading instruction. She studied 24 first-grade children in four classrooms, two with a contemporary literature-based reading program that focused on meaning and two with a traditional reading program with skills taught out of context.

Freppon, P. (1991). Children's concepts of the nature and purpose of reading in different instructional settings. Journal of Reading Behavior, 23, 2, 139-163.

Freppon found the children in the contemporary classrooms had a better sense that reading was constructing meaning with print. She also found that the children in the contemporary classrooms needed to sound out words less often, but when they did so, they were almost twice as successful as the children in the traditional classrooms. While the children in the contemporary classrooms were successful 53% of the time they sounded out words, the children in the skills classroom were successful only 32% of the time.
According to Freppon children that are exposed to a contemporary classroom are better able to construct meaning with print and sounded out words less often (but if they did were twice as successful) than children taught in a traditional classroom.

Replication research:

Eldredge, J.L., Reutzel, D.R., & Hollingsworth, P.M. (1996). Comparing the effectiveness of two oral reading practices: Round-robin reading and the shared book experience. Journal of Literacy Research, 28, 2, 201-225.
Eldredge, Reutzel and Hollingsworth found that second grade children in classrooms with shared reading learn phonics better than children in traditional classrooms with round robin reading. They studied 78 second-grade children, 39 in classrooms with shared reading (where the teacher points to the words in full view of the children as he/she read to the children) and 39 in classrooms with traditional round-robin reading (where the children take turns reading successive parts of a story out loud). In the shared reading classes the teachers demonstrated words and word parts when they reread stories. In the round robin classes the teachers emphasized correct oral reading and provided letter-level or "sound it out" corrective feedback.
Eldredge, Reutzel and Hollingsworth found that shared reading typically moved average students from the 50th to the 80th percentile in word analysis (phonics) on the Iowa Test of Basic Skills.
Eldredge, Reutzel and Hollingsworth found that average students in the shared reading group became 20% better in oral reading than the average students in the round-robin reading group.
Eldredge, Reutzel and Hollingsworth found that while all students—above-average, average, and below-average—benefited from shared reading, the below-average children especially benefited from shared reading. The below-average students in the shared reading group became 41% better in oral reading than the below-average students in the round robin group.
According to Eldridge, Reutzel, and Hollingsworth children exposed to contemporary classrooms with shared reading learn phonics better than children in traditional classroom with round robin reading. Shared reading provides the children with modeling in context, and round robin reading cued the child out of context using phrases like: “sound it out”. More children benefit from shared reading, and that success then carries over to oral reading.


National Reading Panel. (2000). Teaching Children to Read: An evidenced-based assessment of the scientific research literature on reading and its implications for reading instruction. Reports of the Subgroups. Available at http://www.nationalreadingpanel.org/Publications/subgroups.htm.
The National Reading Panel reviewed the findings of 38 published studies on phonics instruction. The Panel noted (p. 2-107) there are four different ways of distinguishing words:
1. decoding (using letter-sound correspondences, or phonics)
2. sight recognition
3. analogy to words already recognized
4. prediction (using memory for the text and knowledge of language to anticipate words)
In regards to phonics instruction they found:
• Phonics programs varied widely in their effectiveness, from a very large effect size of d = 3.71 to a negative effect size of d = -0.47, depending on the program, the unit of instruction (whole class, small group, or tutor), grade level, control group, and reading outcome used to measure effectiveness (e.g., word identification or comprehension) (pp. 2-193, Table 4 on pp. 2-155 & 2-156, and Appendix G on pp. 2-169 through 2-176.)
• The effect size of synthetic phonics programs that teach letter-phoneme correspondences, larger-unit phonics programs that teach larger subparts of words such as onsets and rimes, and miscellaneous phonics programs did not differ statistically from each other (p. 2-132).
• Phonics instruction improved reading growth among at-risk kindergarten (d = 0.58) and at-risk 1st grade (d = .74) children but failed to exert a significant impact on the reading performance of low-achieving readers in 2nd through 6th grades (d = 0.15) (p. 2-94).
According to the NRP phonic programs varied widely in effectiveness. Phonics instruction improved reading growth among at risk: kindergarteners, and 1st graders, but had no impact on any other at risk grade level.

National Institute of Child Health and Human Development. (2000). The report of the National Reading Panel: Summary booklet. Washington DC: U.S. Government Printing Office.

The NRP points out:
• Phonics is a means to an end…In implementing systematic phonics instruction, educators must keep the end in mind and ensure that children understand the purpose of learning letter sounds and that they are able to apply these skills…in their daily reading and writing activities (p.10).
• Phonics instruction that focuses too much on the teaching of letter-sounds and not enough on putting them to use are unlikely to be effective (p.2-97).
• The problem here is that phonemes in English may not be phonemes in ESL students’ first language…To perceive phonemes, speakers use categories that were constructed in their minds when they learned their particular language (p.2-41).
• If teachers have students who are learning English as a second language, they need to realize that their students are almost bound to misperceive some English phonemes because their linguistic minds are programmed to categorize phonemes in their first language, and this system may conflict with the phoneme categorization system in English (p. 2-32).
• Phonics instruction appears to contribute only weakly, if at all, in helping poor readers apply these decoding skills to read text and spell words (p.108).
• It is important to recognize that children will acquire phonemic awareness and phonics in the course of learning to read and spell even though they are not taught PA explicitly.
According to the NRP phonics instruction should be taught in context so students understand the meaning of instruction. Students need to know why they are learning the sounds of the words, not just doing something else their teacher has told them. When it comes to ESL students phonics instruction will be more difficult because they are referring back to their first language when encountering a new word. Students will learn to read and spell even if they are not taught phonics.
Ehri, L.C. (2001, June. July). National Reading Panel Report: Work praised, but distortion fears persist [interview]. Reading Today.
Ehri state the report did not single out any one to teach reading. Rather, multiple ways were found to be effective (p.4).
According to Ehri there is not one “right” way to teach reading. Teaching reading though multiple ways is more successful.

Samuels, S.J. (1984). Editorial. Reading Research Quarterly, 19, 390-92.
Samuel stated depending on the variables as well as the degree of motivation and prior knowledge brought to the task of learning to read, it is highly likely that some approaches to instruction would be better for some children and different approaches should work better for other children (p.390).
According to Samuels factors play into the best approach that should be used with each child, and different children call for different approaches.
Reading to Children
Seminal research:

Heath, S.B. (1982). What no bedtime story means: narrative skills at home and school. Language in Society, II, 49-76.
Heath, S.B. (1983). Ways with Words. New York: Cambridge University Press.

Heath found children who are read to interactively become better readers than children who are not read to interactively or not read to at all. She studied adult practices of story reading to preschool children in three neighboring communities.
Heath found (1) in the community where the children tended to do well in reading throughout school, the parents provided their children with children's books and read story books to them interactively (as they read to them, they made sure their children understood what was being read to them), (2) in the community where children tended to do well in the early elementary grades but not the later elementary grades, the parents provided their children with children's books and read story books to them but did not interact with their children when they read to them to ensure their active involvement and understanding, and (3) in the community where the children tended to do poorly in reading in school, the parents valued school and saw it as a means of economic advancement for their children but did not provide their preschool children with books and did not read stories to them.
According to Heath children who are read with interactively become better readers than children who weren’t. Children need more that just having the books and being read with. They need someone to make sure they understand what was being read.

Replication research:

Wells, G. (1985). Preschool literacy-related activities and success in school. Literacy, Language, and Learning. Eds. D. Olson, A. Hildyard, and N. Torrance. New York: Cambridge University Press.

Wells, G. (1986). The Meaning Makers. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.

Wells found that children who are read to become better readers and achieve more in school.

Wells observed children from a full range of economic and educational family backgrounds in their homes over a nine-year period—from the time they were fifteen months old until they were ten years old.
Wells found children who had been read to in their pre-school years had more knowledge of print when they entered school.
Wells also found that there was a significant relationship between children's knowledge of print when they entered school and their achievement in school.
According to Wells children who are read to achieve more in school and become better readers. The more children understand about the knowledge of print when entering the school, the more they will achieve. This comes from being read to at an early age.

Feitelson, D., & Goldstein, Z. (1986). Patterns of book ownership and reading to young children in Israeli school-oriented and non-school-oriented families. The Reading Teacher, 39, 924-930.
Feitelson, D., Kita, B., & Goldstein, Z. (1986). Effects of listening to series stories on first graders' comprehension and use of language. Research in the Teaching of English, 20, 339-356.
Feitelson and Goldstein found children who are read to become better readers. They studied kindergarten children's home environments in neighborhoods where children tended to do well in school and in neighborhoods where children tended not to do as well.
Feitelson and Goldstein found that in neighborhoods where children tended to do well in school, 96% of the children were read to daily and 45% of these children were read to for half an hour or more a day. In contrast, they found that in neighborhoods where children tended to do poorly in school, 61% of the children were not read to at all.
Feitelson and Goldstein also found that in neighborhoods where children tended to do well in school, almost half of the children were read to regularly before they were two years old. In contrast, in neighborhoods where children tended to do poorly in school, none of the children were read to until they were four years old.
Feitelson, Kita and Goldstein found that reading to children in school increases children's reading achievement. They studied four first-grade classes, one where the children were read to from series stories the last twenty minutes of the school day at the request of the researchers and three where the children were not read to in class.
Feitelson, Kita and Goldstein found as the experiment was in progress that half of the children in the class that was read to spontaneously bought or borrowed copies of the series books and read them during their breaks and free time at school. At the end of the six month study Feitelson and her colleagues found the children in the class that had had stories read to them daily in school read better than the children that had not had stories read to them.
According to Feitelson and Goldstein children are better readers, and more successful in school if they were read to. Adding Kita into the research conducted brought about the information that if kids are read to spontaneously using series books for at least 20 minutes borrowed a copy of the series book and read them on their own free time, and ended up being more successful at reading than classes that were no stories were read to them.